[Fis] The new axioms

[Karl Javorszky]

Let me offer a nice definition

*Information* is the extent of being otherwise between two entities :

*Context* are the liens (extents of cycles) that connect the two entities ;

*Meaning* is the orientation of the information within the context relative
to one or more Central Elements.

Like distance, array of distances, vector.

Karl





Gordana Dodig Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se> schrieb am Sa.,
10. Feb. 2024, 17:42:

> Thank you, Krassimir.
>
>
>
> I found a useful explanation of the term “reflection” in your paper:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita24-04-p01.pdf__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XV0dTM86Cy-qNviNALz3Kjn5iloUikLvCBRp_tNphVtUgLCtiTzafp-0Qwxf0-ILXoXvhwrbWi17lvKBi9Vr5ImCPm4$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol24/ijita24-04-p01.pdf__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XmOt5pA4dA40BxguQYI1xM8xIBRA-5SChQUrzleDP8l4y1U1U8D_7jibI_mONq-wLX_TPFmD1QucOwi4CEgcq6J6DOhR8il6$>
>
> You say:
>
>
>
> “There are two types of reflections:
>
> *1. Reflections without meaning called DATA;*
>
> *2. Reflections with meaning called INFORMATION.”*
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gordana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, 10 February 2024 at 16:28
> *To: *Gordana CHALMERS <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se>, Marcus
> Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com>, "fis at listas.unizar.es" <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] The new axioms
>
>
>
> Dear Gordana, Marcus and Colleagues,
> Thanks a lot for your comments on my humble post.
> I will reply to both of you, but I don't think now is the time to veer off
> into a GIT discussion.
>
> Let's be consistent and respect Stu and Carlos by continuing the
> discussion on the points they raise.
>
> My post was exactly in this direction.
>
> I'll answer Markus first, because my answer has to be the size of "a book"
> and can't fit in one comment.
>
> Dear Markus,
> There are now two different printed editions of the GIT monograph, but
> both are bibliographic rarities.
>
> We hardly need to go back more than 30 years when they appeared.
>
> But there is a summary article from a later time that was intended to give
> a brief and informal account of the main ideas.
>
> Here is a link to it
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol14/ijita14-1-p01.pdf__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XV0dTM86Cy-qNviNALz3Kjn5iloUikLvCBRp_tNphVtUgLCtiTzafp-0Qwxf0-ILXoXvhwrbWi17lvKBi9VrpaGsNSc$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol14/ijita14-1-p01.pdf__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XmOt5pA4dA40BxguQYI1xM8xIBRA-5SChQUrzleDP8l4y1U1U8D_7jibI_mONq-wLX_TPFmD1QucOwi4CEgcq6J6DErj4TjT$>
> Of course, to this day there are some clarifications, but the essence of
> the theory has not changed.
>
> Dear Gordana,
> I use the term "reflection" in its classic philosophical sense.
>
> It is perhaps most visually illustrated by Plato in his parable of the
> cavemen.
>
> Shadows on the wall! - As a popular song says.
>
> I have already noted in this discussion list that for me Plato provided a
> perfect model of the human brain.
>
> All we perceive are "shadows on the wall"!
>
>
> For convenience, I'll recall here the GIT basic definition of "reflection":
>
> ******
>
> *Entity *
>
> In our examination, we consider the real world as a space of entities. The
> entities are built by other entities, connected with relationships. The
> entities and relationships between them form the internal structure of the
> entity they build.
>
> *Interaction *
>
> Building the relationship between the entities is a result of the contact
> among them. During the contact, one entity impacts on the other entity and
> vice versa. In some cases the opposite impact may not exist, but in
> general, the contact may be considered as two mutually opposite impacts
> which occur at the same time. The set of contacts between entities forms
> their interaction.
>
> *Reflection *
>
> During the establishment of the contact, the impact of an entity changes
> temporarily or permanently the internal structure and/or functionality of
> the impacted entity. In other words, the realization of the relationships
> between entities changes temporarily or permanently their internal
> structure and/or functionality at one or at few levels.
>
> The change of the structure and/or functionality of the entity, which is
> due to the impact of the other entity we denote with the notion “
> *reflection*”.
>
> The entities of the world interact continuously. It is possible, after one
> interaction, another may be realized. In this case, the changes received by
> any entity, during the first interaction, may be reflected by the new
> entity. This means that the secondary (transitive) reflection exists. One
> special case is the external transitive self-reflection where the entity
> reflects itself as a secondary reflection during any external interaction.
> Some entities have an opportunity of internal self-reflection. The internal
> self-reflection is possible only for very high levels of organization of
> the entities, i.e., for entities with very large and complicated
> structures.
>
> ******
>
>
>
> I asked ChatGPT to "understand" what I was saying. Here is the answer:
>
> ******
>
> 1.       *Entity:*
>
> ·        The real world is viewed as a space of entities.
>
> ·        Entities are constructed by other entities and are
> interconnected through relationships.
>
> ·        The internal structure of an entity is formed by the entities
> and relationships that build it.
>
> 2.       *Interaction:*
>
> ·        Relationships between entities result from contact between them.
>
> ·        Contact involves mutual impacts; one entity influences the
> other, and vice versa.
>
> ·        Contacts collectively form the interaction between entities.
>
> 3.       *Reflection:*
>
> ·        When entities interact, the impact of one entity temporarily or
> permanently changes the internal structure and/or functionality of the
