[Fis] (no subject)

Mon Dec 30 12:30:07 CET 2024

(Meaning 2024 12 30)

Dear Thomas,

Thank you for presenting your ideas about information and meaning. In wide
parts, we only seem to have textual differences. Let me go through your
main points:

Similarity and equality arise from sweeping what appears to be
insignificant in the situations under consideration under the carpet.

We should discuss the relation between background and foreground. If the
background is the carpet, under which we sweep what appears to be
insignificant in the situation (not: situations), then what we look at is
the foreground. We count similarities before a background of diversities
and diversities before a background of similarities.

Your kind attention is drawn to the clinical fact, that we count
diversities and similarities differently. Please refer to the detailed
explanations in Liaisons Among Symbols. The two backgrounds are represented
by two combinatorial functions, *n?, n!,* of which the characteristic
constants (the Marijuán constants) are *1, 11, 32, 66, 97, 136, 140*. The
relation of the two backgrounds to each other creates 1. A linear pair of
numeric differences *f(n), *(These are the mutual *expected – observed *pairs
of which the natural unit *inf =**∫ **∆ n?, n! *is built.), 2. Planar
places of logical compromises, 3. Two Euclid spaces which are transcended
by two planes, creating 2+1 resp. 2+2 Central Elements, 4. A plethora of
certainties of coincidences, where the certainty about the prediction and
the value predicted are two different sets of calculations. The structural
discongruence of *‘=’* and *‘≠’* causes by itself a
logical-geometric-numeric web of relations.

Scientific explanation starts from simple structures to explain
complicated structures.

We start by counting places of 12 books. You cannot get any more
elementary. We discuss places of tin soldiers as we rearrange them during
maneuvers.

In a formalized fashion, we discuss *a+b=c*. The new approach is that we
treat the logical sentence as a model in generative grammar. We understand
each of its possible forms as implicated in the general form of the
sentence. We discuss what happens to *a,b* as they stand on the left side,
unmerged.

There is a *cavalier attitude* inherited from the Sumerians among grown-up
people who believe themselves to be exact and ordered. At times, they
insist that they have invented something mysteriously new, and give it
names, and keep encouraging others that they (the others) should think
simply but exactly. There are rhetoric and diplomatic challenges to
circumnavigate, if one wants to suggest, that the tiny differences that one
disregards as one says *a+b* means the same as what *c* means are the
self-made wonders one has created by being of a cavalier logic. The
disregarded snippets come back, disguised as quanta or AOI.

Chemistry explains the biochemical basis of life. Quantum mechanics
provides the theoretical basis for chemistry.

*a+b=c* and its various forms provide the theoretical basis for quantum
mechanics.

The simplest quantum structures that are mathematically possible have
only a two-dimensional state space. It therefore makes sense to call
them quantum bits.
The particles of quantum mechanics and, with that, the quantum field
theories can be constructed from these structures.
This means that matter can be understood as a special form of such
quantum bits.

Completely agree. The above is a somewhat complicated re-formulation of
some Pythagorean principles. The two-dimensional part of the above
sentences refers to the DNA being a sequence. Out of planes, spaces can be
constructed.

It has been known for some time that quantum theory relativizes
distinctions that are important for everyday life. E=mc^2 shows the
equivalence of matter with motion, i.e. with one of its properties.
The distinction between force and matter is reduced to the distinction
between fermions and bosons, which can be converted into one another
under certain conditions.

Whatever we call them, the structural elements of Nature have a rational
relation among each other. Therefore, it is reasonable to investigate which
rational relations exist among the simplest symbols that we use to depict a
structural element of Nature. Let us use the terms *a,b.*

These quantum structures with a two-dimensional Hilbert space are to
be thought of as absolute and completely abstract, not as properties
of a material or energetic structure. I call them AQIs.
The AQIs form matter, energy, as well as the properties of matter and
energy.

We need a name for that what distinguishes *a,b* as unmerged individuals to
their aggregate form of *c*.

Life only emerged relatively late in the development of the cosmos,
and only for living things can something become meaningful.

Here, the first serious disagreement. The term ‘meaning’ is demonstrated to
one in a very consistent and persistent fashion if one works for decades in
client encounters as a clinical psychologist. The meaning is a subjective
relation among mental contents, for each of the clients. Every client has
their own way of generating and recognizing meaning or the lack of it.

What is interpersonally true is that there exists a central reference
anchor, relative to which the furniture of the clients is organized. Nature
would not follow an organizational principle if there was no sense to it or
it would not be practical to use. First of all, the substrate, substance,
meaning, inner quintessence of that organizational reference anchor must be
logically existing. (The center of mass, gravity center, barycenter do each
possess an independent logical existence.)

