[Fis] CODE DISCUSSION. A Mini-Synthesis

Sat Oct 2 17:39:51 CEST 2021

Dear All,
This note addresses several of the issues
raised in your recent notes at once. It is a non-mathematical attempt to describe
a single recursive change rather than to model a complete process. It requires
a different picture of recursion in that a spiral and not circular path is
followed. Interdependence is present but it is between the different parts of
the spiral. The term cycle is acceptable only if it understood that, in
reality, no perfect loop, cycle or circle is possible.
 I am looking, then, at a single realization, exactly, something that was potential becoming
realized, actual, but with the capacity also to go from actual to potential. A “bird’s-eye
view” shows a certain dynamic quasi-symmetry, or quasi-periodicity, as the
parts of the system repeat, but not absolutely.
The fact that, as we all know, biological replication
is correct most of the time does not invalidate my thesis. First of all, it is
subject to error, and more importantly, at our macroscopic level, errors are as much the rule as the exception.
I would very much welcome your comments,
especially, Plamen, a reference to HoTT that might be relevant.
Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph----Message d'origine----
De : pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Date : 28/09/2021 - 19:34 (E)
À : fis at listas.unizar.es
Cc : ricottam at etrovub.be, ehres at u-picardie.fr, robert.marty98 at gmail.com, jerry_lr_chandler at icloud.com, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
Objet : Re: [Fis] CODE DISCUSSION. A Slice of Life. OM
 Dear All,

 As the discussion is getting more complex, I can only give a couple of brief responses to the issues raised by Lou and Jerry (I agree with Joseph's comments and appreciate them). Responding first to Lou, indeed 
 distinctions are a fundamental issue, also in the bioinformation world. Actually I have been considering --these last two decades or so-- that for living agents information appears as "distinction on the adjacent". Expressing distinctions as a result of recursion is new for me: I was following Karl's partitions, and was much interested in his notion of a limited number of multidimensional partitions depending on set size. This alternative (or complementary) recursive conceptualization can also be very interesting regarding two biological approaches I was recently intrigued with: the work on the emergence of syntax/meaning in the RNA sequences world by Witzany's, and in the algorithmic challenge of vertebrate immune systems having to distinguish between self and non-self--in a true Godelian puzzle (ongoing work by Sheri Markose). Probably the latter would accept presenting in our list. If there are expressions of interest I could tell her.

 And about Jerry's eleven paragraphs, I am afraid that such general questions may open excessively the discussion. Somehow, I was reminded of some past Century philosophers: Ortega y Gasset, Merleau-Ponty, and A.N. Whitehead. I am more familiar with the former --his "perspectivism". My personal translation is the "doctrine of limitation". Given the iron-limits of our cognition, every scientific approach becomes limited, specialized, and forced to multidisciplinary dialog. This rubbing among disciplines is a potent recombination engine that creates and destroys models, paradigms, and even entire fields. So, disciplines of natural science are not only formal/experimental constructs, but also social-historical bodies with singular idiosyncratic trajectories. Just looking at this very list we can watch what has happened with information discussions in last decades...   Well, this is an indirect response. to Jerry's well crafted points and I would need more time to make a decent criticism. 

 Finally, going back to codes, maybe they are the inner "constraints" to vehiculate the external information flows, versus the internal ones, so that the former are conveniently matched, processed, and solved. Talking in terms of "intelligence", both the natural intelligence  of biological systems and the artificial intelligence of computer systems cannot handle their respective external information flows except by relying on a multitude of multi-level channeling codes. (??)

 Best regards,
 --Pedro

 in the way El 27/09/2021 a las 19:34, Jerry LR Chandler escribió:

  Pedro, List:  

        So, there are formal, logical, philosophical, semiotic arguments to make about codes--OK, but if they do not consider this real world aspect of heterogeneity of processing architectures am afraid they will be of limited usefulness to approach the reliance of computers and living beings on codes.

        Best regards,

        --Pedro

  This sentence, in my mathematical judgement, gets to the essence of communication of artificial actions within humanity as a whole by using artificial symbol systems to create meaning that is informed by the intentions of the communicator with respect the capacities of potential receivers. 

  In short, mathematics itself is merely one of the multitude of synthetic symbol systems that have emerged as a critical component of human cultures. 

  The role of mathematics in human cultures started at least 4 millennia BC and has continued to grow.  

  The parallel role of a second synthetic symbol representing
   sounds, alphabets and other alphabet-like encoding systems, lead to methods to record human history, human emotions, humans desires for the future (planning and philosophies of actions, such as anticipation.)

  Pedro, your brilliant sentence captures the very essence, in my opinion, of the central issue that is overlooked in most of the FIS exchanges because it
   identifies the common source of the diverse assertions that separate the meanings of the assertions to different recipients. 

  The “lingua franca” of this List Serve is a theory of mathematically grounded “messages”, augmented with symbols for sounds.  One might even conjecture that if we all had a 
  homogeneous understanding of how these iconic forms are understood, such as mathematical category theory, we would have complete foundation for the foundations of the information sciences!  

  As you so adroitly point out, Pedro, the 
  heterogenous membership understand that symbol systems 
  other than mathematics and alphabets are used in the natural sciences and natural philosophy to communicate information between participants of this list. [" formal, logical, philosophical, semiotic arguments to make about code”]

  Why?

  Why are heterogenous symbol systems used in scientific communications about nature?

  Historically, how have the multitude of symbol systems emerged from alphabets and mathematics?

  How are these emergent properties of symbol systems used in the pragmatic work of the natural scientists?

  The philosophy of science of physics embraces the mathematical symbol system and asserts that all logical natural truths can be expressed in this language (Galileo). This philosophy has been embraced by many FIS contributors and grounds linguistically the forms of the encoded messages of both agreement and disagreement.  The focus of the disagreements tend to be limited to such mathematical/physical terms, as entropy, excluded middle, number sequences, and meanings of formal logical terminology.

  The philosophy of the natural sciences rests on the pragmaticisms. Natural scientists assign meaning to semantic terms in order to identity the objects of nature understudy. To this end, natural scientists (including physicians) assign direct one to one correspondence relationships between semantic terms and sensory experiences (in addition to sensory experiences of sight and sound used for mathematical symbolic communications), other sensory experiences, such as smell, taste, touch, temperature, pressure, and intuitive feelings (for example, the touch of a loved one) are routinely used. 

  In short, the ontology and epistemology of the symbolic forms of human symbolic codes extend far beyond narrow boundaries of the meanings of theological terms associated with the logics of mathematics and physics.  

  In closing, Pedro I would pose a singular interrogative.

  Do these eleven paragraphs, taken as a whole, capture the essence of your intended meaning of the sentence quoted at the beginning of this message? My premise would be that in the conceptual architecture of my pragmatic use of codes and symbols in these brief paragraphs, I probably missed certain critical features of your intended meaning.  Can you (or other readers) flag the multiplicity of defects?

  If so, you can move the conversation forward and expand on these concepts from your particular arithmetical, heterogenic, psychological, referential philosophy of communication (and also information) by either augmenting or rejecting parts of the architectures this semantic encoding of meanings of symbolic codes. 

  Cheers

  Jerry 

  Research Professor

  Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study

  (BTW, the philosophical roots of the modern notions of the concepts of evolutionary emergences of symbolic differences that encode differences can be associated with the terms introduced by philosopher, C S Mills, heteropathy ca 1843) 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------

    Libre de virus. www.avast.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20211002/a9776c93/attachment-0001.html>