[Fis] New Discussion Session--Complexity & feedback

[Karl Javorszky]

*Explaining the previously unexplainable*

20241101

*Part II.  **The Oriental way of creating context for the observation*

   1. *Finding common context in the conversation*

Prof. Zhensong shares the opinion of Terrence, expressed a few months ago
here, that science is what scientists of the day agree to call science.

   1. Social coherence maintained by reaffirming common emotions

The essence of a religious festival is that people share a common
experience. The sharing of emotions in a common catharsis has actually very
little to do with details of which religious figures did or suffered
specifically what. Science festivals obey the same mechanics of rules of
social psychology. The stricture of adherence to rules and beliefs is
paramount, e.g., the requirement that a submission necessarily includes
citations of research in the field discussed. (This is a subtle marketing
device to keep new entrants away. He who has no ancestors and predecessors
he can refer to, such may not enter the brotherhood. Guarantee that people
who think up new stuff will remain unheard.)

Taken as a spectacle in the field of social psychology, the value of a
contribution to science is indeed correlated with the echo and omnipresence
of communications relating to that subject.

The intrinsic value of the subject that society has agreed upon as valid
science may not exactly correlate with the socio-cultural reception of the
idea. In Europe we have the folklore of the change to heliocentric basic
setup and how that played out as a social process. This ignorant person
knows of no comparable tale in Chinese history. One has found Laozi telling
Confucius “…do not assume that you are wiser than others, and as a subject
of a king, do not assume that you are nobler than others.”

The summary to point (a) is that the extent of social jubilation on the
perception of a new idea is not a reliable predictor of the intrinsic value
of the idea.

   2. The object and its picture

The idea that information has been invented as a subject of intellectual
study a few decades ago is comparable to the idea that a fever was invented
by Lord Kelvin who gave the phenomenon an exact frame of reference.

The savants who were paid well for reading the flight of eagles, just like
their colleagues, the temple priestesses at Delphi, sold real, useful,
actionable information to their customers. The two tips on the end of a
snake’s tongue deliver information to the snake on the optimal direction
towards the prey, by contrasting the differing intensities of molecules’
densities in the air. One may see in the snake’s technique of sniffing by a
forked tongue the epitome of information processing, information being
defined colloquially as “the extent of being otherwise” (and formally by
using cycles 3, 6 of the reorder *ab ↔ ba* of the etalon collection as
carriers of deviance of two related extents as Unit of Information. [1]).

This sub-monster has already been found, caged, measured, and named by FIS,
in the last ~ 10 years. The sub-monster ‘information’ is a part of the
great intellectual monster of ‘life,’ of which we are presently assembling
a picture in our head. Information has an objective existence like
electricity, magnetism and gravity, Information is caused by the artefact
of counting entities in the foreground without taking care that we use two
slightly differing backgrounds afore which we count the contents of the
foreground. The very slight relative mis-calibrations of the two
backgrounds create a great many of incongruences, limits, levels, etc. The
general idea is to call the totality of the relative deviations of two
combinatorial functions ‘information.’ That would be a natural unit, as a
concept. (The underlying philosophical problem is that it is false that ‘=’
and ‘≠’ are nothing but the other side of the other, but rather it is true
that both each have their own logical existence, which does not spring
immediately to the eye, the relative inexactitude being roughly *10-92 %.*)

   3. Why involve classical thinkers in today’s problems

The inclusion of classical thinkers in a discussion about the philosophy of
information is an exercise in futility for someone from a culture three
thousand years older than the Western one (if there is such at all). We are
still at the stage where individuals make up a world wherein individual
cases are free to discuss whether and how they find the groups they belong
to. The Chinese concept of the pre-axiomatic existence of a group, within
which elements can become individuals, maybe, appears to me deeper than the
idea that individuals first exist out of which groups are created. So, in
the West, we need to go back and explicitly leave a Void or Nihil which
never started, or has long ago finished, existing in China.

It is usually practical to listen to what the Greeks say about rules of
thinking. They discussed the facts, and the implications of the facts, that
things are often otherwise than expected.

   4. Not only is the grass greener, but science is also deeper across the
   road

There is absolutely no need to visit other scientific festivals. If anyone
by any chance had solved the information theory behind biology, the news
would reach you in any case. Title pages would scream „Number line not
really straight! Hills and valleys along the number line! Ongoing fights
reported on the subject of “not-enough – too-many” among the natural
numbers!“.

Furthermore, that person who finds a rational solution to the wonders of
biology would have to contact this insignificant person, because the
quintessence of the story has already been entered in the Oeis.org/A242615.
(The Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences is the patent office
repository of anything having to do with sequences, and the DNA is a
sequence.)

