<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.19567" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Francesco and All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The implications of your note go far beyond
scientific communication as such, but we can start here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. Francesco, you are entirely right to 'open up'
the otherwise inert standard concepts of probability to include a qualitative
(subjective-objective) component. You also point correctly to the limitations of
standard mathematics in expressing complex phenomena such as economic
evolution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. I also agree that there is a tight (and
'unholy') relationship between standard concepts of logic and philosophy and the
neo-capitalist system in which we have the dubious privilege of being
immersed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. I would just suggest that fuzzy logic as it is
generally understood, including the neutrosophic logic of Smarandache,
remains a linguistic system and is still incapable of capturing the dynamics of
real processes. So far, the only logic I have found that can describe the
dialectics of the dynamic evolution of such processes is that of Stéphane
Lupasco, which I have reworked as Logic in Reality (LIR).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have just attended a Conference on 'Logic and
Probability'. I was disappointed, but not surprised, that for this group logic
means only standard bivalent, Boolean logic and probability means only standard
Kolmogorovian probability (limits [0,1]). LIR, I suggest, deserves more
attention because it can talk about non-linguistic logic, non-Boolean algebra,
and non-Kolmogorovian probabilities ([>0, <1]), one of which could be
Francesco's. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Comments wlecome.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joseph</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com
href="mailto:13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com">Francesco Rizzo</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=johnsonmwj1@gmail.com
href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com">Mark Johnson</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Cc:</B> <A title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 30, 2016 7:43 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] Scientific communication</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Caro Mark e cari tutti,
<DIV>non è facile esporre in poche parole una concezione economica diversa da
quella ritenuta "normale". Non v'è altro modo di comprendere una "Nuova
economia" che di leggere i vari saggi che raccontano la sua storia, analisi e
critica. </DIV>
<DIV>Qui posso dire che la mia teoria del valore è basata sulla legge
dell'INFORMAZIONE come processo che tende a dare o (far)perdere forma a
qualunque idea o cosa. Sicché acquista rilevanza la FORMA DEL VALORE o VALORE
DELLA FORMA di tutto ciò che viene creato o prodotto. Negli anni passati nella
rete Fis abbiamo discusso sul PROCESSO DI TRAS-INFORMAZIONE di cui v'ha
traccia su Internet.</DIV>
<DIV>I fatti o fenomeni economici, compresi i prezzi, non possono essere
espressi mediante la DISTRIBUZIONE GAUSSIANA O MATEMATICI-FREQUENTISTA, bensì
con la GEOMETRIA O LOGICA FRATTALE (Rizzo F.,"Il giudizio del valore",
1972).</DIV>
<DIV>Il giudizio del valore è basato sul VALORE NORMALE DAL PUNTO DI VISTA
SOGGETTIVO, cioè implica una PROBABILIT° SOGGETTIVA O PSICOLOGICA che non è
legata ad un fatto o evento (PROBABILITA' OGGETTIVA: fatti favorevoli/fatti
possibili), ma a un giudizio o proposizione che muta al variare del SISTEMA DI
CONOSCENZE posseduto (PROBABILITA' EPISTEMICA O SOGGETTIVA di J. M. Keynes
e Bruno de Finetti).</DIV>
<DIV>Questo significa che il giudizio di valore è basato su un RAPPORTO DI
COMPLEMENTARITA' tra i beni e gli operatori economici di volta in volta
considerati.</DIV>
<DIV>Inoltre non bisogna trascurare la LOGICA O FILOSOFIA O INCERTEZZA FUZZY,
secondo cui un valore o prezzo ha la probabilità di verificarsi al 30% e la
probabilità di non verificarsi al 70%: il che non significa che si può
verificare 30 volte interamente su le 100 volte possibili e viceversa, bensì che
ogni stesso o unico elemento ha probabilità di verificarsi parzialmente o in una
certa misura, non esattamente. Quindi sono gli elementi degli insiemi, non gli
insiemi stessi ad essere FUZZY. Ad es., nella mia TEORIA DEL CAPITALE O DELLA
CAPITALIZZAZIONE, il valore di un bene capitale è funzione di due componenti
prese in proporzioni diverse: la capitalizzazione del flusso dei redditi attesi
o capitalizzazione della LIQUIDITA' O MONETITA' ESPLICITA e la capitalizzazione
della LIQUIDITA' O MONETITA' IMPLICITA.</DIV>
<DIV>Sono consapevole che le cose dette così risultano apodittiche, dogmatiche,
probabilmente incomprensibili (in senso soggettivo) in ragione delle conoscenze
di scienza economica-estimativa acquisite. Ma non v'è alternativa, se non quella
di studiare l'economia attraverso la lettura dei libri e degli articoli: i soli
articoli delle riviste non bastano. Lo stesso dicasi per quanto riguarda
l'apprendimento-assimilazione della NUOVA ECONOMIA che ho elaborato in 50 anni
di ricerca ed è contenuta in una trentina di libri.</DIV>
<DIV>Se qualcuno mi ha seguito, lo ringrazio; mentre mi scuso con coloro ai
quali questa mail non appare chiara.</DIV>
<DIV>Un saluto augurale e affettuoso.</DIV>
<DIV>Francesco</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2016-10-30 1:34 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com"
target=_blank>johnsonmwj1@gmail.com</A>></SPAN>:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Dear
Michel,<BR><BR>I'm mindful that we're breaking the rules of the forum so I
will<BR>follow this up off-list, but I think this is worth mentioning to
the<BR>group.<BR><BR>The starting point is a diagram, or a sequence of
diagrams - certainly<BR>that's most appropriate for a systems theoretical
approach like<BR>Keen's. Can you draw some pictures to explain your
understanding? With<BR>a series of diagrams, a voice-over is easy to add.
