[Fis] DECRETUM: Concordance of the Discordant

Karl Javorszky karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Thu Nov 25 15:53:26 CET 2021

Dear Pedro,

you have always been a choice diplomat. Your reasoning on the necessity of
the task before us formulates quite elegantly: “…the lack of a nucleus of
new thought on which to edifice and extend the alternative paradigm.” This
is overdoing diplomacy, a white lie. There does exist indeed a nucleus of
new thought that can serve as the basic skeleton of a powerful transition
in epistemology towards a new paradigm. The new paradigm has been found
solidly rooted in the old paradigms, living in a small fissure between the
parts of the whole.

Those world views, where there exists no transition between parts of a
whole, where the parts weld seamlessly, are the basis for the present
system of paradigms we live in. The unified world view has been enforced by
the sword in the Cathar Crusades.

The new world view accepts that there is a basic duality, and that there
are manifold relations between the parts that make up a whole. As
Wittgenstein has pointed out, our own neurology sets the difficulties and
limits in that what we can understand and interpersonally talk about. The
two parts of the whole are in the new paradigm those neuronal references
that describe the diversity of objects as opposed to the similarity of the
objects perceived. The two opposing parts that make up the whole are the
signals neurology produces on sensing an object, split into descriptions
about how diverse the situation is and into how similar the situation is.
Our neurology uses two screens as two backgrounds to refer to something
that is as well similar and diverse, like all impressions a new-born
receives. When perceiving a multitude, our neurology splits those tokens
that refer to similarities among elements of the multitude from tokens that
refer to diversities among the elements of the multitude.

The good news is that the extent of dis-calibration among the two parts of
the world has been tracked down and can be solidly connected to the
well-know fundament built by the natural numbers. We simply have to undo
the split neurology has presented us with, by 1) acknowledging its
existence, 2) create suitable measurement devices to correct the effects of
the split. After these steps, one may 3) apply principles of interferometry
while employing two measurement devices that are in a defined way
dis-calibrated relative to each other.

The existence of a split in results of measurements in two dimensions is a
problem of proportions. The two descriptive dimensions are similarity and
diversity. How much diversity can exist in an assembly, and this relative
to how manifold ways of inner similarities are there, is in itself a
composite. How diverse relative to how similar is a basic property of
assemblies, even though our neurology processes the two aspects in two
channels and merges them again in cognition. The linear dis-calibrations
disappear, next to *n=1* also at *n=32, 97. *There is a very slight slack
between the two functions, near *n=11, 66*. The two measurement rods will
cease to refer meaningfully to each other above *n=140. *There is a
critical region at *n={136,137}, *where the relative bias first reaches the
extent of a whole unit. (It appears Eddington was right.) The relations
between: how many – how diverse – how similar will keep their mutual
restrictions, regardless of which unit one chooses *n *to be, from the
smallest to the biggest of collections of parts will be subject to the
interdependence. (From sub-molecular to galactic.)

There may be reluctance to see the hologram of the Holy Grail. There exists
an aspect of assemblies, namely how diverse their members are among
themselves. There exists an aspect of assemblies, namely how similar their
members are among themselves. There is a quotient between these two
measurements. The ideal range of this quotient varies with the number of
members in the assembly.

The world view offered by reading a philosophy into the picture of two
functions crossing twice is basically a dual one. Using the concept as a
link to established results can help integrating the new paradigm into the
system built up by the traditional ones.

So, Pedro indeed, please allow me to state for the record that the simple
facts presented in *oeis.org/A242615 <http://oeis.org/A242615> *are, in my
opinion, a nucleus of new thought. It was important for Mendel to have his
opinion recorded that the rules he observed are of a fundamental nature. Of
course, lacking the vocabulary, hypotheses, experiments, observations, his
contemporaries stood uncomprehending before his explanations. One who does
not see the cracks between the parts of the whole, will make no use of
their forms, patterns or their eligibility as habitat. Mendel’s idea was
that the rule is separable from its carrier, but is immanent to that. His
contemporaries were still puzzling about who and when and how has created
the mysteries of heritage, while Mendel shouted: it is in the matter
itself, not an outside invention or a creation! Today, learned colleagues
wonder how the mysteries of being otherwise relate to the rules of being
such as expected, and need remembering that the answer is in the matter
itself: information is an inbuilt feature in a world which does not
segregate descriptions due to neurological expediency.