   2. *Retelling the story by using Chinese terms*

As to telling the story in a Chinese set of contexts : please excuse the
barbarian simplicity.

Laozi speaks at great length about three main points of a well-ordered
kingdom.

a.      Li

Li is the measure of order outside of the individual members of society.
The objective facts, visible for everyone. The Li account shows how well
the subjects obey the rules that govern them. These realized works are the
results of the inner dispositions of the subjects, which rules they follow
the most willingly.

In terms of the etalon collection, Li is the collection of matches *{q} is
on place {r}*.

b.     Ren

Ren deals with the inner harmony within each of the subjects of the
kingdom. If the subject is loyal in proper proportion to his ancestors, his
lords, the kingdom, his family, his village, his peers, etc., then this
subject leads a moral life. A moral person does not enter contradictory
loyalties and maintains his integrity while being also open to new
endeavors, everything in measured serenity.

In terms of the etalon collection, Ren are the *136 *individual data
depositories (formerly called ‘elements’) and the *46.260 *basic
collectives (cycles of the etalon collection, indexed on the *from ↔ to*
parameters of the reorder the cycle is a member of). The data include also
the lien values that bind each part of the personality of the subject to
its romantic partners (co-members of the cycle, loyalty groups).

   3. Yi

“The standard of Yi lies in conformity with Ren and Li. Therefore, Yi means
conformity to all moral standards” [2] The works of the subjects shall be
moral if the sub jects are moral. The congruence between what the subjects
do and how the subjects are educated is measuring the efficiency of the
educational mechanisms of the society, therefore the inner structure of the
society’s state of order. The world of facts and the world of the soul need
to be both harmonious (moral) in order that society be harmonious (moral).
Yi has two main aspects among which its dialectic moves: stricter adherence
to rules against higher immediate benefits.

In terms of the etalon collection, information comes into play in the form
of Yi. If both the possible works that the subjects can do, and the
potentials of the subjects to do such works, were in balance, Yi would not
be necessary. The fact that the two measurement systems are in a slight
deviance makes a mental construct necessary that establishes how much the
Li side of the assembly agrees to the Ren readings of the same assembly.
The difference is that Li is counted in units that in themselves (as such)
are of no properties, but have a structure of order, which is based on the
units of Li being equal among each other; while Ren is based on the
constituents of one actor’s loyalties being intrinsically different among
each other, within the same actor, ordered only by their extent. The
adherence – benefit conflict is understood as variants of optimization on
shorter or longer terms, assembling more immediate, smaller realities or
build reserves toward a longer and more ambitious reality.

The interplay of Li, Ren and Yi can only function, if Li and Ren both use
such units in their accounting which they present to Yi which Yi can
understand and act on. This means that both Li and Ren have to relate to
their own central elements and communicate to each other and to Yi *how
usual *resp *how deviating *their respective morality is in the moment.
Communication among the subsystems happens in terms of *how much deviating
to the expected,* which is the definition of information. The artefact of
not relating the two statements of Li and Ren each to their own central
elements, but to a fiction external to both is causing many of the manifold
bias applied science reports in the most diverse fields. The geometry of
the interplay emerges in which two similar, but not identical 3D structures
relate to twins of two 2D planes which are similar but not identical. In
fact, such a geometry can easily be drawn if one rotates the expression *a
+ b = c *and fills the places created by the rotation with values from the
reading in the form of *2(a+b) *of the same sentence. The liaison system
among symbols is by its nature romantic, because so many different
continuations of the story are created that one can encounter the simplest
plots mixed with patterned, repetitive stories and developments of high
suspense, big dramas, and monotonous, predictable certainties similarly.

At the close of this essay, may this academically non-recognized person
politely offer to you a hypothesis: Assuming that the ancient observation
is true, that the more usual an object is, the nearer to the middle of an
assembly of its peers it is to be found, and the coordinates of the
archetype of a logical 3D space being *x: b-2a, y: a-2b, z: a+b*, as one
finds when rotating the etalon collection, would it be a possible
hypothesis in your judgement, that the so-called *astrophysical jets*,
which appear to us as a number line crossing in the middle of a plane,
appear to depict the *idle state *of an assembly yet to gain its
properties? The jet’s contents have all and each a value of *b-2a = a-2b =
0, *while their *a+b *value greatly varies. The plane of diversity is
crossed by the line of similarity, a way to order a collection which Nature
appears not disinclined to use at times, namely in cases where nothing else
is remarkable about the collection. The jets with their collars are a
picture of *a+b=c & 2(a+b)*.
Here end the irrelevant notices about some of the forms of the bias, caused
by the artefact of using two different backgrounds for counting appearances
of the same assembly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20241101/78f23f3e/attachment-0001.html>