[Fis] [SPAM] Re: An Unbeatable Tradition?

[Marcus Abundis]

Pedro and Stuart,

Thank you for the usefully provocative posts.

Pedro's 22 Jan post points to THE central matter in a Third Transition and
Phase Transitions, no?
< Not aspiring to any universality about the conceptions of this
independent informational exploration of life--at least shouldn't it be
attempted?? . . . So, an unexpected[?!] convergence might be found finally >
— If I understand Pedro correctly: creation of new adjacent possibilities
surely follows `some type of logic'! Why is THAT not discussed here? But I
am also unsure why this should be `unexpected’ (Pedro?). Still, is it
really NOT POSSIBLE to formally deduce `base elements of creativity'? Does
one simply claim it is a `mystery’ (a failure of scientific imagination),
to throw our hands up and walk away?
— I am unsure if this is what Stuart (and others?) suggest. If, as Stuart
says, it is `not deductive reasoning’, it surely is not inductive reasoning
(nor analogic reasoning). So EXACTLY what type of reasoning is
needed?! Intuitively
I think `abductive reasoning’, but then that does not seem to fully `fill
the bill’. Alternatively, perhaps a blended vista is needed. Further to
Pedro’s note about Plamen, Joe, and Eric, I too have offered my own Theory
of Meaning view on the matter, much earlier.

ERIC < . . . at a given point in time we have real possibilities and we
have pseudo possibilities . . . I did develop a theory of changing sets to
make possible the formalization of changing possibilities. >
— I am unsure how one effectively differs between real and pseudo
possibilities, as mostly everything is possible until `the hand is dealt’
(a wave function collapse?). Still, a theory of changing sets sounds
interesting (link?:< my theory of information and ability of agents >)
Also, < in writing by the time you get to the end of the sentence you
already have a better understanding of what you are thinking. >
— In writing it down again, this time on a computer . . . you should have
EVEN BETTER clarity of your intent and language, no? This would be useful.
Still, my own QM view is skeptical, I am uninterested in things prior to a
wave function collapse as all is too much like `noise’.

JOE < information is characterized by its quality as well as by scalar
quantities. I have not seen any algorithmic theory that captures quality,
but would of course be glad to know of one. >
— How does Signal Entropy’s variable X^n logarithmic base NOT present a
scalar (simple-to-complex) role?

STUART — when someone mentions Aristotle’s four causes I am too often left
with more questions than answers. Foremost, it requires a Prime Mover —
which we are to call `What?’ exactly, thermodynamics?! Also I do not see
how it gets us to simple-to-complex material reality, it does not even rise
to the level of dialectic logic born of Pre-Socratic views. Lastly, it
seems awfully anthropocentric, given what we know of cause-and-effect in
this modern era. So I am unsure what to do with Aristotle’s four causes in
current exchanges.

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240124/37ca3a97/attachment.html>