[Fis] Book Presentation. Potentiality as well as Actuality

Mariusz Stanowski stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
Sun Apr 10 18:08:54 CEST 2022

Dear Joseph,

Thank you for your comments.
I agree that if we want to move from abstract to realistic 
considerations (from philosophy to physics) we will have to include 
change, movement and becoming, because without change there is no being. 
In my book I include motion in the last chapter: "Binary Model of Universe".
I also agree that in practice not all processes/objects can be simulated 
losslessly. When I wrote about simulation I meant a theoretical 
possibility, because ( theoretically) we can generate binary structures 
of any complexity.

Best regards

W dniu 2022-04-10 o 11:53, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch pisze:
> Dear Mariusz, Dear Daniel,
> Please allow me to enter the discussion at this point. I will go back 
> to the beginning as necessary later. I am in general agreement with 
> Mariusz' approach, but I believe it could be strengthened by looking 
> at the potential as well as the actual aspects of the phenomena in 
> question. Thus when Mariusz writes interaction, is a prior concept to 
> the concept of being, because without interaction there is no being. 
> It follows that the basic ingredient of being must be two 
> objects/elements/components (forming a contrast) that have common and 
> differentiating features."). , I would add the dimension of becoming, 
> which is a more dynamic relation. We can more easily talk about 
> processes and change instead of component objects
> A similar comment could be made about the discrete-continuous 
> distinction. This is at the same time also an appearance-reality 
> duality which is not static, but embodies the change from actual to 
> potential and vice versa just mentioned.
> I do not, however, agree with the following statement: Besides it is 
> already known that using binary structures it is possible to simulate 
> any processes and objects of reality)  There are many non-computable 
> process aspects of reality that cannot be captured and simulated by an 
> algorithm without loss of information and meaning. In the "graph" of 
> the movement of a process from actuality to potentiality, the limiting 
> points of 0 and 1 are not included - it is non-Kolmogorovian.
> I would say regarding beauty that it is a property emerging from the 
> various contrast or antagonisms in the mind/body of the artist. The 
> logic of such processes as I have remarked is a logic of energy, and 
> this seems to fit here.
> Thank you and best wishes,
> Joseph
>     ----Message d'origine----
>     De : stanowskimariusz at wp.pl
>     Date : 10/04/2022 - 08:35 (CEST)
>     À : daniel.boyd at live.nl, fis at listas.unizar.es
>     Objet : Re: [Fis] Book Presentation
>     Dear Daniel,
>     Thank you for your questions. Below are the highlighted answers
>     (of course they are more complete in the book).
>     Best regards
>     Mariusz
>     W dniu 2022-04-09 o 17:37, Daniel Boyd pisze:
>>     Dear Mariusz
>>     While (or perhaps because!) your work is a fair distance from my
>>     own field of expertise, I found your conceptual framework
>>     intriguing. Herewith some of the thoughts it elicited. While they
>>     may be unexpected because they come from a different angle,
>>     hopefully a cross-disciplinary interaction will be fruitful.
>>     The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates the ultimate heat death
>>     of the universe (a state in which all 'contrasts' are erased).
>>     (The heat death of the universe is just a popular view and not a
>>     scientific truth)Its current state, fortunately for us, is
>>     teeming with differences (between entities, properties and
>>     interactions) which underlie all that is of importance to us. To
>>     take such contrasts as a unifying principle would therefore seem
>>     to be undeniable, if extremely ambitious! After all, the sheer
>>     diversity of contrasts takes us from the different spins of
>>     subatomic particles underlying the various elements to the masses
>>     of the celestial bodies determining their orbits around the sun;
>>     from the colours in a painting to the sounds of a symphony.
>>     Systemically, different patterns of contrasts underlie the
>>     distinctions between linear and complex systems. Contrasts also
>>     form the basis for the working of our sense organs, the
>>     perceptions derived from them, and the inner world of conscious
>>     experience. In each of these contexts very different classes of
>>     contrasts lead to different mechanisms and laws, leading me to
>>     wonder just what the 'underlying structure' is (beyond the
>>     observation that, ultimately, some type of contrast is always
>>     involved and that we tend to deal with such diverse contrasts in
>>     a similar way). Maybe your book provides an answer to this
>>     question that I am unable to find in this brief abstract: could
>>     you perhaps say something about this? (The answer to this
>>     question is contained in the contrast-being relation:
>>     "Contrast-Being Contrast, or interaction, is a prior concept to
>>     the concept of being, because without interaction there is no
>>     being. It follows that the basic ingredient of being must be two
>>     objects/elements/components (forming a contrast) that have common
>>     and differentiating features.").
