[Fis] A New Intellectual Avant-Garde

Karl Javorszky karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Thu May 26 15:51:56 CEST 2022

Part III
Reacting to requests from the audience, Part III has the form of a catalog
of pertinent questions, observing the paramount goal of brevity. Please
complete the text by applying a prefix like “Do you think that…”, “Is it
true that …” or words to this effect.

Nr Question Yes   No
1 One’s station in life determines whether one can be asked, can tell but
cannot be told, or one can ask, be told, but not tell (Thackeray [7])? O O
2 Social acceptance and success were rather comparable for Socrates, who
asked and Giordano Bruno who told? O O
3 You had understood and would endorse the ideas in Parts I & II if only
their presentation style had been more appropriate? O O
4 Counting relations of diverse parts among each other as they combine into
a whole is done best by an algorithm that uses identical units? O O
5 An algorithm that uses diverse units has its own rules? O O
6 That one can set up an etalon of diverse units on which to study how
diverse parts interact with each other? O O
7 That the etalon of diverse units can be sorted this way and that way? O O
8 That two sorting orders can be resorted into each other? O O
9 That during reorders/resorts cycles appear? O O
10 That belonging to a cycle during a reorder is a property of an element,
which is itself nothing but two natural numbers: that cycles are an
implication? O O
11 That the algorithm picturing how parts of a whole can organize into a
whole if there are many different parts, is built on cycles? O O
12 That the algorithm that works on the succession of different parts of a
whole during periodic changes is integrated with the algorithms using
identical units, but is also deeply different to it? O O
13 The relations of elements among each other – as prescribed by the cycles
that come into existence during periodic changes – are the theoretical
forms of quantum entanglement? O O
14 That the liens among the members of a cycle have formal properties which
group them, but the commercial connections, the bondage of numeric values,
orders the same liens according to a different logic of quantities? O O
15 That the logical web of possibly belonging together and the numeric web
of how much is it worth to belong together can be an allegory for Joseph’s
‘Logic vs Reality’? O O
16 That the idea of Planck units can apply equally to numeric thresholds
and logical certainties, if one uses the extent of deviation (expected,
actual)? O O

Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky en gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 19. Mai 2022,

> *Part II.*
> *0. Recapitulating*
> An extraordinary task requires extraordinary rhetorical tools. The task of
> this treatise is to offer an explanation for the meaning of the term
> ‘information’. Because the explicandum is not well known, (actually, not
> known at all), the rhetorical task comes in the category well established
> in Rhetoric, the category where one discusses the Beard of the Emperor.
> In Part I. we have shown that the discussion about information follows
> indeed the same patterns as the discussion about that Beard. In both cases,
> we have places and occurrences that come into reality, or not, on those
> places. The constituents of the whole are interrelated among each other
> with observable results, without our knowing, *how the parts are
> organized into a whole. *What we look for, is a *Principle *that governs,
> on which places which types of occurrences can come into existence. In the
> classical version, it is follicles on a face that can and may contain hair,
> without our knowing, why there and why this kind of hair. In the case with
> information, we see – in the example of genetics – that positional change
> of simple logical tokens gives rise to attachment of specific kinds of
> material (protein molecules) on specific places. The Unknown relates to the
> Whole: we know each of the parts, what we do not understand is how, by
> which Principle they organize into a whole.
> In the present Part, we shall undertake to show that a web of relations
> exists among parts, which are each known. We discuss on diverse levels the
> same hypothesis: *that a-priori logical relations do exist in Nature. *This
> statement is equivalent to saying, that the Beard is such as it is, because *Divine
> preexistence of destiny *gives forms to results of some *Generating
> Principles. *(In the historic example, we would be saying, that there is
> a preordained Quality to Emperors which causes that their beard grows in an
> imperial fashion.) The approach that externalizes reasons and sense outside
> of one’s own individuality can be a rational method, or it can refer to
> external forces at work, the comprehension of which is beyond our
> intellectual capabilities (*Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, What the Intellect
> Can Recognize, *[5]).
> The rational approach rejects the idea of the Supranatural. By rejecting
> the idea that an outside force knits, knots, and weaves parts of a whole
> into a whole according to its own pleasure, one should take care not to
> also reject the idea that there may be a rational reason for parts being
> knitted, knotted and woven together in such a fashion that may appear as
> the erratic pleasure-seeking behavior of a Supreme Being.
> The incomprehensible complexity of the world can be dealt with by saying
> that a. the spectacle looks like the production of an attention-seeking
> neurotic, and one is not able to comprehend the divine mind, b. the
> spectacle is indeed impressive, but it does have a rational explanation,
> even if we can’t come close to understanding it. This has happened to our
> forefathers. They closed the book on the growth of the Beard, because there
> was no rational way of comprehending all the variants that could have been
> grown. Had they had computers, they could have tabulated all kinds of
> beards and would probably have come – by brute force computing – to the
> same general principles we present today.
> Now, with the arrival of computers, one may be more selective in what one
> rejects and what one accepts. Coming across a behavior of natural numbers
> (actually, of nephews to them, paired up) that is cross, unexpected,
> extraordinary, and surprising, one learns to accept that the seemingly
> well-ordered collection that a few dozen of natural numbers pretend to be,
> is in reality a riot of competing rivalries, where under some circumstances
> uneasy compromises can be upheld, for a while. That what we believe to be
> the well-ordered reality turns out to be a special case. The general case
> is much more tumultuous.
> *There are rules to the tumults among the parts of a whole. *The term *a-priori
> existing logical relations* appears to have been invented for this fact,
> that there are rules that show what makes a whole, checks out, is
> consistent, fits, is true, is comprehensible.