So, if one runs across two Central Elements of perfectly regular Euclid
(Descartes) spaces that come along as parts of the package *a+b=crotated*
which includes as a bonus two more Central Elements (which are as identical
as electric and magnetic effects are identical), then one picks up these
two Central Elements and says that these are the perfect examples of
something that is being referred to.

The meaning of a logical context is the relation of the logical context to
at least one of the Central Elements. This sentence is as true as *a = a*
and is completely independent of whether the thing that the logical context
depicts lives or not.

For humans, meaning appears to have a similar effect to oxytocin or
endorphins. Some clients get really excited about the meaning or not of
something. Any excitement is a property the subject brings to the idea. The
relation of a thing relative to the center of the assemblage is just a
result of a method of measurement. Nothing must be alive among the
arguments.

Thank you for thinking through the relation of things to the Central
Elements.

Karl

Am Mo., 30. Dez. 2024 um 10:28 Uhr schrieb Francesco Rizzo <
13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com>:

> Dear All
>
> «Claude Shannon did not formulate a mathematical definition of
> information, but he defined a "particular" measure of the "quantity of
> information" functional to determining the ability of a communication
> channel to transmit coded signals, processed in such a way as to be
> indifferent to the information that those signals may represent.
>
>            The concept of information is more easily defined in
> operational terms, stating that an event provides information and therefore
> allows us to know or believe something that was not previously known or
> believed. But underlying both subjective and objective uses of the term
> "information" is the general notion of what determines or shapes. Even in
> biology we can and must talk about communication theory but with greater
> attention, discernment and risk.
>
>            The most important problem to overcome is the
> communication/meaning relationship. Lyons distinguishes:
>
> I. the intended meaning of a message or signal,
>
> II.       the meaning as understood by the recipient, e
>
> III.      the meaning conventionally understood.
>
>            These distinctions also find direct correlates in our current
> operational terms, if we take as the operational correlate of "meaning" the
> selective function (of the message) on the field of possible states of a
> recipient's organization system. This immediately leads us to parallel
> distinctions between:
>
> I. the intentional selective function established by the sender,
>
> II.       the actual selective function of the receiver, e
>
> III.        the meaning conventionally understood.
>
>               These distinctions also find direct correlates in our
> current operational terms, if we take as the operational correlate of
> "meaning" the selective function (of the message) on the field of possible
> states of a recipient's organization system. This immediately leads us to
> parallel distinctions between:
>
> I. the intentional selective function established by the sender,
>
> II.          the actual selective function of the receiver, e
>
> III.        the selective function of a "standard" receiver.
>
>               Following Morris and Peirce, semiotics is divided into:
> *syntactic*, *semantic* and *pragmatic*. Syntactic studies how signs are
> related to each other, semantic studies how these signs are related to
> things, and pragmatic studies how they are related to people.
>
> In the theory of sign production we encounter a fundamental problem,
> namely the relationship between the content of the functions and their
> physical occurrences which should constitute their "real" referents. This
> issue is known in semiotic literature as the "referential fallacy" . In
> this regard it is good to recall Saussure's well-known semiotic triangle:
> Meaning, Significant, Referent" [Rizzo F., *Value and evaluations. The
> science of economics or the economics of science*, FrancoAngeli, Milan,
> 1999, pp.330-3).
>
>
> Cari Tutti,
>
> «Claude Shannon non ha formulato una definizione matematica
> dell'informazione, ma ha definito una "particolare" misura della "quantità
> d'informazione" funzionale alla determinazione della capacità di un canale
> di comunicazione di trasmettere segnali in codice, elaborata in modo tale
> da essere indifferente all'*informazione* che quei segnali possono
> rappresentare.
>
>        Il concetto di informazione si definisce più facilmente in termini
> operativi, affermando che un evento fornisce informazione quindi ci
> permette di sapere o credere qualcosa che prima non si sapeva o credeva. Ma
> alla base degli usi sia soggettivi sia oggettivi del termine "informazione"
> v'è la nozione generale di ciò che determina o dà la forma. Anche in
> biologia si può e si deve parlare di teoria della comunicazione ma con
> maggiore attenzione, discernimento e rischio.
>
>        Il problema più importante da superare è il rapporto
> comunicazione/significato. Lyons distingue:
>
> I. il significato *intenzionale *di un messaggio o segnale,
>
> II.    il significato così come viene *inteso* dal ricevente, e
>
> III.  il significato inteso *convenzionalmente*.
>
>        Queste distinzioni trovano anch'esse dei correlati diretti nei
> nostri termini operativi attuali, se prendiamo come correlato operativo di