>>     Moving on to more specific topics, I see that you equate the
>>     complexity of a system to a relationship between binary values (C
>>     = N²/n). While such as approach may work for discontinuous
>>     contrasts (e.g. presence/absence, information in digital systems)
>>     many naturally occurring differences are continuous (e.g. the
>>     electromagnetic frequencies underlying the colours of the
>>     rainbow). In neuroscience, while the firing of a neuron may be a
>>     binary event, the charge underlying this event is a dynamic
>>     continuous variable. My question: how does the concept of
>>     abstract complexity deal with continuous variables
>>     ("contrasts")?(What seems to us to be continuous in reality may
>>     be discrete, e.g. a picture or a sound on a computer is
>>     continuous and in reality it is a binary structure of electric
>>     impulses; a continuous color is a vibration of an electromagnetic
>>     wave. Besides it is already known that using binary structures it
>>     is possible to simulate any processes and objects of reality).
>>     I was also intrigued by your statement that "Beautiful are
>>     objects with high information compression" based on the reasoning
>>     "perceiving beauty, we save energy, the perception becomes more
>>     economical and pleasant". Intuitively, it seems odd to me to
>>     equate beauty to the lack of perceptive effort required.(This is
>>     not about "no effort" but about "saving effort". If we have a
>>     beautiful and an ugly object with the same information content,
>>     the perception of the beautiful object will require less energy.
>>     The measure of beauty is not the amount of effort/energy, but the
>>     amount of energy saved, which in the case of the Sagrada Familia
>>     will be greater). This would mean that the Pentagon (high
>>     regularity/compressibility) is more beautiful than the Sagrada
>>     Familia (low regularity/compressibility); and a single-instrument
>>     midi rendition of Bach is more beautiful than a symphonic
>>     performance. It seems to me that beauty often stimulates (gives
>>     energy) rather than just costing minimal energy. Much research
>>     has been done on the universal and culture-dependent perception
>>     of beauty: does this support your statement? see e.g.
>>     https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x which
>>     describes factors other than simplicity as necessary
>>     characteristics. (This article is based on faulty assumptions
>>     e.g. misunderstanding Kolmogorov's definition of complexity,
>>     which is not applicable here).
>>     <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x>
>>     Musings About Beauty - Kintsch - 2012 - Cognitive Science - Wiley
>>     Online Library
>>     <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01229.x>
>>     Aesthetics has been a human concern throughout history. Cognitive
>>     science is a relatively new development and its implications for
>>     a theory of aesthetics have been largely unexplored.
>>     onlinelibrary.wiley.com
>>     By defining contrast as a distinction between entities or
>>     properties, it seems to come close as a definition to the type of
>>     information underlying physical entropy. That being the case,
>>     your approach would seem to resemble those who would give such
>>     information a comparable fundamental significance (e.g. Wheeler's
>>     "it from bit"). Could you say something about how you see the
>>     relationship between 'contrast' and 'information? Are they
>>     effectively synonyms?Contrast and information are different
>>     concepts. Information is a feature or form of energy. Contrast is
>>     the tension/force/energy created by the interaction of common
>>     features (attraction) and different features (repulsion) of
>>     contrasting objects).
>>     Thankyou, in any case, for your contribution which certainly
>>     demonstrates the relationship between Value and Development 😉
>>     Regards, Daniel Boyd
>>     *Van: *Mariusz Stanowski
>>     *Verzonden: *zaterdag 2 april 2022 19:23
>>     *Aan: *fis at listas.unizar.es
>>     *Onderwerp: *[Fis] Book Presentation
>>     *Book Presentation*
>>     *“Theory and Practice of Contrast: Integrating Science, Art and
>>     Philosophy.”*
>>     *Mariusz Stanowski*
>>     *Published June 10, 2021 by CRC Press (hardcover and eBook).*
>>     Dear FIS list members,
>>     Many thanks for the opportunity to present my recent book in this
>>     list.
>>     Our dispersed knowledge needs an underlying structure that allows
>>     it to be organised into a coherent and complex system.