> In Logic, we know that from *a. all living humans breathe, b. Franz is a
> living human *follows as the missing part of a whole: *c. Franz breaths*.
> We use the a-priori existing logical relation demonstrated on Franz as a
> routine basis for our managing our mental contents.
> In the context of the Beard or of information, we show that there exist as
> stringent rules of conclusion, which determine which parts of the whole are
> attached to which other parts of the whole, as demonstrated on Franz. Here
> we say *a. two of three are {(4,10), (7,10)}, b. the third of the three
> is (7,13), *of which follows as the missing part of a whole: *c. this
> plane of space is empty. *The result being a consequence of the premises,
> this is as numerically true as Franz is logically true, comparable to the
> sequence of thoughts: *a. one summand is 3, b. the other summand is 4, c.
> the sum of 3,4 is 7. *
> In the present Part, we shall introduce the necessary algorithms to be
> able to conclude that *triads with **∑** a=18, **∑** b = 33 describe
> empty planes. *The main point is, that there exist interrelations among
> parts of the whole that are of a wholly new category, compared with all
> that has been in use till now. These are or condensate into *a-priori
> logical relations.*
> Considering the way of counting in cycles may be unfamiliar to some of the
> Readers, we shall make use of a rhetorical tool by digressing into
> embellishments. Giving a background and context to the message helps in
> placing it in the mental system of the recipient. If the rhetoric becomes
> too much romancier, please forgive.
> The goal of the present Part is to introduce:
> ·       Regularity and predictability to be as important as absolute size,
> o   Comparing, ranking and sequencing
> o   Traditional unit
> ·       Changes being reflected in sequences
> ·       Periodic changes being predictable
> ·       Adaptation means resequencing
> o   Always exists *Δ** {(actual value, target value), (expected,
> observed)}*
> o   Call this Δ *information*
> ·       Two different sequences
> o   Can create conflicts
> o   Impose planar places
> o   Can be brought one into the other by reorder
> ·       Cycles are constituents of reorders
> o   Cycles are the central concept
> o   Types of cycles
> o   Importance and relevance of cycles
> In Part III we shall deal with the economic consequences of belonging to
> cycles, concluding in Part IV with the agglomeration of pre-follicle
> constituents on specific places and the predictability of development of
> hair on some specific places.
> *1. Limits of Rational Thinking*
> Our investigations into the subject of the Beard of the Emperor lead us to
> some uncharted territories on the edge of the realm of rationality. What we
> look for is *one* bundle of overriding, or *a few *of coequal, *Principles
> *that organize partly unknown, partly known parts into a whole that
> appears to be known. We do come up with an explanation if we are confronted
> with a multitude of unknowns, be it that we call thunder to be the noise of
> Thor throwing his hammer around. In fact, we are confronted here again with
> the task of understanding the term *Gestalt. *
> Apparently, one touches on subjects that pertain to psychology and
> neurology if one thinks about organizing principles that group (fuse,
> weave) impressions together. We shall not enter technical matters here, as
> the rules of the Debate restrict our methods to pure speculation.
> We can, however, speculate that we are under-educated in some ways of
> seeing the world, falsely believing that our excellent education is the
> only way to achieve clarity when assembling parts of ideas into a whole
> idea. Specifically, one may point out that the cultural heritage left for
> us to cultivate further, which has been inherited by us from the noble
> people of Sumer, does use delineating instructions, contrasts against how
> not to count and what not to count. We count according to strict rules.
> These rules were set by the Sumerians.
> *Counting *is in effect an assignment of a mental creation to a mental
> impression. We think up the ideas *1,2,3,… *as we see differently many
> apples or houses or dolls, sitting in elementary school. *What *we count
> is a cultural convention. In our schools we learn, in due accordance with
> the Sumerian tradition, *how many *is the property that is relevant. We
> see the collection grow or shrink and learn to mimic these changes by using
> the correct symbols which denote *how many *the objects are. In a
> different cultural environment, we could have learnt to count degrees of *uniformity
> and diversity *as we were looking at pictures combining houses, apples
> and dolls. This was the way the inventive people of Akka had preferred. In
> order to give credence to our insinuating speculation, that the Sumer
> method may be good and practical, but not all that is there to counting, we
> have to digress into the history of the Sumerian – Accadian wars, which, as
> we know, have ended with the complete supremacy of Sumer above Akka.
> *2. The Akkadian way of life*
> In a rhetorical polarisation we may imagine the two city states to have
> developed different cultures due to elementary economic circumstances. The
> Sumer produced a lot of grain and livestock and were generally of a
> productive sentiment. The Akka were merchants and artisans, deep into
> specialisation in many arts and in many crafts.
> Each Sumer household had a few camels, sheep, and bushels of grain. It was
> relatively easy for them to imagine up a common descriptor for their
> momentary state of economic stability. In Akka, the situation was
> different.
> In the following, we shall refer frequently to the work of one *Haj
> el-Hakim bin Zoltan ibn Alfred. *The figure may not be historical. Some
> say, this same person is referred to by the monk *Taizan *from *Zen
> Flesh, Zen Bones by Paul Reps *[4]. Unverifiable sources state he was a
> childhood friend of *N. Bourbaki. *
> Fragments of a work by el-Hakim *Guideline to Evaluating Wives *can be
> interpreted as follows: In Sumer, they had comparable things to count how
> many these are. In Akka, the burghers had each different merchandise in
> their warehouses: some fruits, some silk, some fish. In the hours of small
> talk about life, after work, when minds wandered around what to invent
> next, their observations centered not so much around *quantities, *but
> rather around *qualities, properties, preferences, regularities*. The
> Sumerians had no problem expressing changes in quantities: they did possess
> a common idea about what aspect of change is spoken about. In Akka, each a
> specialist, it was less easy to come to a common understanding what one
> talks about.
