[Fis] We have principally opposite points of view.

Tue Sep 22 22:41:02 CEST 2020

 >This way, we have different systems of principles

Which leads me to wonder if we are not talking about two different 
things here:

- The distinctions made by distinction-making systems (humans, amoebas, 
robots...)

- The discontinuities, structures and dynamics that (unless we are 
solipsists) distinctions can be made about.

If we insist on including all this in the concept of 'information', then 
my comment to my daughter that ice creams are available in that cafe is 
the same 'information stuff' as the atomic structure of the ice crystals 
in those ice creams. I find it difficult to put any workable boundaries 
around such a concept.

The experiments being done at CERN and the development of better 
adhesives are both aspects of research into 'physical stuff', but we 
don't feel the need to describe or define them in that way.

We have invested a lot of effort in expanding our concept of information 
to be maximally inclusive, and the informal use of the word is also 
inclusive. And no doubt we have learned a lot taking this approach. But 
maybe it would be useful to spend some time carving 'information' at its 
joints. We run the risk that we end up without a unitary entity, but we 
might gain a more useful set of distinctions and vocabulary, and a new 
task to describe the interactions between the things that we 
distinguish. Perhaps it is the sense of ownership that different tribes 
of academics have over the concept of information that prevents this 
from happening. They all want their sense of the word to be included in 
the portmanteau.

Dai

On 22/09/2020 20:08, Krassimir Markov wrote:
> 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
> Krassimir
> *From:* Pedro C. Marijuan <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:59 PM
> *To:* fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto: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
> --Pedro
> 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,
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Krassimir
>>
>> *From:*Joseph Brenner <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
>>
>> *Sent:*Friday, September 18, 2020 11:19 PM
>>
>> *To:*'Krassimir Markov' <mailto:markov at foibg.com>
>>
>> *Cc:*fis <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>
>> *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 1^st 
>> principle is recursive, but correctly so!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>
> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Libre de virus. www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACISN SOBRE PROTECCISN DE DATOS DE CARACTER PERSONAL
>
> 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.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información 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 está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------

-- 
-----------------------------------------

Professor David (Dai) Griffiths

SKYPE: daigriffiths

Phones (please don't leave voice mail)
    UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559
    Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912

email
    dai.griffiths.1 at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200922/6fff272f/attachment-0001.html>