>>     I believe “Theory and Practice of Contrast” provides such a
>>     structure by bringing the considerations to the most basic,
>>     general and abstract level. At this level it is possible to
>>     define *contrast as a tension between common and differentiating
>>     features of objects. It grows in intensity as the number/strength
>>     of differentiating and common features of contrasting
>>     structures/objects increases*. Contrast understood in this way
>>     applies to any objects of reality (mental and physical) and is
>>     also an impact (causal force) in the most general sense. Contrast
>>     as a common principle organises (binds) our knowledge into a
>>     coherent system. This is illustrated by a diagram of the
>>     connections between the key concepts:
>>     Below are brief descriptions of these connections.
>>     *Contrast—Development *When observing a contrast, we also observe
>>     the connection between contrasting objects/structures (resulting
>>     from their common features) and the emergence of a new, more
>>     complex structure possessing the common and differentiating
>>     features of connected structures. In the general sense, the
>>     emergence of a new structure is tantamount to development.
>>     Therefore, it may be stated that contrast is a perception of
>>     structures/objects connections, or experience of development. The
>>     association of contrast with development brings a new quality to
>>     the understanding of many other fundamental concepts, such as
>>     beauty, value, creativity, emergence. (Similarly, /contrast as
>>     development /is understood in Whitehead’s philosophy).
>>     *Contrast—Complexity *In accordance with the proposed definition,
>>     when we consider the contrast between two or more
>>     objects/structures, it grows in intensity as the number/strength
>>     of differentiating and common features of contrasting
>>     structures/objects increases. Such an understanding of contrast
>>     remain an intuitive criterion of complexity that can be
>>     formulated as follows: *a system becomes more complex the greater
>>     is the number of distinguishable elements and the greater the
>>     number of connections among them*/. /If in definition of contrast
>>     we substitute “differentiating features” for “distinguishable
>>     elements” and “common features” for “connections”, we will be
>>     able to conclude that *contrast is the perception and measure of
>>     complexity.*
>>     Note: Two types of contrasts can be distinguished: the sensual
>>     (physical) contrast, which is determined only by the force of
>>     features of contrasting objects and the mental (abstract)
>>     contrast which depends primarily on the number of these features.
>>     (This contrast can be equated with complexity). (The equation of
>>     contrast with complexity is an important finding for the
>>     investigations in: cognitive sciences, psychology, ontology,
>>     epistemology, aesthetics, axiology, biology, information theory,
>>     complexity theory and indirectly in physics).
>>     *Complexity—Information Compression *Intuition says that the more
>>     complex object with the same number of components (e.g. words)
>>     has more features/information (i.e. more common and
>>     differentiating features), which proves its better organization
>>     (assuming that all components have the same or similar
>>     complexity). We can also say that such an object has a higher
>>     degree of complexity. The degree of complexity is in other words
>>     the brevity of the form or the compression of information.
>>     Complexity understood intuitively (as above) depends, however,
>>     not only on the complexity degree (that could be defined as the
>>     ratio of the number of features to the number of components) but
>>     also on the (total) number of features, because it is more
>>     difficult to organize a larger number of elements/features. In
>>     addition, the more features (with the same degree of complexity),
>>     the greater the contrast. Therefore, in the proposed /Abstract
>>     Definition of Complexity /(2011), we multiply the degree of
>>     complexity by the number of features. This definition defines the
>>     complexity (C) of the binary structure (general model of all
>>     structures/objects) as the quotient of the square of features
>>     (regularities/substructures) number (N) to the number of
>>     components or the number of zeros and ones (n). It is expressed
>>     in a simple formula: C = N²/n and should be considered the most
>>     general definition of complexity, among the existing ones, which
>>     also fulfils the intuitive criterion. (This relation explains
>>     what compression of information in general is and what role it
>>     plays as a complexity factor. This allows to generalize the
>>     notion of information compression and use it not only in computer
>>     science, but also in other fields of knowledge, such as
>>     aesthetics, axiology, cognitive science, biology, chemistry,
>>     physics).
>>     **
>>     *Information compression—Development *Our mind perceiving objects
>>     (receiving information) more compressed, saves energy.
>>     Compression/organization of information reduce energy of
>>     perception while maintaining the same amount of information (in
>>     case of lossless compression). Thanks to this, perception becomes
>>     easier (more economical) and more enjoyable; for example, it can
>>     be compared to faster and easier learning, acquiring knowledge
>>     (information), which also contributes to our development.