> For the jeweler, it is not the *number *of stones that is important, but
> their *quality. *For the fishmonger, not the total mass of fish he
> possesses is important, but how their *properties *are. The only entities
> they had as a possession in common was their wives. Their perspective being
> that of properties, not of quantities, and their common logical tokens
> being by nature different, they naturally dwelt into the comparison of
> qualities of relatively few, different units. (No reasonable husband in
> Akka would have suggested to his wives that he regards them devoid of
> properties, interchangeable.)
> In the *Guidelines *el-Hakim introduces *ranking *and *grouping. *His
> theory of aspects encourages the husband to accept the properties of the
> wife as is and adapt himself, because as he says: *“what is in their
> inner nature is the most beautiful if it comes to flower by its natural
> implications.” *Importantly, he remarks that the number of distinguishing
> aspects not only not can be infinite (the husband may wish an infinitely
> subtle-differentiated system of relations among his wives, but this will
> remain a dream), but is necessarily lower than the number of wives. Some of
> the wives will always be similar, under some aspects.
> The Akkadians have determined that *16, 17, 18 *had a benign influence on
> each other and that one should concentrate on a collection of a manageable
> size to discuss priorities, qualities, rivalries, alternatives and
> equivalences, similarities, and differences. They have chosen 136, because
> it laid in the middle of two of their central milestones. They used *120 *in
> diverse forms, of which we keep the unit *60 *till our days, and they
> used the term *grand dozen *for *144. *Their reasoning went: a. once you
> have calculated *2*3*4*5 *you have calculated all variants of differing
> dimensions, b. once you have calculated *(3*4) * (3*4) *you have
> calculated all variants where the dimensions are maximally similar. There
> is no reason to overdo additions, it can become a habit and a compulsion.
> They were satisfied with their cohort size of altogether *n=136 *and
> anyway always only used that half of it which they have determined to be
> the foreground. They were playing with classifying up to *~ 67 *wives
> according to their properties.
> As the last war broke out, el-Hakim is reported to have said: *See how
> science falls silent among the arms. They will win and they will enforce
> their simple, unsophisticated ways. They have taken the easy end of the log
> we carry. Any monkey can calculate with uniform units. The inner interplay
> and how to count it, they completely ignore. As Adorno will have said about
> Wittgenstein: Philosophy is not investigating how correct and true
> sentences interact, philosophy is trying to express clearly that what is
> yet un-comprehended. Counting the more-or-less-ness of things by using
> uniform units is something completely different to counting the
> such-or-such-ness of things, where one needs different units. Not the size
> of the collection matters, but how the parts in it relate to each other.
> The task is not to count how many is that what we already know, the task is
> to predict, which part of the generally unpredictable will turn out to be
> predictable.*
> *3. What the Akkad were occupied with *
> Due to their economic circumstances, the Akkad were less concerned with
> the *“how many”* aspects of life, but rather with the aspect *“how
> regularly, how predictably“. *
> A flower merchant and a carpet merchant have both a stock of a given size.
> Both classify their inventory into *k *categories. The market demands
> come also in *k *groups.
> The task of the merchants is to foretell the proportion of the *k *demand
> groups and match that sequence of priorities with a sequence of the parts
> of their inventory.
> The Akka had met the pig cycle and many other different mechanisms of the
> market. They determined that above and behind human intervention, the
> periodic changes imposed by Nature are of an axiomatic evidence that allows
> foretelling future proportions among the parts of the whole.
> They have observed that the proportion of heavy garments among all
> garments required by the public changes with the seasons of the year. They
> concluded that periodic changes are equivalent to the resequencing of the
> members of a sequence. If you manage your shop well, you will be able to
> adapt and adjust in the sequence of priorities that you set, resulting in
> the composition of the inventory a few months hence.
> The Akkad were champions of adaptation. Their mantra was the
> reorganization. They saw everything as but a passing coincidence, being
> underway from being subject to an order A that had been in force
> previously, on a path to the destination given by the order B that is in
> force henceforth.
> The Akkad businessman woke up every morning with the knowledge that his
> inventory is a specific permutation of his *k *types of merchandise, but
> the market is looking for a different permutation of *k. *His inventory
> is the actual state, the market situation evaluates into an expected state.
> This deviation they called *information. *
> Talking about the problem among the merchants led them to begin with
> formalizing the general question. To change in accordance with the external
> periodic changes is one version of information being managed. It is an
> interlinked task to restock for Summer, beginning with the raw materials,
> logistics of men, matter and money, availability of specialists, many small
> cogs have to turn until the preparedness is done. The concept of *cycles *was
> not alien to the Akkad. A general change is always a great and complicated
> undertaking which has its own rules. Many interdependent units must
> cooperate till the change is done.
> They said: *During a reorder, the parts of the whole combine into a
> number of transitory associations. *
> Of this sentence we understand, what a reorder is. We now discuss the
> terms: ‘*parts of the whole’ *and* ‘whole’ *to be able to verify if these
> indeed do combine into one of several kinds of transitory associations and
> how we interpret such.
> *3. Logical Primitives*
> Permanent changes have transformed society since the Akkadian revolution
> in predicting occurrences that periodically return. In our present society,
> the individuals that get resorted are no more *wives *as abstract symbols
> of whatever material composition the warehouse of a merchant contains, but
> *pairs* that each are a partnership of a wife and a husband.
> In the abstract world, one member of the collection is a pair of natural
> numbers *(a,b), (a,b) **≤** 16, a **≤** b. *This *etalon cohort* contains
> all varieties of something being concurrently in two parts, and as one
> whole. All varieties of wholes that can be divided up in up to *16 *different
> parts under one aspect and into up to *16 *different parts regarding a
> different aspect. Almost everything, from very small extents, of interest
> to Physics and Chemistry, till rather large assemblies, of interest to
> Astronomy, can be divided up in up to *16 *parts, in two different
> aspects. But for the extremes, everything that consists of two parts is
> included in the Cohort.