> impacted entity.
>
> ·        This change is termed "reflection."
>
> ·        Entities continuously interact, and the changes from one
> interaction may be reflected in subsequent interactions.
>
> ·        Special cases include transitive reflection (changes from one
> interaction reflected in a new entity) and external transitive
> self-reflection (entity reflects itself during external interaction). Some
> entities may also have internal self-reflection, limited to highly
> organized entities.
>
> In summary, this definition explores the dynamics of entities in the real
> world, emphasizing their interconnectedness through relationships, the
> impacts of interactions, and the resulting reflections that alter the
> internal structure and functionality of entities. The concept of reflection
> extends to transitive reflection, external transitive self-reflection, and
> internal self-reflection in specific cases.
>
> ******
>
>
>
> Finally, here is the main thesis:
>
>
>
> There are infinitely many reflections.
>
> Some of them are recognized by the subject, others are not.
>
>
>
> Those recognized by him are information for him, and the rest, not
> recognized - data.
>
> With respect,
> Krassimir
>
>
>
> На сб, 10.02.2024 г. в 14:13 Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> написа:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Missing in this study of Limits of Formal Systems (ways of managing
> diverse abstractions), and even back to Yixin’s Paradigm Shifts and to
> Stu’s notes, is the matter of simple-to-complex material reality. Gordana
> partly frames the issue as Multi-Level Analysis (too much like
> Multidisciplinary approaches?) and Dynamical approaches (differed from
> Agent views?)—where it is easy to agree a need for New Mathematical
> approaches and more.
>
> And now we have Krassimir’s (most of which I agree):
> < Have you asked yourself the "simple question“: "Why are there so many
> theories in mathematics with corresponding systems of axioms?“ >
> —Here, the reason is NOT mathematic or axiomatic, but Simple-to-Complex
> Material Reality, where HUMAN-logical gaps persist. It is our own
> `impoverished logic’ (a psycho-logical problem) that leaves us with
> mathematical issues, having failed to FIRST correctly view the full
> problem(s). If we take modeling as a discipline, one must first find a
> proper intuitive fit BEFORE proceeding to mathematic models—the lesson of
> Einstein's famous thought experiments.
>
> PRIMALLY AXIOMATIC Simple-to-Complex Material Reality has many INNATE
> Material Paradigm Shifts, we imperfectly map via Logical Paradigm Shifts
> (re Yixin). Not until we have perfect knowledge of the cosmos and LEVEL
> TRANSITIONS, will `all such issues’ dissipate (re Kant’s das Ding an sich.
>
> To debate which CURRENT mathematic view might be a `better tool’ (re
> Category Theory, etc.) is too much like `dueling pathologies’, blind to
> our own personal flaws. This all brings the Limits of Formal Systems back
> to a central matter of a need for New Mathematical approaches. But to
> imagine new approaches we must FIRST confront our own logical gaps
> (psych-logical poverty). This dates back even further, long before Shannon,
> to Korzybski’s `confused levels of abstraction’.
>
> So when Krassimir states
> < thousands of articles pointing out how one formal system or another
> CANNOT be applied to modeling . . . But writing such articles is pointless.>
> — It is hard to disagree, except I would start by looking BENEATH living
> matter, as living matter itself cannot exist in a vacuum, always in a
> context of eternal adaptations. To ignore STIPULATED adaption (adaption
> to what exactly? = context) as a central aspect of Simple-to-Complex
> Material Reality AND Life is equally pointless. A firm grasp of ensuing
> Functional Material Levels is thus an ESSENTIAL first step in confronting
> Limits of Formal Systems.
>
> But then, still — Krassimir — when various `axiomatic offerings’ are
> already known to you and us, why are we NOT critically examining those
> offerings . . . as part of discussing and truly exploring the current
> topic Limits of Formal Systems. For example,
>
> — Kun Wu’s view (1991—earliest I can find) of subject object modeling
> seems to head in an interesting direction but also seems excessively
> complex, and essentially pantheistic.
>
> — Terry Deacon’s teleo-dynamics (2011) seems deeply flawed with a purely
> thermodynamic base that he initially transcribes to homeodymanics, while
> entirely ignoring a much broader established homeostasis roles.
> Theromdynamics works ONLY as a bare/incomplete trope.
>
> — Mark Burgin’s GTI is entirely without semantic/subjective roles (per his
> own admission).
>
> — Stu Kauffman and his engine block coconut crusher/paper weight
> `thinking’ . . . well he never answered my posts, so I am unsure what to
> make of it. But *I* would be embarrassed by such an offering, with NO
> functional depth. He also seems to repeat/encourage Terry's thermodynamic
> error.
>
> — Pedro every so often offers 10 (or so) informatic principles, but I have
> never seen a fully developed model. Still, I have seen enough to know he
> often insists it `ALL evolves around Life, and only Life’ (as *many* do in
> FIS) and seems to forget Life must continually adapt to `something’.
>
> — Joe Brenner’s LIR I have also looked at and it seems hopelessly
> dualistic and thus cannot account even for Nature’s creativity, let alone
> human creativity.
>
> — Krassimir’s GIT, certainly makes very promising `sounds’, but I have
> never seen a fully developed model, despite many requests.
>
> — and then there is of course my own S-O modeling/Natural Informatics
> offering, which I will not repeat . . . and there are likely many others I
> have forgotten about or just never heard of.
>
> I hope this somehow helps `get the ball rolling’ in exploring further
> *firm critical thinking* around Limits of Formal Systems . . . assuming
> that is the aim of this session(?)
>
> Marcus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240210/62d39fe8/attachment-0001.html>