>>     Compression of information as a degree of complexity also affects
>>     its size. Complexity, in turn, is a measure of contrast (and vice
>>     versa). Contrast, however, is identified with development. Hence,
>>     complexity is also development. This sequence of associations is
>>     the second way connecting the compression of information with
>>     development. Similarly, one can trace all other possibilities of
>>     connections in the diagram. (The association of information
>>     compression with development brings a new, explanatory knowledge
>>     to many fields including cognitive science, aesthetics, axiology,
>>     information theory).
>>     **
>>     *Development—Value *Development is the essence of value, because
>>     all values (ethical, material, intellectual, etc.) contribute to
>>     our development which is their common feature. It follows that
>>     value is also a contrast, complexity and compression of
>>     information because they are synonymous with development. (The
>>     relation explains and defines the notion of value fundamental to
>>     axiology).
>>     *Value—Abstract Value *About all kinds of values (with the
>>     exception of aesthetic values) we can say, what they are useful
>>     for. Only aesthetic values can be said to serve the development
>>     or be the essence of values, values in general or abstract
>>     values. This is a property of abstract concepts to express the
>>     general idea of something (e.g. the concept of a chair includes
>>     all kinds of chairs and not a specific one). It follows that
>>     *what is specific to aesthetic value is that it is an abstract
>>     value* (although it is difficult to imagine). (This is a new
>>     understanding of aesthetic value, crucial for aesthetics and
>>     axiology).
>>     **
>>     *Contrast—Being *Contrast or interaction is a concept prior to
>>     the concept of being because without interaction there is no
>>     existence. It follows that the basic component of being must be
>>     two objects/elements/components (creating a contrast) having
>>     common and differentiating features. (Understanding of being as a
>>     contrast is fundamental to ontology and metaphysics and worth
>>     considering in physics).
>>     **
>>     *Contrast—Cognition *The object of cognition and the subject
>>     (mind) participate in the cognitive process. The object and the
>>     subject have common and differentiating features, thus they
>>     create a contrast. Cognition consists in attaching (through
>>     common features) differentiating features of the object by the
>>     subject. In this way, through the contrast, the subject develops.
>>     It can therefore be said that cognition is a contrast of the
>>     object with the subject. (This is a new definition of cognition
>>     important for epistemology and cognitive science).
>>     **
>>     *Cognition—Subjectivity *The above understanding of cognition
>>     agrees all disputable issues (present, among others, in
>>     psychology, cognitive science and aesthetics) regarding the
>>     objectivity and subjectivity of assessments (e.g. whether the
>>     source of beauty is the observer's mind, whether it is a specific
>>     quality from the observer independent), because it shows that
>>     they depend on both the subject and the object, i.e. depend on
>>     their relationship—contrast.
>>     **
>>     *Compression of information—Beauty *Beautiful are objects with
>>     high information compression (a large degree of
>>     complexity/organization). Thanks to the compression of
>>     information, perceiving beauty, we save energy, the perception
>>     becomes more economical and pleasant which favours our
>>     development and is therefore a value for us. The example is
>>     golden division. Counting features (information) in all possible
>>     types of divisions (asymmetrical, symmetrical and golden) showed
>>     that the golden division contains the most features/information
>>     (an additional feature is well known golden proportion) and
>>     therefore creates the greatest contrast, complexity and aesthetic
>>     value. (This explains the previously unknown reasons for
>>     aesthetic preferences, key to aesthetics, art theory, psychology,
>>     cognitive science and neuroaesthetics).
>>     **
>>     *Development—Beauty *Beauty contributes to development thanks to
>>     the economy of perception. Perception of beauty is accompanied by
>>     a sense of development or ease and pleasure of perception. (This
>>     explains the causes of aesthetic preferences).
>>     **
>>     *Abstract Value—Beauty, Art *Only beauty and art have no specific
>>     value but they express/have value in general (an abstract value).
>>     The objects that make up a work of art are not important, but
>>     their contrast-interaction, which results from the complexity of
>>     the artwork. (If we see a single object in the gallery, then the
>>     art is its contrast with the context - as in the case of
>>     Duchamp's "Urinal" or Malevich's "Black Square"). One can say
>>     that beauty and art are distinguished (defined) by two elements:
>>     abstract value and a large contrast.(This is a new and only
>>     definition of beauty/art that indicates the distinctive common
>>     features of all aesthetic/artistic objects, it is crucial for the
>>     theory of art, aesthetics, axiology and epistemology).
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at 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
> ----------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220410/fe786cea/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list