> For the technically interested, the deeper reason Nature appears to use *16
> *or thereabouts as a central cog in the translation assembly can be found
> in the relation shown in oeis.org/A242615. The consistence between *n?,
> n! *is rapidly decreasing *n > ~ {136, 137}. *The optimal translation
> efficiency is achieved by basing the cohort size on *16 *types.
> The collection has an archaic role in counting. Each pair has its own
> identity and characteristics. The term ‘*logical primitives’ *was coined
> by *M. Abundis *[7].
> It was presumably the lack of computers that has prevented followers of
> the Akkad to tabulate the Cohort for a wider use. The necessary
> computations are so much repetitive and extensive that human brains are
> incapable of performing them. Our brain as a physiological unit of the body
> utilizes the algorithms which our brain as an intellect is overwhelmed to
> perform without the help of computers. *(Wittgenstein: The eye cannot see
> itself. [6])*. What one would have to keep in mind are the contents of a
> large table. On a subconscious level, as a service by our neurology, the
> idea, and the principle of the Table* we see working as we deal with
> situations of non-minimal complexity. We can keep in mind simultaneously in
> a traffic situation, how A will proceed, combined with how B will proceed,
> and relating this to our own situation. We use the capacities the table
> provides but are shy to focus our attention to working part of the brain.
> *The term Table refers a system of tables registering the linear rank of a
> member according to one aspect of order, for each possible order
> arrangement; and of tables that register the coordinates of the members on
> planes of which the axes are two different aspects of order; and of tables
> that register the sequence of place changes on each step of the process of
> reorder, consolidating them into *cycles*; and of tables that maintain
> the synchronicity and offset differences with regard to instances of *now
> */which members of the cycles are now contemporaneously/; and of tables
> that register recurring patterns of now.
> The algorithms and results that are based on the tables detailed afore are
> in a *level of reality of their own*. In the basic-level tables numeric
> facts are contained. In the thinking-level tables not facts, but *assumptions
> and predictions *are contained.
> *4. Ranks, Places and Positions*
> The parts of the whole are ordered if we order them. We are free to order
> the logical primitives in any fashion we want. We make use of some of their
> properties and sort them according to a sorting criterium (aspect) we find
> practical (say *[a,b]*). Each member has a linear *rank *now, *rank[ab].*
> We enter the value *i *for each member, *1..i..136, *in a data depository
> belonging to the member, indexed as *[a,b]*. We now sort them in order *[b-a,
> a+b]. *Each member has now also the entry in its data set *j[b-a,a+b]*.
> This procedure we repeat.
> Of the *ranks, *we create *places. (*Linear → Planar.) The ranks we
> translate in coordinates. The member’s place is that point on a plane of
> which the axes are two aspects, as its ranks are in the two aspects.
> Finding such *planes* that have common axes, we stick these together and
> create *spaces *that are rectangular. There are two variants of Euclid
> type spaces in the habitat of the logical primitives. These are transcended
> by further two planes, as is the common, Newton space that is that state of
> the parts being together wherein they do generate a whole.
> The linear rank in one aspect is a coordinate in the plane generated by
> the interplay with a different aspect. The rank of the same member in two
> linear systems is equal to a place of that member on a plane of which the
> axes are the two aspects. Some of planes can be used to construct
> rectangular spaces. The coordinates on the planes point out a threesome of
> members which have in their community the property of a position. In a 3D
> space, the position of a point is the collection of the coordinates on the
> planes that create the rectangular space.
> 5. Cycles
> The procedure of a reorder boils down to cycles. If the reorder is not
> trivial it will consist of several cycles. The cycles run concurrently.
> To avoid any impression of trespassing on matters belonging to
> Mathematics, the term ‘cycle’ is understood to mean in the context of this
> treatise the relation defined in www.oeis.org/A235647.
> The key point of a cycle is the *push-away moment*. This happens as
> during a reorder logical primitive A comes to the place logical primitive B
> occupies and says:
>             *According to the order B to be achieved, this place is my
> place. You are here, because in the order A that had previously been
> achieved, your place was here. Now times have changed, and I am the
> rightful inhabitant. You go away now and find that place where you
> henceforth belong.*
> The data depository of each logical primitive X contains facts regarding
> the membership of primitive X in diverse cycles during diverse reorders.
> During reorder *[αβ* *→* *γδ] *logical primitive X will be member nr* k *in
> cycle nr* q, *being pushed away by member nr* k-1, *logical primitive Y,
> and pushing away member nr* k+1, *logical primitive Z*.  *During reorder
> *[κλ* *→* *μν] *logical primitive X will be member nr* r *in cycle nr* t,
> *being pushed away by member nr* r-1, *logical primitive F, and pushing
> away member nr* r+1, *logical primitive P*.*
> The data depositories regarding the *cycles *are a compilation of the
> data coming from the logical primitives. These data sets: in which cycles
> do which primitives take part on which positions during which reorders ↔
> which primitives are members of which cycles, in which inner sequence
> within the cycle, during which reorder, are implications of each other. The
> brute force method has brought us a fountain of insights, about which parts
> will come next to each other during which reorders.
> The cycles generate an elaborate web of relations among the parts of the
> whole. If the whole is understood to include all (each) its variants, the
> Etalon Table of Logical Primitives includes all ways the parts can relate
> among each other, in a reading of the Table from the viewpoint of periodic
> changes generating cycles.
