<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Marcus, List:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Unfortunately, my work load has limited my participation in this discussion, but I do feel I should make a comment before departing for Europe. The comments concern my philosophy of applied mathematics in relation to the a priori in recent posts by Marcus, Pedro and the earlier posts from the Integral Biomathics narrators.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My comment addresses one facet of your agenda. I have no substantial quibbles about the artificiality of the your terminology you develop. It isolated your mathematical philosophy of the meaning of Boolean algebra from other ways of looking at the mathematics of information.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">More precisely, it separates the concept of information as an algebraic form / formula / formation / formal logic from the Shannon model. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thus, I find the term “a priori” to be rather mis-leading relative to other usages. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This usage of the term “a priori” does not encompass the deep practical problems of the application of “information theory” to the real world.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This usage of the term, it appears to me, excludes all aspects of encoding the natural messages into binary bit strings.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Metaphorically, one might say that your artificial terminology only concerns the punctuation of an Shannon- informed sentence. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">From this perspective, I find myself closely aligned with certain of Pedro’s views with respect to the organization of life relative to the organization of bit strings within a Boolean algebra, except that the dynamics are more perplex than he implies.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Logically, I can form my overview of the biological information with a single sentence, substantially extended from it’s published version about a decade ago. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"The organization of organisms organizes information into organic units by encoding organic information into generative self-organizing electrical fields under the arithmetic of the atomic numbers.”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As an aside, I would add, from my perspective, a comment about the “Integral Biomathics” hypothesis. In my opinion, it is deeply flawed far beyond any potential theoretical repair because the proponents (including Lou K.) ignore the role of electric fields in creating, from sub-atomic physics, the essential information necessary for life. The physical “a priori” is missing from “Integral Biomathics” and hence the failure to envision logical paths between the inanimate and the animate. Nevertheless, I admire the originality of the Biomathics narrators, despite the absence of a compelling physical radix.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The open question remains, How do living systems acquire form, logically, physically, geometrically and algebraically? A priori.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Cheers</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Jerry</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 7, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Marcus Abundis <<a href="mailto:55mrcs@gmail.com" class="">55mrcs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><div class="">Hi Loet,</div><div class=""> Thank you for your Fri Jul 1 post: </div><div class="">> to define information as “a difference which makes a <</div><div class="">> difference”. . both differences have to be specified.<</div><div class="">> Differences(1) can make a difference(2) for a system of <</div><div class="">> reference (receiver). <</div><div class="">• This is surely correct! This also aligns with what the video presents – that “differences themselves must be differentiated” (also Bateson), framed via metadata (data about data). But the video enlarges this view by naming four minimal needed differences (delta O [object], delta S [subject], delta Q [expansion],and delta x [reduction]) to infer a universal (evolving) model of information. But then I am struck by your post’s last line:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">>The idea that one can reconcile two analytical different <</div><div class="">> concept in a “universal” theory is mistaken.<</div><div class="">• I am unsure of what you mean here. Do you assert that an UTI is *per se* impossible? Or do you mean *at least* two distinct analytic concepts must be presented beside each other, in a complementary manner? The “impossible view” I disagree with, and I claim this is a psychological problem in how one frames their model (type theory is the answer). A “two concept” view I agree with, which I show as natural material duality (dual aspect: delta O & delta S) . . . but then one must go further to accommodate evolution – hence, four minimal modeled differences.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">• Again, I wonder *just how much* we agree and disagree – of course, as you say, there is no “cosmic commandment” saying that we must agree. Still, I hope to understand the details of any specific differences (pun wholly intended) that do arise.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Dear Pedro,</div><div class=""> Your 29 June post notes an old session on Mechanics. I examined the archives (<a href="http://fis-mail.sciforum.net/" class="">http://fis-mail.sciforum.net</a>) for such a session and all I found was four brief entries that begin with:</div><div class="">> Re: mechanics vs. info Erdi Peter (Tue 23 Feb 1999) <</div><div class="">• Those entries did not offer much detail. Did you have another session in mind? Also, you close your last post:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">> sorry if this was a disruption, but your discussion <</div><div class="">> invites [one] to transgress the boundaries. <</div><div class="">• To an extent, this is true. But I also note, and briefly typify, this “difficulty” (e.g., order vs. disorder) in the introductory text. Further, a “UTI impossible” view noted in my reply to Loet seems plausible only when emphasizing “higher-order” roles. Thus, I stress an *a priori* model – which emphasizes a more-simplified view.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">• I say a bit more – a priori views demand something “well informed” individuals may find hard. A “beginners mind” is needed (from meditation), or an “intellectual innocence,” even if we never truly “forget what we know.” A *humble* view denies the detailed expertise most of us are trained in. “Expertise” also hinders true trans-disciplinary views. This is all part of the Cultural Legacy that we inherit and that I pointed to in my earlier post re Shannon’s usage of “information.” I will say a bit more on this in another post.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regardless, Loet and Pedro, I sincerely thank you both for your thoughts.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Marcus</div><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-size:14px;font-family:proxima-nova-1,proxima-nova-2,Tahoma,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif;vertical-align:baseline;border-spacing:0px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:18px" class=""><tbody style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline" class=""><tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline" class=""><td style="padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-size:0px;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:auto;height:30px" class=""><br class=""></td></tr><tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline" class=""><td style="padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:auto" class=""><br class=""></td></tr><tr style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline" class=""><td style="padding:0px;border:0px;outline:0px;font-style:inherit;font-size:0px;font-family:inherit;vertical-align:baseline;width:auto;height:20px" class=""><br class=""></td></tr></tbody></table>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Fis mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" class="">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br class="">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>