[Fis] Fwd: Re: The new axioms

[Marcus Abundis]

Greetings,

Thoughts on recent posts . . . Krassimir interestingly notes 'axioms'
(sounds reasonable) where Carlos notes 'formal systems' (also reasonable?),
and I began to wonder which is 'more correct' (basic definitions below):
AXIOM: a statement or proposition on which an *abstractly* defined
structure is based.
SYSTEM: a set of principles or procedures according to which *something* is
done; an organized scheme or method.
— I thus thought 'system' was more-correct, due
to material-AND-abstarct possibilities, where 'axiom' seems purely abstract
(at least initially). Also, as FIS focuses on 'information' (but, poorly
defined), we can at least agree *some* relationship between 'the abstract'
and Material Reality is our central focus—do we agree this as a *BARE
minimal* 'FIS system' aim?

— I also wondered about Carlos's '*formal* system', as many types of
'formal systems' exist. On one hand 'formal' and 'system' seem redundant,
without saying what *type* of system/form is involved. Also,
differentiating 'formal' from an 'informal' counterpart seems an odd
contrast if we speak of 'information' (still, poorly defined). I thus
thought 'informatic system' is even-more correct than 'formal system'—also
carrying a sense of 'a System for all systems'  (re 'the mother of all
models'). Can we also agree on this as a central FIS point?

— Next, for a 'proper intuitive fit' of an 'informatic system' (in all
cases tied to Material Reality) I come to Gordan's points. Of those points
I wondered what *exactly* do we directly observe (re native intuition)
about Material Reality? This said, with the expectation that 'observation'
is almost always imperfect (re logical gaps) . . .

< Here is my list of concurrent shifts one can observe:
< ·        MULTIDISCIPLINARY approaches
— This seems obvious from the above notes (mother of all models), although
this also seems to somehow emphasize the abstract over Material Reality
< ·        MULTI-LEVEL ANALYSIS
— This again seems on point, but perhaps better stated as
'Simple-to-Complex Level Analysis', with both material and abstract
aspects. But I also wonder if this is not redundant to 'Multidisciplinary',
where Simple-to-Complex might suitably cover both aspects.
< ·        THE ROLE OF THE OBSERVER – declaring an observer's perspective
in the given . . .
— This also seems relevant, BUT also leads to too many 'next level'
questions on what *exactly* does it mean to 'observe'. In short 'How does
one deal with innate subjectivity of perspective', given multiple possible
observers. This issue goes away ONLY if we assume one central observer
(hence, 'science' as a central aim). I thus would leave this observer role
to one side from a list on minimal intuitive requirements. It is an
'aspiration' that first requires much clarification.
< ·        DYNAMICAL approaches
— Okay, this too is good as the only evident constant in the cosmos is
'change'. So there seems little to debate on 'dynamic matters'. Fully
detailing those dynamics is of course another issue.
< ·        AGENTIAL view of life. . . .
— And in THIS note I already see a long list of 'qualifiers' from Gordana .
. . all of which circle back to the same issues seen around 'an observer'.
So again, I would leave this to one side. Also, it is not clear to me how
'Agency' *truly* differs from 'Dynamic', how is agency not just a specific
type of dynamism, amongst many dynamic types?
< ·        LOGIC (such as logic in reality-LIR and other non-standard
logics)
— This seems tempting to include in a proper intuitive fit, but I also feel
unsure. Material Reality surely has a 'way of working', no? But then there
is the problem of novel events in Material Reality, so does our 'logic'
INCLUDE novel events, and how so?!
< ·        INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION as conceptual glues
— and beyond, as Gordana also suggests. I will stop my analysis of
Gordana's note here as enough questions are already framed above, that must
first be addressed before moving on to other points. (still, Gordana, great
points, thanks!)

— Conversely, when I look at offerings from Joe and Karl I feel challenged
to find an intuitive fit. I have no idea what 'becoming', 'non-axiomatic',
or 'liens' (or lines?) mean. I would benefit from clear examples of their
role in terms of Material Reality, which is to say the concepts themselves
do not appeal to me intuitively. I apologize if I sound 'snarky' . . . but
I am trying to communicate 'what works' and 'what hangs open' for me in
trying to deal with *still poorly defined* 'information'.

Marcus


On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 4:23 PM joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <
joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> wrote:

> Dear Karl, Dear Pedro and All,
>
> I am glad to see that this debate is proceeding in a such a novel open
> fashion, with considerations from logic, of course - the new axioms - but
> also philosophy and science. This openness is that which emerges from the
> article by Ed Frenkel posted by Plamen, worth many comments on its own.
>
> In this spirit, first, I offer a variant of Karl's statement below:
>
> 1. Information is the extent of *becoming* otherwise between two
> entities.
> This formulation facilitates viewing information, philosophically as well
> as scientifically, as a process.
>
> My second comment may be more controversial:
>
> 2. Information may require non-axiomatic logics for its proper
> description.
> To the extent that information is a process and instantiates the
> properties of processes, it may be desirable to apply a logic of processes,
> that is, of change, to information. In 1988, it was "revolutionary" for
> Paul Thagard to propose a "Computational Philosophy of Science". It may be
> revolutionary today to propose a "Non-Computational Philosophy of Science",
> but that is what I am proposing for Information.
>
> The common denominator is, of course, (1) the human being and his/her
> capacity for reflection (Krassimir) but, I suggest even more generally, (2)
> change. If so, framework is that of lemmas or lemmic logic which
> incorporate simple opposition (A -not A) but complement it with complex
> negation: neither A nor not-A, and both A and not-A.
>
> This means that characterizations of say, a theory as dualistic or not
> dualistic should be replaced by dualistic and not dualistic, neither or
> both. The domain of application of this logic is not that of statements but
> of complex, evolving, *incomplete (Deacon )*, nature.
>
> This may be considered as an unnecessarily complicated way of saying
> someone is partly right and partly wrong. This formulation is for me too
> static, missing the dynamics of changing reasoning and judgment - becoming.These
> dynamics, as in all real processes, cognitive and other involve movement
> from actual to potential and *vice versa. *I have stated this previously,
> perhaps *ad nauseam *to some, but I offer it as a new axiom. The result
> is that my approach is both axiomatic and non-axiomatic.
>
> Lurking in the background is the concept "of the best of both" worlds,
> solutions to a problem, whatever. It includes the intuition of impermanence
> and change, the best information today may not be the best tomorrow, or it
> may be better. As you might expect, what I have tried to say here is not
> "perfectly correct". In a way, I am glad this is so; it looks more like
> "Life Itself (Rosen)".
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
> Joseph
>
> ----Message d'origine----
> De : karl.javorszky at gmail.com
> Date : 10/02/2024 - 18:30 (E)
> À : fis at listas.unizar.es
> Objet : Re: [Fis] The new axioms
>
> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240212/70dcc2a9/attachment.html>