> The cycles bind elements to each other by conscripting elements into
> cycles during reorders. In this Part II of the Treatise we have shown the
> cycles to exist. Their utilization as a basic method of counting regular
> recurrences of constellations has not been developed due to the historic
> relations between Sumer and Akkad. The relation of parts to the whole has
> not been suppressed by the sword. If there are different aspects to the
> parts, rules apply about how the variants of the parts can coexist. We do
> not know, which of the aspects are important or relevant, therefore the
> basic Table contains all linear ranks the elements can be occupying. Of
> these, positions on planes, of which the axes are two aspects, are an
> implication. It is possible to erect 3D spaces by fitting 3 planes by using
> their common axes. Cycles are a method of compromise, a method of avoiding
> a logical contradiction within the system. Merchandise that is enroute
> avoids the contradiction of two claimants.
> In Part III we shall introduce economic context to the web of cycles a
> logical primitive belongs to. In Part IV we shall discuss the relative
> stability of the relation positional properties, distinctive properties.
> Am So., 15. Mai 2022 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuan <
> pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es>:
>> Karl, no problem with your contributions, provided you not exceed in
>> their length/frequency. In this case you were announcing a series of four.
>> I have only told you another time, I think years ago, when you were with
>> an even bigger series of contributions.
>> In moderation is the virtue... something like that said Aristotle.
>> Best--Pedro
>> El 14/05/2022 a las 20:34, Karl Javorszky escribió:
>> Dear Pedro,
>> In what sense exactly, oh Pedro?
>> Joseph wrote :
>> What I would hope to see is an avant-garde that could produce new
>> syntheses, combining Pedro’s position, my suggestion and others with an
>> also necessary scientific rigor
>> After 27 years of collaboration, maybe you can allow me to communicate
>> with the group in the sense of avant-garde, open minded, humorous,
>> logically coherent which tradition you have helped to establish?
>> My contributions are a part of what makes the group attractive. The
>> learned friends can express if they are saturated with me. I shall keep in
>> the background and keep the intellectual niveau. Please keep your
>> traditionally open perspective. I will not bring shame on you.
>> You will find the explanation of what sorts of and how a priori
>> relationships weave the world together, very interesting, clear and
>> logical, even if it raises controversy. The idea is as new and fundamental
>> as were the change to a heliocentric view or the idea of human genetic
>> pointing to the apes. Please be interested in how the rationality can be
>> detected in biology, and of course in its ancestors, chemistry and physics.
>> I hope to have distracted any worries that you may believe to eventually
>> be created by my periodic few pages.
>> Respectfully
>> Karl
>> Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 14. Mai
>> 2022, 13:55:
>>> Karl, you are crossing some limits...
>>> El 13/05/2022 a las 13:32, Karl Javorszky escribió:
>>> The Ultimate Rhetorical Exercise: The Beard of the Emperor (220428)
>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>> *Part I.*
>>> *1. Augurs promising*
>>> As was remarked before, this group has matured into an interactional
>>> community which comes close to the ideal of friendly exchanges of advanced
>>> thoughts. We have open minds, talents, are interested and possess of time.
>>> This is an artistic group which uses humour as one of its communicative
>>> tools. The scenery is set for an unusualy, really deep discussion. The
>>> stars are in a favorable constellation, and the flight of the eagles augurs
>>> great advances.
>>> The art of Rhetoric has a great tradition and possesses its own laws,
>>> rules and expediencies. Schopenhauer has demonstrated in his *Eristic
>>> Dialectic* [1], how a controversial discussion is to be managed, if the
>>> goal is to gain advantages in a debate. Here, we deal with a similar
>>> special case of rhetoric, namely, how do we discuss a subject about which
>>> the participants in the debate know nothing. The methodology of discussing
>>> the unknown has also a traditional subject.
>>> *2. Subject of the Debate*
>>> There is an idiomatic expression in German: *“um des Kaisers Bart
>>> streiten”*. To discuss the beard of the Emperor has become a synonym
>>> for uselessly debating such things, about which no one knows anything, and
>>> there is no way to come to a clarification. Even if there were a way of
>>> verification of hypotheses, the results would be of no value, because there
>>> is no real consequence attached to either of possibly many results of the
>>> debate.
>>>                (Kaiser Frederic I, drowned in 1190 during a crusade, was
>>> known South of the Alps as the Red-Bearded, Barbarossa, but not North of
>>> the Alps. Much research has been dedicated to the controversy.)
>>> Let us use this etalon of scientific debate for our own purposes, too.
>>> After all, we do not know what information is, how it is interdependent
>>> with energy, what forms can it have, and how much these forms contrast
>>> among each other, and what the meaning of information is. We similarly have
>>> no idea, whether information is present in the whole or in the parts of the
>>> whole, and if so, by which methods and rules. Actually, even questions of
>>> reality, objectivity, interpersonally understandably communicating about
>>> the subject emerge, as it could well have been that the Emperor had no
>>> beard at all. We propose to use for the discussion of the concept of
>>> information the patterns of debate relating to the beard of the Emperor.
>>> *3. Clarification of the Meanings of the Terms Used*
>>> Unfortunately, due to the strict discipline kept by the Server at
>>> Zaragoza University, one can not include drawings and illustrations in his
>>> contributions to FIS. This is why I have to refer to a Figure in Wikipedia:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair#Styles_of_facial_hair. Let me
>>> propose for the current debate to use the term ‘beard’ for the whole set of
>>> hairs on the figure. This includes the subsets named ‘moustache’ and
>>> ‘jawbone’, where moustache means all and every form of hair originating
>>> from above the mouth and jawbone means all forms of sideburns and goatees,
>>> that is, all the hair that follows the bone of the chin. Generally, the
>>> description of the beard agrees to *a + b = c, *where *c *is the
>>> complete facial hair (beard),* a, b *are respectively the hair N of the
>>> mouth (moustache) and the hair in regions W, S, E relative to the mouth
>>> (sideburns & goatees). Here, however, we shall call that part *a* of
>>> the beard{N, /W,S,E/}*, *which is *less *than the other part *b *of the
>>> beard *c*. Whether *less *refers to less mm² or to less mg of hair
>>> material shall be discussed in the sequel.
