[Fis] "express matter and energy in terms of information"

[Marcus Abundis]

Hey Krassimir, thanks for your note.

< when you call "information" the interaction and mutual change of physical
objects, what good does that do? What new knowledge does this naming bring?
>
— Please note, you are actually paraphrasing what I said, which is okay.

You are correct to point this out, in answer: 'interaction and mutual
change of physical objects' concerns *functioning*. My approach is
*entirely* functional. You (I think?) refer to this same functioning in
your own work as 'TRANSITIVE reflection/impact'. But I also find your
'internal and external and self-reflective TRANSITIVE reflection' and other
related terms make it difficult to see what *exactly* you are getting at.
And you insist on condensing(?) all these TRANSITIVE roles to simply
'reflections', which does not make any sense to my native English speaking
ears and eyes, since 'reflection' is not the most important aspect of what
you seem to want to address, plus 'a reflection' is usually, in itself, an
abstract of some other 'real thing'. I have mentioned before that I find
your 2007 summary GIT paper very difficult to read, and I have offered to
help improve and update the language, an offer you never answered. I have
said before, I see interesting signs in your work and postings, but I
cannot glean a complete or coherent model from what I see.

Still, whether we call this TRANSITIVE roles or direct FUNCTIONING, they
both get at the 'HOW objects interact (relational logic)'. I thus
'GENERICALLY define' information as 'O <-> O' interaction. To be more
specific '<–>' is symbolic of HOW (O)bjects interact, and it is the
specific 'HOW functioning' between (O)bjects that determines a meaning
(consequence, impact, effect – your transitive) of any and all 'O <-> O'
events. This is also to say 'O <-> O' names a (S)ubjective consequence,
impact, effect . . . which, in turn, I condense to 'O-S-O'. This applies
equally to all inanimate and animate (Life)  'O <-> O' events. This is all
detailed in my 2021 IS4SI talk,
(https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/8UiQ08fhPxg?si=JLZyrjsFAAuy-_QP__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SP-E0cxc-aLtDUpceMjw2SmRcpVWcLH8bV7-aj8bduQM5j_s8LrK1GV-xPQiWKetamnGI5Nl7VLxJJ8j$ ),
which your saw, and in the related paper accepted for publication in the
upcoming Mark Burgin IS4SI memorial publication (
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r1eGAe_1lkXPGbS2cVoja4n6CyGtzVlW/view?usp=share_link__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SP-E0cxc-aLtDUpceMjw2SmRcpVWcLH8bV7-aj8bduQM5j_s8LrK1GV-xPQiWKetamnGI5Nl7W1763yP$ 
).
It is also covered in abbreviated form in another paper I am currently
circulating for possible publication (
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/file/d/11r5LHrzAV2wAPXAPbEMxO58GuTR48hdP/view?usp=share_link__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SP-E0cxc-aLtDUpceMjw2SmRcpVWcLH8bV7-aj8bduQM5j_s8LrK1GV-xPQiWKetamnGI5Nl7W5tKmt1$ )
. . . so far, I can share the reader at Nature magazine found it
'interesting work, but not really our thing'.

All above links go into much more detail than what I offer here.
Lastly, I give more practical (less abstract examples) of this same O-S-O
view in my already noted 13 Feb FIS post, AND in my 25 & 28 Jan FIS posts
to Stuart. So please do not suggest I do not define 'information' — I do
much more, I define MEANINGFUL information, with many examples offered.
Perhaps it would be better if you told me what exactly you find confusing
or inaccessible about the generic O-S-O way I define information.

Next, regarding your note:
< The difference and unity (onto-epi) . . . For example, "Epistemology" and
"Cognitive Science". >
— None of what you write after this note covers ONTOLOGY, you instead cover
ONLY
< "Epistemology" and "Cognitive Science" are both fields that study
knowledge, . . . >
— I am unsure how to respond to what you write, as it is on an entirely
different track from what I wrote, especially on the importance of
simple-to-complex TRANSITIVE aspects.

Thanks,
Marcus

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 3:07 PM Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Markus,
> The difference and unity (onto-epi) you are talking about should be based
> on the use of different concepts - "reflection" in the physical world and
> "information" in the mental world.
> Practice is full of examples of this kind.
> For example, "Epistemology" and "Cognitive Science".
>
> "Epistemology" and "Cognitive Science" are both fields that study
> knowledge, but they have different aims, interests, and methods.
>
> "Epistemology" is traditionally defined as the conceptual and normative
> study of knowledge. It inquires into the definition, criteria, normative
> standards, and sources of knowledge and of kindred statuses like justified
> belief, evidence, confirmation, rational belief, perceiving, remembering,
> and intelligence. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with
> knowledge and belief.
>
> On the other hand, "Cognitive Science" is the interdisciplinary empirical
> study of cognition in human beings, animals, and machines, and the attempt
> to engineer intelligent cognition. Cognitive Science spans work in diverse
> fields, including empirical cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial
> intelligence (AI), neuroscience, and cognitive anthropology. It refers to
> the mental processes involved in perception, thought, and understanding.
> This includes things like attention, memory, language, and problem-solving.
>
> In summary, while both fields study knowledge, Epistemology does so from a
> philosophical and normative perspective, whereas Cognitive Science does so
> from an empirical and interdisciplinary perspective. They complement each
> other in the pursuit of understanding knowledge and cognition.
>
> Using the same concept for different fields leads to confusion and unclear
> theories.
>
> Of course, anyone can name things however they want, but there is always a
> question "What is the utility of this naming?"
>
> Well, when you call "information" the interaction and mutual change of
> physical objects, what good does that do? What new knowledge does this
> naming bring?
>
> Actually, we should start with your definition of "information".
> Please introduce it briefly.
>
> With respect,
> Krassimir
>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240224/9b52b1b6/attachment-0001.html>