[Fis] [External] Re: & quot; express matter and energy in terms of information& quot;

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

Dear Louis,
My entire approach could be summarized as trying to give meaning to the expressions you just used - "actual instantiations" and "accompanied by" referring to concepts and percepts. Some considerations will apply to questions of chess, but as I believe you imply, it is the mental processes behind the moves that are of interest rather than their epistemic outcomes.
Your last phrase, in my opinion, should read "the probability of new concepts". Except for what are essentially pathological cases (all too frequent, unfortunately), concepts are dynamic and can change.
The principles of my logic do not apply to infinite sets, or to any other equivalent mathematical (abstract) object. They are however modeled by the Axiom of Choice, and I can repeat my argument if is of interest.
Finally, I would wish that Carlos, in his commendable restudy of Being, might devote a bit or more of his energy to Becoming, to see how that, also, would look today.
Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph
, "----Message d'origine----
De : loukau at gmail.com
Date : 29/02/2024 - 00:38 (E)
À : cgershen at gmail.com
Cc : stukauffman at gmail.com, fis at listas.unizar.es, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
Objet : Re: [Fis] [External] Re: " express matter and energy in terms of information"
 Dear Carlos,
When I write P = {n | n is a prime number} and assert the existence of this set, I am asserting the existence of the CONCEPT that the set expresses.
 I am not asserting the existence in some realm of all of its members. This is my way to handle the epistemology of set theory.
 Set theory is a way to handle concepts. The concept of a prime number is not problematical in relation to any questions of existence.
 The same is true of the concept 2^{N} = { S | S is a subset of the natural numbers} and all the other sets that can be expressed in ZFC.
 
 With this understanding it is fun to play with the fantasy that the primes or the real numbers are “actually there” somewhere. This is fun and helps in thinking about them.
 When I prove that a specific knot is knotted it excites me to realize that I have proved something about the infinity of instantiations of this knot, only a finite number of which I shall ever see. They all exist in potentia. 
 
 These rhetorical flourishes about potentia, possibles and adjacent possibles are a similar incitement to fantasy as we get a feeling about worlds unseen.
 It is fun, but lets remember that just working with concepts and percepts is the main line.
 
 Some concepts, maybe most, are tied up with their realizations. So if I am looking at Chess, I imagine the existence of all possible chess games. 
 "All chess games” is a concept just like “all primes”.  That it happens to be a finite set does not make it more accessible than the infinity of the primes.
 I can also indulge in the fantasy that I can “know” about “all chess games” but the only way to know about it is through a big sliice of experience with actual games and with 
 the hypotheses that people have made about general principles for the game.
 
 The same is true for mathematics. The nice thing about infinite sets is that one has an open field for studying examples and finding principles that govern these examples.
 Concepts are not “just” abstractions. You need to find out how they work in actual instantiations. I think the reason mathematics works even though people could argue about potential versus actual infinity forever, is that mathematics does not need to worry about existence of anything except concepts and to hope that the arena of concepts that it uses is consistent for the logic that is adopted for dealing with them.
 
 And again I repeat, concepts come along with percepts. Every percept you have is accompanied by concepts and by the possibility of new concepts that can inform it.
 Best,
 Lou
 
 
 
  
   
    On Feb 28, 2024, at 10:43 AM, Carlos Gershenson <
    cgershen at gmail.com> wrote:
   
   
   
    
     
      About latent/Platonic information:
     
     
      I think we can agree that there are (infinite) primes that have never been written down. Do they exist? I think so, in a particular way. Perhaps, as it was mentioned, the difference can lie between information that has been observed, and that which has not. Like the tree falling in a forest with nobody there to listen (observe), I guess we can assume that ontologically the tree fell, even if epistemologically no observer can say anything about that. (I elaborate on this distinction between “absolute being” and “relative being” here 
      https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://arxiv.org/abs/nlin/0109001__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XELf_kQq4-kicpdr08pFkeCAhEDX4m-iUMiSCsQ1ZjQiMEwckaHbSL1o-w_hYDRy5HsbdNuZ1E-QXD6w94XFtMK5Obg$  although this is from my undergrad years and for sure could be updated).
     
     
      
     
     
      Gordana: Isn’t ChatGPT an observer? I mean, LLMs can be said to be trained through “observation".
     
     
      
     Best wishes,
     
     
      
       
        
         
          Carlos
         
       
      
     
     
    _______________________________________________
    
Fis mailing list
    
    Fis at listas.unizar.es
    
    http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
    
----------
    
INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
    
    
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
    
Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n 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 aplicaci�n 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/20240229/dd7f550f/attachment.html>