>>> The beard can grow on any and all places of the plane of the skin. We
>>> create a Mercator map of the skin of the face of the Emperor. Where the
>>> beard does grow, a potential has been realised. If there is no growth, be
>>> it because it had never grown there, or it became shaved away or it fell
>>> out (temporarily), we have a state of Zero. If there is a hair on a spot,
>>> we give one of the symbols {1,2,…,16} to distinguish it against other kinds
>>> of growth. Such, we have *17 *degrees of beard, from *Zero *meaning no
>>> beard at all, thru *1 to 16 *which symbols distinguish each a type of
>>> hair that has grown. There are natural processes governing the growth of
>>> the beard, and then there are actions by participants in society, mostly by
>>> the subject himself. One is free, as an Emperor, to grow any and all forms
>>> of combinations of Zeroes and Ones-to-Sixteens. The omnipotence of the
>>> Emperor finds its limits, however, by the prescriptions of Nature, which is
>>> likewise free to allow or hinder the growth of hair on any specific spot.
>>> *4. Perspective of Discussion*
>>> Attempting to do right in a discussion about a subject about which no
>>> one participating in the discussion has admittedly any idea at all, has –
>>> as mentioned – a noble tradition. That attempt has been given up and has
>>> become a subject of ridicule. The failure to come to a result is in itself
>>> a result: that all the avenues investigated so far have proved to be dead
>>> ends. We know for sure, that all such methods that have tried to establish
>>> a closing statement about the Beard have proven to be a failure, at least
>>> in their interplay. Therefore, a completely new approach is needed. How can
>>> one propose a solution to a problem of complex interdependent unknowns
>>> otherwise than by referring to the tradition established by having
>>> investigated the beard of the Emperor? *We discuss some
>>> behind-the-scenes organisational principles that weave the different kinds
>>> of unknowns into one complex system. *These are other words for asking,
>>> which patterns of hair could the Emperor have, and which are mutually
>>> exclusive? Could he have grown spots like a leopard or stripes like a
>>> zebra? What are the rules that determine, which patterns can come into
>>> existence and among such, which are perceived art and beauty?
>>> Please allow me to use the classical perspective, even if it may appear
>>> to you to be an arbitrary one, and to re-formulate some of the
>>> contributions in the FIS chatroom of the last few weeks and months, under
>>> the aspect that we seriously and diligently pick up on the work of our
>>> predecessors and frame the whole collection of unknowns as being part of
>>> the questions of the beard of the Emperor.
>>> In order to convince you about my seriousness of transforming our debate
>>> relating to the concept of information into the form used by our
>>> predecessors and forefathers while they discussed the concept of the beard
>>> of the Emperor, I have culled some of snippets of your contributions. We
>>> shall re-phrase some of them to make visible that we are indeed conducting
>>> a discussion here which accords in its syntax to the discussion about the
>>> beard.
>>> *5. Integrating the Structure of the Discussion about a System of
>>> Unknowns into Contributions *
>>> Those who will recognise the verbatim citations of their own
>>> contribution I will have to ask for tolerance for not having chosen a
>>> different snippet, which could have given more succinctly the essence of
>>> what they wished to express. From the others, I have to ask forbearance for
>>> having formulated their ideas in a wording which is not of theirs: here I
>>> hope that the general drift of the idea comes across, independently of the
>>> articulation.
>>> *Citation*
>>> *Interpretation*
>>> Those first things were leptons and quarks.
>>> In our logic, we have to come up first with proto-concepts of *a, b *based
>>> on which all other ideas can be brought into existence.
>>> a mousetrap will have been activated by larger than it human hands. When
>>> a mouse blunders into it, forces of larger scale than its own will come
>>> crashing down on it.
>>> There are hierarchies of levels of realities. Something that happens on
>>> a lower level can trigger a threshold reaction on a higher level. There is
>>> a calculable bonus if *a+b=c *holds true, even if the procedure is not
>>> conducted.
>>> Contrast is what is the key principle
>>> We have spoken long enough about *a+b. *Let us now turn our attention
>>> to *b-a.*
>>> There is a duality in it
>>> Of course
>>> We need to address redundancy generated by the looping of information
>>> when provided with meaning.
>>> The higher-level pictures about what happens in lower-level reality are
>>> in themselves a collection underlying the rules of a collection. The
>>> celebrity gossip has its own syntax, independently of the facts.
>>> The concept of a beard is an anthropogenic construct. There is
>>> hirsutismus and then there is the social convention ‘beard’.
>>> We give a meaning to the facts we observe. The meaning allows us to
>>> connect inner images to external observations. We believe the world to be
>>> ordered and we know our sentences to be ordered: maybe we make a catch by
>>> the rational net.
>>> The interpersonal domain does not "exist" in the sense that a table may
>>> exist. It remains a construct.
>>> In a discussion about experiences with tables and with pictures of
>>> tables, both subjects of the conversation are equally real and abstract.
>>> The social marketing value of a beard does not depend so much on the
>>> beard itself. It is a cultural assignment, which beard style is of the
>>> highest value. The power of assignment tends to centralize, erecting entry
>>> barriers.
>>> The facts are the first-level reality. Their oddity is a summand for the
>>> second-level reality. That what makes the *‘most’ *of a property
>>> appears to have an inbuilt tendency to prefer to generate even more *‘most’;
>>> *kind of gainful conversion (systemic bias) reinforcing itself, till
>>> meeting external threshold.
