[Fis] Book Presentation. Potentiality as well as Actuality

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear JOe,

It occurred to me that the non-realized states (which are present as 
p;otential) can also be considered as redundancy. Redundancy in the 
Shannon-definition: R = H(max) - H(obs).

Wpuld that be fine with you? It would open the door to a calculus which 
is consistent with (Shannon-type) information theory.

The potentially realizable states come on top of the H(max). See: Brooks 
&Wiley, 1976. These states are biologically not possible. However, the 
feedback loops in interhuman communications generate additional 
redundancies in cycles on top of the biological ones.

best. Loet
_______________

Loet Leydesdorff



"The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discusive Knowledge" 
<https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-59951-5>(Open Access)

Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam

Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;



------ Original Message ------
From: "joe.brenner en bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
To: "Mariusz" <stanowskimariusz en wp.pl>; daniel.boyd en live.nl; "fis" 
<fis en listas.unizar.es>
Cc: fis en listas.unizar.es; daniel.boyd en live.nl
Sent: 4/10/2022 11:53:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Book Presentation. Potentiality as well as Actuality

>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 en wp.pl
>>Date : 10/04/2022 - 08:35 (CEST)
>>À : daniel.boyd en live.nl, fis en 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).
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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 en 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).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220410/caaf9d08/attachment-0001.html>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: oJExKqn4TA84gT0C.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18748 bytes
Desc: no disponible
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220410/caaf9d08/attachment-0001.png>