Am Mi., 24. Nov. 2021 um 14:03 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuán <
pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
> In response to Joseph and Krassimir, I think there might be an important
> first step. Taking (for clarity) Yixin's terminology on "paradigm
> revolution" in information science, the problem becomes clear: the lack of
> a nucleus of new thought on which to edifice and extend the alternative
> paradigm. Some of my learned colleagues will energetically exhibit their
> own constructions, myself included, but helas (or alas)...  Then, all
> compilations, thesaurus, recollections, etc. we may attempt become just
> interesting learned exercises.
> Our medieval colleague, Doctor Gratianus was indeed initiating "scientia
> nova" in Canon Law, as he was achieving the concordance of the discordant
> (basically between the multiplicity of civil laws and religious canons) by
> applying the central principle of rationality and of common sense (both!)
> to the multiple legal situations of social life. It was a new way of
> thinking in that time, continued by more brilliant thinkers in the
> following centuries.
> Where is that new thought or central principle(s) of information that are
> eluding us?
> Tomorrow I will post a poetic version of the question.
> Best regards to all,
> --Pedro
> El 18/11/2021 a las 16:43, joe.brenner en bluewin.ch escribió:
> Dear Pedro,
> Very interesting, thank you. I will think about your methodological point.
> In the meantime, I started thinking about audiences/partners for this
> initiative. On idea was people involved in the Philosophy of Law. Another
> related field is that of ethics - a rapprochement with Rafael Capurro might
> be envisaged. The issues are too important not to make fresh starts
> everywhere one can.
> Best wishes,
> Joseph
> >----Message d'origine--
> --
> >De : pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
> >Date : 18/11/2021 - 14:24 (E)
> >À : fis en listas.unizar.es
> >Objet : [Fis] DECRETUM: Concordance of the Discordant
> >
> >Dear FIS Colleagues,
> >
> >In the early XII Century, something very interesting occurred around the
> >first university created in Europe (Bologna). The situation of law in
> >that time was very confusing, with overlapping civil and religious
> >canons that had been developed independently. Gratian (Gratianus) was a
> >fine jurist and canon lawyer operating in Tuscany, and teacher, and
> >monastic rubricator in Bologna. He produced an admirable synthesis,
> >Decretum: Concordia Discordantium Canonum. In the first, more concise,
> >version, the synthetic work was framed in three parts: a sophisticate
> >Introduction in which fundamental Distinctiones (distinctions) were
> >made, and a second part with 36 causae or situations divided into
> >concrete questions with systematic commentaries (Summae). The third
> >part  discussed the difficulties, bringing forward solutions via
> >different auctoritates from a variety of sources.
> >
> >The work supposed a watershed for Western Law. He was acclaimed as
> >Father of the Canon Law, appreciatively cited in Dante's Divine Comedy
> >(with a place in Paradise!), and considered as the creator of rational
> >law. Gratian himself coined the term "scientia nova" (new science)
> >referring to his synthesis, which indeed became highly influential
> >outside law, particularly concerning his methodology of questions and
> >systematic commentaries or Summae. Actually, later great synthesizers in
> >philosophy and theology (Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas) were
> >influenced by his method, as well the further development of the
> >Scholastic School in next centuries...
> >
> >Could the reflection on Doctor Gratianus strenuous work & clever
> >methodology, bringing concordance among the discordant, be of interest
> >for our troubles on the general study of information and on the
> >foundations of information science in particular? In my own case, those
> >ten fundamental principles I penned time ago, could be easily
> >transformed into a few of the questions... Rather than looking for the
> >single, exclusive point of view, the participation in establishing
> >concordance among the discordant via a multidisciplinary spattering of
> >basic questions is what transpires when one contemplates the historic of
> >our list debates. See the 64 "questions" FIS has dealt with up to now:
> >https://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/  Of course, with
> >hindsight, it could be done better.
> >
> >All the best,
> >
> >--Pedro
> >
> >
> >--
> >El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en
> busca de virus.
> >https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Fis mailing list
> >Fis en listas.unizar.es
> >http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >----------
> >
> >Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> >Puede encontrar toda la informacin 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 est suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicacin en el momento en que lo desee.
> >http://listas.unizar.es
> >----------
> >
> <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>
> <#m_4272571761459099125_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> 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
> ----------
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20211125/aaf093ee/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list