> "significato" la *funzione selettiva* (del messaggio) sul campo dei
> possibili stati del sistema di organizzazione di un ricevente. Ciò ci
> conduce immediatamente a distinzioni parallele tra:
>
> I. la funzione selettiva *intenzionale* stabilita dal mittente,
>
> II.    la funzione selettiva *reale* del ricevente, e
>
> III.  la funzione selettiva di un ricevente "standard"[1]
> <#m_-1563113968838984090__ftn1>.
>
>        Seguendo Morris e Peirce la semiotica si suddivide in: *sintattica*,
> *semantica* e *pragmatica*. La sintattica studia il modo in cui i segni
> sono correlati tra loro, la semantica studia il modo in cui queste segni
> sono correlati alle cose, e la pragmatica studia il modo in cui essi sono
> correlati alle persone[2] <#m_-1563113968838984090__ftn2>.
>
> Nella teoria della produzione segnica s’incontra un problema fondamentale,
> e cioè il rapporto che passa tra il contenuto delle funzioni e le loro
> occorrenze fisiche che ne dovrebbero costituire i referenti “reali”, Questa
> questione è conosciuta nella letteratura semiotica come “fallacia
> referenziale”. A questo proposito è bene richiamare il noto triangolo
> semiotico di Saussure: Significato, Significante, Referente» [Rizzo F., *Valore
> e valutazioni. La scienza dell’economia o l’economia della scienza*,
> FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1999, pp.330-331].
>
> Francis
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno lun 30 dic 2024 alle ore 10:00 Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz <
> goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de> ha scritto:
>
>> Dear All,
>> I would like to start by wishing everyone a healthy, successful and
>> hopefully more peaceful new year.
>>
>> Now a few comments from me on the current contributions, regarding
>> information and meaning.
>>
>> Natural science seeks rules and laws for the processes in nature.
>> However, due to the expansion of the cosmos, there are never two
>> completely identical situations. For an individual case, however, the
>> idea of a rule is meaningless.
>>
>> Rules require similarity, laws require – not only in jurisprudence –
>> equality.
>>
>> Similarity and equality arise from sweeping what appears to be
>> insignificant in the situations under consideration under the carpet.
>> Changes to inanimate matter require the expenditure of energy, but
>> living things can also be influenced by meaningful information.
>>
>> Scientific explanation starts from simple structures to explain
>> complicated structures.
>> Chemistry explains the biochemical basis of life. Quantum mechanics
>> provides the theoretical basis for chemistry.
>>
>> The simplest quantum structures that are mathematically possible have
>> only a two-dimensional state space. It therefore makes sense to call
>> them quantum bits.
>> The particles of quantum mechanics and, with that, the quantum field
>> theories can be constructed from these structures.
>> This means that matter can be understood as a special form of such
>> quantum bits.
>>
>> It has been known for some time that quantum theory relativizes
>> distinctions that are important for everyday life. E=mc^2 shows the
>> equivalence of matter with motion, i.e. with one of its properties.
>> The distinction between force and matter is reduced to the distinction
>> between fermions and bosons, which can be converted into one another
>> under certain conditions.
>>
>> These quantum structures with a two-dimensional Hilbert space are to
>> be thought of as absolute and completely abstract, not as properties
>> of a material or energetic structure. I call them AQIs.
>>
>> The AQIs form matter, energy, as well as the properties of matter and
>> energy.
>>
>> Life only emerged relatively late in the development of the cosmos,
>> and only for living things can something become meaningful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Again, one wonders.
>> >
>> > Marcus writes:
>> >  you also invoke ‘meaning’ which is notoriously difficult to define –
>> where
>> > do you clearly define meaning?
>> >
>> >  There is a perfectly valid definition of meaning available for all who
>> > have access to the FIS list.
>> >
>> > The last time this définition was shared with the Learned Friends was 21
>> > days ago, 9th December 2024, in a letter to Xueshan.
>> >
>> > *Information has been defined (eg Liaisons Among Symbols) as the
>> totality
>> > of ∆ (n?, n!).*
>> >
>> > *Meaning has been defined (op. cit.) as the relation of a context to at
>> > least one of the Central Elements.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz
>> Fellow of the INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF INFORMATION STUDIES
>>
>> Privat (für Postsendungen):
>> Karl-Mangold-Str. 13
>> D-81245 München
>> Tel: 0049-89-887746
>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://goernitzunderstandingquantumtheory.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Twd5A-cSLW8XBCnqHSJSmnpnRgk8TzmugecCjfUIUl15bOVeXlewBLt5Z82oDgMW23D9dJVIhIcotYDJNuXxBAlvzbWnJw$
>>
>> Fachbereich Physik
>> J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIN SOBRE PROTECCIN DE DATOS DE CARCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la informacin 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 est suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>> baja desde la propia aplicacin en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>> ----------
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> 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/20241230/417425d1/attachment-0001.html>