[Fis] We have principally opposite points of view.

Krassimir Markov markov at foibg.com
Tue Sep 22 20:08:01 CEST 2020

Dear Pedro and Joseph,

Thank you for the answers. 
They clear the situation.

We have principally opposite points of view.

Yours is that the information exists independently of live creatures. 
“In the real world, information is co-emergent with the universe.” 
This is the modern understanding of God as Creator ( information (0) )! 

My point of view is the opposite – without the live creatures, information does not exist.  
It exists only in the consciousness (personal or social)!
It is subjective reaction of the incoming (external and/or internal) reflections (data).
This way, we have different systems of principles, as already I had shown.

Friendly greetings

From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:59 PM
To: fis at listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] a simple question. A simple (?) answer.

Dear List,

Responding to the last exchanges, first, it is always a pleasure reading Karl's texts, irrespective that one can agree, disagree or partially coincide with the conceptual edifice he is elegantly describing.
About Joseph's below, thanks for clarifying Krassimir's question--am glad you are upholding the 1st Principle. But following your thought, my mention to the life cycle as a complementary zeroth principle seems unnecessary, or even counterproductive--what would you think?

Regarding Stan's comment, on the basic characteristics of life, apart of their general interest, I tend to disagree with his " information must make a difference to the promotion of any dissipative structure. (Here we arrive in physics!)" Would you say the same when talking about the basic processing structure of a computer digital info? Do you need physics for the Turing Machine or for the von Neumann architecture? I connect the disagreement with a relatively similar statement from Bruno: "eventually Nature itself is a pattern emerging from the relation between universal numbers; some playing the role of environment for others." You take as (relatively?) solved one the biggest physical enigmas.

And to continue the disagreements, Loet's: "Reducing society to a meta-biology reduces the social sciences to a commentary. They can be sui generis. The application of biological systems theory to society (sociobiology) to be resisted. For example, we don't wish the strongest to be the fittest. The rule of law cannot be reduced to biology." I think you misunderstood my comment and are shooting at a straw-man.
When I wrote "sharing a life-cycle (& its experiential load--a culture for instance) as a powerful level-playing field in social and biological communication" can be excellently clarified by a recent movie of Denis Villeneuve (2016) "ARRIVAL".  An enormous spacial ship arrives, the occupants of which are finally visualized as enormous octopus within a gigantic tank. How could humans communicate with them when everything about their respective forms of life (my "life cycle & experiential load")  is completely unknown for each other??? The development of the movie is great from the communication point of view... It is a problem not so distant from the frequent uncommunication between human cultures and even between practitioners of different scientific disciplines (ehem).  In any case, anyone reading the 10 info principles could hardly raise the shibboleth of reductionism. These principles visit a succession of the main  information halls and just try to open a few strategic doors between them.     

Putting it differently: the 10 info principles would minimally describe the foundations of the bizarre difference between our planet and the other known planets. The inner workings of the incredible biosphere & sociosphere herein, which seem to be grounded on multiple new kinds of communicative relationships. Whether the common "physical stuff" on which all existence depends is also involved in playing info games appears beyond my personal expertise (but am not against this kind of quest!). 

All the best

El 21/09/2020 a las 17:48, Joseph Brenner escribió:

  Dear Krassimir, Dear All,


  1. Perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, I have concluded that this is a very good question, to which I propose the following tentative answer. In the real world, information is co-emergent with the universe. Today, no real informational event, that is, no event, takes place without reference to an earlier state. For those who, like me, do not believe that our current universe is expanding from a singularity, the problem of the apparent disparity in the size of the universe at the end of an expansion cycle and the start of a contraction cycle is solved in the Cyclic Conformal Cosmology of Penrose. Even if the simplistic ‘Big Bang’ model of the universe is retained, which, I repeat, I think it should not be, the start of Krassimir’s series is not information (0) but information (n), where n is an obviously very large but transfinite, not infinite, number.


  In other words, the concept of an information (0) is, to all intents and purposes, a completely idealized construction. It has the value, for the purposes of this discussion, of being a further demonstration of the failure of classical arguments, scientific or philosophical, based on an infinite logical regress to a limit, 0, 1, or ‘infinity’, as the case may be.


  Therefore, we may retain Pedro’s First Principle with the understanding that the movement is always between n and n+1, since n (0) is inaccessible. 


  2. The second point I would like to raise relates to the requirement, which I have accepted without thinking about it that information refers to a distinction on an adjacent difference.

  Why adjacent? Any difference of which I become conscious has become ‘adjacent’, otherwise I could not make a distinction on it. In other words, any relations I may have to non-adjacent differences are purely epistemological. Is this correct? Is there a direct relation between information (n) and information (n+2)? I conclude there is not, and Pedro’s Principle stands as written. QED.


  Thank you and best wishes,






  I still do not agree with the first principle.

  Joseph had written and Pedro had confirmed that :

  “information (2) is produced in MAKING a distinction on an adjacent difference = information (1)

  In other words, information (n) is created from information (n-1).

  This is simple series which we may write as follow:

  information (0) –> information (1) –> ... –> information (n-1) –> information (n) –> ....

  A Simple Question:


  Who creates information (0) ?


  Friendly greetings








  From: Joseph Brenner 

  Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 11:19 PM

  To: 'Krassimir Markov' 

  Cc: fis 

  Subject: RE: [Fis] Fwd: The 10 Principles. Information as Process


  Dear Pedro, Dear Krassimir,

  For me, the problem is clearly a result of using a common noun, information, to describe a complex process rather than a participle form – informationing. Then, “information IS a distinction” should be replaced by “information (2) is produced in MAKING a distinction on an adjacent difference = information (1). Then, of course the 1st principle is recursive, but correctly so! 





Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
     Libre de virus. www.avast.com  

Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es

Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Puede encontrar toda la informacisn sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
Recuerde que si esta suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicacisn en el momento en que lo desee.

Този имейл е проверен за вируси от Avast.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200922/1519c817/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list