(Occasionally I<BR>start with the voice, and add the pictures)<BR><BR>I also
want to say that sometimes this process is a sticking point for<BR>people,
because the precision of diagrams is much more demanding than<BR>the looseness
of words: often when we start to draw something, we can<BR>see weaknesses in
our position. Then it can become a matter of 'fight<BR>or flight': does one
resist exposing potential weaknesses in one's<BR>position, and retreat back
into the world of the academic paper and<BR>words, or does one draw the
diagram anyway and acknowledge its<BR>limitations and assumptions? I am
clearly encouraging people to do the<BR>latter, not least because I think
exposing the limitations of a<BR>position is the most important thing to
communicate in an uncertain<BR>world!<BR><BR>Best
wishes,<BR><BR>Mark<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>On 29 October 2016 at 17:31, Michel
Godron <<A href="mailto:migodron@wanadoo.fr">migodron@wanadoo.fr</A>>
wrote:<BR>> Dear Mark,<BR>><BR>> It would certainly be interesting to
prepare a video. But how to make it ?<BR>><BR>> My contribution would be
marginal : I can only explain (in french and you<BR>> would translate, as
Richard Forman did for Landscape Ecology) why the ideas<BR>> of Keen are
parallel with the main ecological models on the role of<BR>> informatioo in
biology (La vie est une transmission et une gestion de<BR>> l'information
qui permet à chaque être vivant et à chaque communaué d'êtres<BR>> vivants
- y compris l'humanité - de survivre).<BR>><BR>>
Cordialement.<BR>> M. Godron<BR>
<DIV class=HOEnZb>
<DIV class=h5>> Le 29/10/2016 à 15:25, Mark Johnson a écrit
:<BR>><BR>> Dear Michel,<BR>><BR>> Ok. Steve Keen has been close
to Tony Lawson's work (he presented Minsky at<BR>> Lawson's conference last
year) - he's a supporter of his broad thesis,<BR>> although obviously he's
done more mathematical modelling which Lawson has<BR>> some possibly valid
objections to. They've had some fascinating critical<BR>>
exchanges.<BR>><BR>> This blog by Steve is interesting -<BR>> <A
href="http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/13775327-the-need-for-pluralism-in-economics"
target=_blank
rel=noreferrer>http://www.goodreads.com/<WBR>author_blog_posts/13775327-<WBR>the-need-for-pluralism-in-<WBR>economics</A><BR>><BR>>
Hayek is in the mix, as is perhaps a shared disdain for Stiglitz and
co.<BR>><BR>> I like Steve's work, and his prediction of the crisis is
good, and (relevant<BR>> to this discussion) I like the fact that his
simulation tool Minsky is<BR>> freely available for download here: <A
href="https://sourceforge.net/projects/minsky/" target=_blank
rel=noreferrer>https://sourceforge.net/<WBR>projects/minsky/</A><BR>><BR>>
So, to come back to my original comment... It's possible to explain
this<BR>> stuff with video, isn't it?...<BR>><BR>> Best
wishes,<BR>><BR>> Mark<BR>>
______________________________<WBR>__<BR>> From: Michel Godron<BR>>
Sent: 29/10/2016 14:06<BR>> To: Mark Johnson<BR>> Subject: Re: [Fis]
Scientific communication<BR>><BR>> Dear Mark,<BR>><BR>> You write
: "I'm guessing you are thinking of the line of thought from<BR>> Hayek to
Stiglitz?" It is not at all my way. Among the economists I<BR>> shoud be
rather in agreement with Keen and Minsky (I could send some<BR>> pages
explaining (in french) why.<BR>><BR>> Cordialement. M.
Godron<BR>> Le 29/10/2016 à 14:22, Mark Johnson a écrit :<BR>>> I'm
guessing you are thinking of the line of thought from Hayek to<BR>>>
Stiglitz?<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR></DIV></DIV><SPAN class="im HOEnZb">>
______________________________<WBR>_________________<BR>> Fis mailing
list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR>> <A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target=_blank
rel=noreferrer>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<WBR>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>Dr.
Mark William Johnson<BR>Institute of Learning and Teaching<BR>Faculty of
Health and Life Sciences<BR>University of Liverpool<BR><BR></SPAN>
<DIV class=HOEnZb>
<DIV class=h5>Phone: 07786 064505<BR>Email: <A
href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com">johnsonmwj1@gmail.com</A><BR>Blog: <A
href="http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com" target=_blank
rel=noreferrer>http://dailyimprovisation.<WBR>blogspot.com</A><BR><BR>______________________________<WBR>_________________<BR>Fis
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR><A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target=_blank
rel=noreferrer>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<WBR>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></BODY></HTML>