[Fis] World Logic Day & Entropy as Degrees of Freedom

[Francesco Rizzo]

Inoltre nella geometria dell'economia frattale la teoria dell’irregolarità
è il pezzo forte: il normale disordine o straordinario caos è un nuovo tipo
di ordine- (Furthermore, in the geometry of the fractal economy the theory
of irregularity is the strong point: normal disorder or extraordinary chaos
is a new type of order) Francesco

Il giorno ven 6 gen 2023 alle ore 05:08 Francesco Rizzo <
13francesco.rizzo en gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Caro Marcus,
> definire due premi Nobel, quali Prigogine e Schodinger, unspecific (molto
> vaghi), mi sembra molto discutibile.
> Comunque, grazie degli auguri che ricambio.
> Francesco
> Dear Marcus, defining two Nobel laureates, such as Prigogine and
> Schodinger, unspecific (very vague), seems very questionable to me. Anyway,
> thanks for the good wishes that I reciprocate. Francesco
>
> Il giorno gio 5 gen 2023 alle ore 13:47 Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
>> Hey Pedro – thanks for your note! . . . and Happy New Year to you!
>> Yes, I know about this use of degrees of freedom (DoF) in framing
>> entropy, often in chemistry.
>> But I have not seen this DoF concept extended very far (perhaps I am
>> deficient in my reading?).
>> For example, in seeking a unified approach to 'thermodynamic entropy' and
>> 'signal entropy' (nomillay opposed views – 'disorder' vs. 'a specific'
>> order), I thought variably mapped DoF might be a good way to cover that
>> vast 'logical gap'.
>> THAT is why I put my question to you, thinking/hoping you might have
>> looked at DoF deeply.
>> At one point, I thought about writing a paper for IS4SI 2019 –
>> 'Information Science of Entropy Science?' exploring the topic, but I had
>> not thought deeply about it (not sure I was even thinking DoF at that time)
>> As I now focus on General and Super Intelligence (for AI modeling), I am
>> revisiting the matter.
>> At the risk of embarassing myself – I explore this DoF approach in an
>> early draft, should you have interest.
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wNtaOib67CMsBe0SudNDl6ZVWrbXmdNw/view?usp=share_link__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rp1cmklLMT3hjWlT8YFFzxjpF0T-fhhG0Id0AJ-7O_9mRFu-qwQvaj6-NXgGCvzKFoHZPEiGtVfcXdmFu7xHtGB0XsEe$ 
>> DRAFT – Entropy, a scientific base for super-intelligence
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wNtaOib67CMsBe0SudNDl6ZVWrbXmdNw/view?usp=share_link__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rp1cmklLMT3hjWlT8YFFzxjpF0T-fhhG0Id0AJ-7O_9mRFu-qwQvaj6-NXgGCvzKFoHZPEiGtVfcXdmFu7xHtGB0XsEe$ >
>>
>> Dear Terry – I hope all is and has been going well for you, and Happy New
>> Year to you as well!
>> It often bothered me that I complained about you using 'thermodynamic
>> entropy' as a base for 'teleodynamics' . . . but I never framed an
>> alternative. I held an 'intuitive alternative' in my mind, but (as noted
>> above) I had not yet thought deeply about it. In the above draft, I start
>> to correct that lapse. So, perhaps this material may interest you. I also
>> envision (not yet in the draft) how Natural DoF breaks would LOGICALLY
>> point to differed operative levels (formal 'domains'), and 'constraints'
>> tied to those domains . . . without having to name a specific
>> as-yet-undiscovered 'scientific functions' to frimly detail what is an
>> essential 'logical necessity'.
>>
>> Francesco – yes, I looked at Prigogine's work a long while back, but
>> found it too unspecific.
>> The same with Schrödinger's neg-entropy; and the same for various views
>> of entropy exporting roles.
>> Still, thanks for sharing your thoughts! And . . . Happy New Year to you
>> too!
>>  Marcus
>>
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20230106/b14d6881/attachment.html>