<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body><div><div style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Dear Karl,<br><br>You've communicated *your* kaleidoscope rather wonderfully. Thank you!<br><br>I shall look into it...<br><br>Best wishes,<br><br>Mark</div></div><div dir="ltr"><hr><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">From: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:karl.javorszky@gmail.com">Karl Javorszky</a></span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Sent: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">12/02/2018 14:36</span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">To: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com">Mark Johnson</a></span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Cc: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"><a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis</a></span><br><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold;">Subject: </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on thecateogry theory</span><br><br></div><div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span lang="DE-AT">Kaleidoscope,
Wittgenstein<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span lang="DE-AT"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span lang="DE-AT">Dear Mark,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span lang="DE-AT"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>thank you for your two questions. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span><span>1)<span style='font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;'> </span></span></span>Kaleidoscope<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>The term “kaleidoscope” is used to signify a complex thing
that gives different pictures. The toy appears to produce an unlimited number of
different pictures to the casual user. In fact, there is a maximal number of
different pictures that can be produced, although this may not be immediately evident
to every child.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>The term kaleidoscope was used to draw your attention to the
manifold pictures that natural numbers generate when – as a collection – reordered.
The diversity of pictures is indeed truly impressive. One may naively assume
that there is an endless number of variations that can appear. This is but a
subjective impression. In fact, if we deal with a limited number of
distinguishable objects – which we, for convenience’s sake, enumerate -, there
can appear only a limited number of different arrangements among these. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>How to generate cycles of expressions of (a,b) is as follows:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span><span>a)<span style='font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;'> </span></span></span>Maximal
numbers of elements in the kaleidoscope<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>We know that the optimal size – for information transmission
purposes – for a collection is 136 elements, of which around 66 carry
significant symbols. Therefore, we know also that no more than about 15
describing dimensions can be utilised to exhaustively describe a collection of
that many elements. (Collections with more than 140 elements cannot be described
consistently at all.) <span> </span>Please see: <a style="color: rgb(5, 99, 193); text-decoration: underline;" href="http://www.oeis.org/A242615.%20%20%20%0d">www.oeis.org/A242615.<span> </span><span> </span><span></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span><span>b)<span style='font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;'> </span></span></span>Generating
the sorted collection of arguments (a,b)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>We generate (a,b) by setting up two loops: <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>begin outer loop<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span> </span>a:1,16; <span> </span>/* why 16: see above */<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>write value a;<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>begin inner loop; <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>b: a,16 ;<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>write value b;<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>end inner loop; <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>end outer loop. /* This gives us a table with 136 rows and 2
columns */<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Then we sort the collection two times, once on (a,b), once
on (b,a). We note the sequential number of each of the elements in both of the
sorting orders. These we use to generate the cycles we are interested in (which
we later compare to other cycles, from other reorders, as we build a more
advanced version of the kaleidoscope). We see in this example cycles that
appear during reorders from <sequential position resulting from a sorting
operation where first sorting argument: a, second sorting argument: b> into <sequential
position resulting from a sorting operation where first sorting argument: b,
second sorting argument: a>. This classical introductory example and deictic
definition is published in <a style="color: rgb(5, 99, 193); text-decoration: underline;" href="http://www.oeis.org/A235647">www.oeis.org/A235647</a>.
<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Please use this basic version of the kaleidoscope. One can
add columns.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt 36pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span><span>2)<span style='font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;'> </span></span></span>Wittgenstein<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Sitting in a snowy place and the Winter Olympics taking
place right now, let me offer you my view of what Wittgenstein did in a parable
about ski racing.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Philosophers are skiing athletes. Wittgenstein is a mediocre
skier but a gifted mechanic. He introduces the concept of ski lifts to the
sporting society. The ski lifts are a great invention and further the practice
of skiing immensely. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>His co-athletes tell him, full of rightful indignation, that
inventing, describing and operating a ski lift is not a sporting achievement,
and falls definitely not under the term “skiing”. His results as an athlete are
Zero. <span> </span>He should be ashamed to try to
tout a ski lift as a result of skiing. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Wittgenstein, full of remorse, recants, agrees that ski
lifts have nothing to do with the sport of skiing, and later in his life makes
some irrelevant efforts of excellence in the sport <i>sensu stricto.</i><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Offering this audience of FIS participants:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>a) a kaleidoscope which is exactly defined and delivers breath-taking
pictures, <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>b) an epistemological tool which generates undisputable
facts about how <when, where, what and how much> are interdependent;
these facts are of a numeric nature and root in a kind of arithmetic, so much simple,
that there is a button on the screen of Excel for average users, enabling them
to execute the procedure;<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>this suggestion is outside of the subjects the scientists in
FIS are researching, like using a ski lift is outside of sport. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Accounting is not science. Forensic accounting makes life
easier if one likes precision and exactitude. If one is interested in how
place, number, amount translate into each other, here is a tool to study the
question. There is an accounting link connecting the concepts mentioned above.