>>> Working backwards, intersubjective intentionality, to the extent that it
>>> is expressed in human beings has a real existence and must be considered
>>> cognitively objective as well as subjective accordingly.
>>> Social conventions regulate to a high degree the properties of beards,
>>> specifically the relations of the parts to the whole. It can well be that
>>> humans share an archetypic consensus about what is nice, proportionate,
>>> fitting. The archetype does indeed exist.
>>> If we introduce a distinction between ontic and epistemic then we are
>>> assuming a dualistic view in advance, which, for example, I am not in
>>> favour of.
>>> Always keep in sight, that art happens on the *whole* and the parts are
>>> but constituents. If it is organised, *a+b=c* holds true, and of this,
>>> the relations of *a, b *to *c *allow qualifying the relating *a, b* to
>>> each other.
>>> A beard is a realised potentiality
>>> Of course, but of what?
>>> We observe that our current discussion about the ontology, epistemology,
>>> semantics and psychology of information follows the rhetorical rules of the
>>> classical debate, among the subjects of which the Beard of the Emperor has
>>> a classical, prominent position.
>>> In the present Treatise, we discontinue discussing the man-made and the
>>> man-judged levels of reality: neither do we discuss how the Emperor was
>>> shaved and trimmed, nor do we discuss what the social consequences were of
>>> his beard being such as it was.
>>> We are discussing, how parts that are unknown are/become organised into
>>> a system which, while remaining in its deep essence unknown, has
>>> recognisable features, which each can be assigned a distinguishing name.
>>> (Moustache, goatee : energy, potential). We experience and know the
>>> complete, interacting system, without knowing as yet, how the parts are
>>> regulated to appear in specific relations that are (make them) parts of a
>>> whole.
>>> *6. Failures, Discouragement, Reluctance, Resistance*
>>> As has been stated before and repeated by Joseph (May 9, 2022): *“…
>>> most attempts at finding ‘clear’ definitions and other analytic approaches
>>> have failed.”* This was the point at which our forefathers have given
>>> up, and it seems that all hope is lost when searching for an *organisational
>>> principle* (along *Giordano Bruno: The Cause, the Principle and One *[2])
>>> *which makes unknowns to interact in recognisable patterns*.
>>> Practical necessity overcomes intellectual abhorrence and timidity. Even
>>> if the case with the Beard appears to have been closed, the same situation
>>> confronts us today. It is the same whether we discuss the beard, follicles
>>> on specific places getting enough nutrients or not, how crystallisation
>>> takes place on a plane, how planes can be laid atop each other to create a
>>> space, how molecules attract and merge, how the position of a logical
>>> marker on one of three places determines the quality of the molecule that
>>> can attach onto a specific place – all these questions debate the relations
>>> of parts to the whole, where *the parts appear to be organised* *according
>>> to some* – as yet unknown – *behind-the-scenes plan or plans*. The
>>> debate goes back to theological roots: if we believe that there is *one
>>> *overriding Principle that organises the parts into the whole, we are
>>> close to *monotheistic *concepts. If we see an incessant, innate
>>> rivalry among several Principles, we find ourselves in *polytheistic *systems
>>> of thoughts.
>>> It is an uncalled-for effort for contemporary scientists to have to
>>> decide, whether they believe the main, basic organisational principles to
>>> be *one central* or rather *several coequal* organisational
>>> perspectives. It is pure necessity that forces us to do mental contortions (
>>> *asanas*). If the interaction in genetic information transfer, or among
>>> forms of memory, had been accessible by *definitions and analytic
>>> approaches*, we would not need to uncover, de-archive the debate about
>>> the Beard. Admitting that we are lost graduates us into the position of a
>>> participant in the Debate About the Beard. This is not by free *voluntas
>>> *that one learns that different organisational principles exist,
>>> alongside the usual. Who wants to learn the Akkadian concept of Unit and
>>> ways of counting, if he hasn’t to? Who wants to familiarise with the system
>>> of bondages during the feudal ages? In fact, no one in his right sense
>>> would want to spend time discussing the beard of a long dead emperor.
>>> Unfortunately, the effort can not be avoided, because Nature has not
>>> gone through civilisational stages with us and has therefore remained an
>>> infantile primitive brute. As we have begun going to school, some abilities
>>> had already been learnt. These were not further educated at school.
>>> The abilities to
>>> ·       Establish a mental foreground contrasting against a background,
>>> ·       Recognise differences among objects and experience preferences,
>>> ·       Maintain the concept of order,
>>> ·       Order objects according to preferences, based on properties of
>>> the objects,
>>> ·       Group objects together based on the objects’ similarities
>>> need to be present for the child to be able to visit elementary school.
>>> These abilities will not be educated further. The child learns to build a
>>> stable mental space, in which it imagines units that are abstracted from
>>> the different objects of the perception. We train the mental muscles of
>>> abstraction, of leaving aside particularities in order to deal with the
>>> generality of the thing. Keeping order and how to do a reordering is not
>>> taught as part of the formal education, but rather as preparing for life.
>>> There are many small instances of preference for abstraction against
>>> distraction in the procedure of schooling. One would think that our culture
>>> believes pictures that come from *narrowing* the perspective are
>>> somewhat more valuable above those which present us pictures that carry
>>> their content by theirs being a *wider* perspective than usual. As if
>>> it would be a rule of Nature to come on a consensus that the unit is
>>> uniform and not that units come in *from – to *variants. A part of the
>>> brain feels superior towards a different part of the brain, because the
>>> former has *publicly learnt *to deal with uniform units, while the
>>> latter had to *individually autodidact *how to deal with diversity and
>>> variants. In the present Treatise we ask Mr. Clever to help Mr Touchy-Feely
>>> (Mr. Clever’s inner child) to express himself. This may give rise to some
>>> cognitive dissonances.