It is multi-faceted and needs familiarisation – just like a kaleidoscope. This kaleidoscope
is made of numbers. Please risk the effort and take a look at it. If your
accountant says: this is worth looking into, it is usually reasonable to
actually dedicate some thought to the approach. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span> </span></p>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-02-12 10:46 GMT+01:00 Mark Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnsonmwj1@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;"><div dir="ltr">Dear Karl,<div><br></div><div>Do you really mean this?:</div><span><div>"<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">As we look into a kaleidoscope, the first step is to make sure</span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> </span><i style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">that</i><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">we all look at a kaleidoscope, and preferably the same one. The next task is to make sure that we all perceive the</span><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> </span><i style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">same picture</i><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">. As the kaleidoscope produces natural numbers, this should be a challenge that one can be expected to match. Only after it has been agreed that we all observe the same patterns is it reasonable to start discussing how to name the facts of perception."</span></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font></div></span><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;">I don't object to "looking at a kaleidoscope", but looking at the *same* kaleidoscope? How could we know? How is a kaleidoscope communicated?</span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;">Early Wittgenstein belonged to a philosophical tradition which was consumed by the idea of categories. In the Tractatus he sees (I think rightly) that the problems of philosophy result from confusion in language - but his approach is to "clarify" the categories and logic of language - which doesn't work. His later work is I think characterised by the insight that categories result from processes of conversation in ordinary language.</span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;">In cybernetics, we would say that the process that maintains a distinction is a transduction. If "my kaleidescope" and "your kaleidescope" are distinctions you and I make, then they result from transduction processes in me and you. If I was to say my kaleidescope is the same as yours, would I not have to know that my transduction process works in the same way as yours? Of course, I could just *say* it's the same without worrying about the details!</span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;">Transduction is a complicated affair. Wittgenstein said (Philosophical Investigations?... not sure) that if you saw a person performing a mathematical operation, you couldn't know exactly how they were thinking or if it was the same as your own thinking. Two sets of transducers may produce the same result but be fundamentally different underneath. </span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;">If I say that my kaleidescope is the same as your kaleidescope then I have created a new category of "the same kaleidescope". What's that but a new transduction? But is my "same" the same as your "same"...?</span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;">Best wishes,</span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;">Mark</span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14.66px;"><br></span></font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); text-transform: none; line-height: 15.69px; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; word-spacing: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;"><span></span></p><br class="m_-2130388500730225196gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 February 2018 at 18:36, Karl Javorszky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:karl.javorszky@gmail.com" target="_blank">karl.javorszky@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;"><div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Using the logical language to understand Nature<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>The discussion in this group refocuses on the meaning of the
terms “symbol”, “signal”, “marker” and so forth. This is a very welcome development,
because understanding the tools one uses is usually helpful when creating great
works. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>There is sufficient professional literature on epistemology,
logical languages and the development of philosophy into specific
sub-philosophies. The following is just an unofficial opinion, maybe it helps. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>Wittgenstein has created a separate branch within philosophy
by investigating the structure and the realm of true sentences. For this, he
has been mocked and ridiculed by his colleagues. Adorno, e.g. said that
Wittgenstein had misunderstood the job of a philosopher: to chisel away on the
border that separates that what can be explained and that what is opaque; not
to elaborate about how one can express truths that are anyway self-evident and
cannot be otherwise. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style='margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; line-height: 107%; font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;'>The Wittgenstein set of logical sentences are the rational
explanation of the world. That, which we can communicate about, we only can
communicate about, because both the words and what they mean are
self-referencing. It is true that nothing ever new, hair-raising or surprising
can come out of a logical discussion modi Wittgenstein, because every
participant can only point out truths that are factually true, and these have
always been true. There is no opportunity for discovery in rational thinking,
only for an unveiling of that what could have been previously known: like an archaeologist
can not be surprised</p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><br><div>[The entire original message is not included.]</div></body></html>