>>> There are precedents for the irritation that the introduction of a new
>>> world view has brought about. “How can that be, that the Earth circles the
>>> Sun, although we see every day that the Sun circles the Earth?” and “How
>>> can that be that our ancestors were apes, although we clearly see that we
>>> are actually different to the apes?” are of the same category as “How can
>>> that be that concurrently counting in two counting systems makes counting
>>> more exact and more indeterminate at the same time, although we see that
>>> our one and only counting system is functioning exactly and error-free?”.
>>> Reader is invited to adjust his perspectives as he investigates the
>>> question, by which principles and rules many unknown parts are organised
>>> into a system which is a whole, and then some more than the sum of its
>>> parts. (Definition of *Gestalt *[4]). There is the subjective component
>>> of the spectator, how the individual history of the spectator had prepared
>>> him to accept a new idea/explanation (how well his distracting abilities
>>> can play with his abstracting abilities), and there is the objective
>>> component, how the spectator believes the world to be organised by Nature.
>>> Aside from the reluctance to put up a perspective while regarding the
>>> melee of the unknows to interact beautifully, there remains the primary
>>> question: *What do we use as measuring unit to establish that a degree
>>> of organisational interdependence is observable which is different to the
>>> value of the degree of organisational interdependence achieved by a
>>> different observation?*
>>> 7. Proposed Solution
>>> We take the plane which is a depiction of the face of the Emperor and *turn
>>> it over. *In the retro vista we see all the physiological works of a
>>> skin, with some follicles sprouting a hair and some not.
>>> We distinguish the *paths *of the nourishment flows (and suppose that
>>> there are several types of nourishment compositions), from the *material
>>> *that sprouts on some spots.
>>> We clarify the terms *path, material, composition *by referring to the
>>> term *cycle. *The term cycle is a part of the context: reorder in
>>> consequence of *periodic changes.*
>>> The term *periodic changes *is considered to be axiomatic, or given the
>>> deictic definition ‘that what happens as consequence of the Moon’s
>>> movements around the Earth, the Earth’s rotation, the Earth’s movement
>>> around the Sun’. Transported into dealing with natural numbers, periodic
>>> changes are observable there in the form of orders (sequences) and of
>>> reorders (procedure which generates cycles).
>>> The cycles are – in a geometric interpretation – paths. Paths can cross.
>>> In a visual interpretation, cycles can also be seen as strings or
>>> filaments, or caravans.
>>> In fact, we have created an etalon cohort of logical tokens (made up of *136
>>> *pairs of *(a, b)*), which we use as a catalogue of possible states of
>>> whatever that consists of two parts. The idea to take the most basic
>>> collection of individuals (aka ‘logical primitives’ © *M. Abundis*) and
>>> subject these to repeated periodic changes, is to establish a researchable
>>> data set, out of which numeric values for the strength of a relation among
>>> elements can be read off.
>>> The patterns observed while the logical primitives are reordering allow
>>> erecting space concepts, with spots and places where caravans cross.
>>> We shall introduce the concept of a follicle to be one specific kind of
>>> place where the caravans crossing have specific properties.
>>> The only remaining task is to set up the accounting behind the idea. The
>>> resulting web of numerical relations binds the elements to each other by
>>> means of what we term *bondage. *The bondage reflects the connection of
>>> an element to different elements.
>>> We propose to use the bondage values as a concurrent system. It may well
>>> be, that the bondage value system is that organising principle that knits
>>> elements and places together with temporal and other qualitative
>>> properties.
>>> 8. Closing Remarks
>>> The proposals in the last Chapter shall be published in more details in
>>> Parts II – IV.
>>> Am Do., 12. Mai 2022 um 13:28 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuán <
>>> pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com>:
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> Many thanks to Joseph for his lucid comments. Most people in this list
>>>> think that the new syntheses needed should contain a fundamental
>>>> ingredient: clarifying the scientific & philosophical thought around
>>>> information. It is a critical element that has obscured, polarized, and
>>>> aggravated nasty problems of our times. Would we be capable to offer clear
>>>> advancements about that?
>>>> About the current session, thanks to Mariusz for his presentation &
>>>> responses. The point of view of the arts is an important angle for the
>>>> above tasks (it would be great that he remains and contributes in our list).
>>>> Thereafter, maybe it is time to go to the next session on Natural
>>>> Computation. However, for technical reasons of the supporting publication,
>>>> we should wait a few weeks.
>>>> In this context--Terry, would it be possible that you continue with
>>>> your session during these weeks? There are several messages addressed to
>>>> you that could be useful to connect with...
>>>> Best greetings to all,
>>>> --Pedro
>>>> El 09/05/2022 a las 12:34, joe.brenner en bluewin.ch escribió:
>>>> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>>>> Here is a first response to Pedro’s pre-manifesto. As a chemist, I note
>>>> first that for crystallization of something new to occur, you have to have
>>>> the right reactants, but after the reaction is complete, the solution (in
>>>> both senses) must cool down. Here, I would simply like to add to the
>>>> reaction mix the concept of the value of “Eastern” forms of thought:
>>>> openness, vagueness and change. No pontification or claims of eternal
>>>> validity. If anything is certain about our discussions to date, most
>>>> attempts at finding “clear” definitions and other analytic approaches have
>>>> failed. What I would hope to see is an avant-garde that could produce new
>>>> syntheses, combining Pedro’s position, my suggestion and others with an
>>>> also necessary scientific rigor.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Joseph
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing listFis en listas.unizar.eshttp://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
>>>> ----------
>>>> <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>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220526/66b5df34/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list