<div dir="ltr"><div>This is Part Two of the Letter to Jerry ("Shannon and the Tautomat")</div><div><br></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i><span style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB">Does the
same hypothesis, the same critical concept, apply to the neighboring concept of
real scientific information, that is, the natural forms of scientific
information as used by working scientists (physicists, engineers, chemists,
biologists, physicians, ecologists, and other specialists)? Is this a conundrum?
Or, it merely a matter of "getting the physics right”?<span></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">In the last few generations I had the enjoyment to watch, there was a
movement to the<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>subjectification of reality. There
is less talk nowadays about the Principle to which one has to subject himself.
If the Great Idea, which is independent of today’s small despairs and hopes,
goes through dead bodies to show us its supreme merits, it is received with
more suspicion than in my parents’ and grandparents’ times. Similarly, it used
to be that Physics rules supreme. After the discoveries of the last centuries,
it was natural that the measuring scientists believed they had figured out the
answers. in actual fact, it seems, Physics is subject to Mathematics is subject
to Logic is subject to Philosophy is subject to Physiology is subject to Regulation
Theory (formerly known as Theology). No, unfortunately, it is now the theory of
Physics that has to re-adjust to the facts coming from life sciences, just like
these had to give up long-held dogmata after being repeatedly shown facts of
evidence. The table has turned now. The fact is that you cannot procreate
unless some circumstances are ideal. The requirements of maintaining an ideal
surrounding leads to requirements relating to ordered changes in the
environment (that the changes that come – e.g. by tide and daylight rhythms –
will happen in an ordered way, where all the rules that come from <i>a=a </i>are
observed) and that the elements are complying with the changes in the
surrounding environment. Therefore the surrounding environment has to be made
up such that it obeys laws that govern well ordered assemblies that undergo
changes. Sorting pictures the ranking of elements of a set according to a
property (e.g. being well prepared for cold/drought/predators, etc.)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Sorting things around and reordering them again, and watching the
patterns they make as they follow the rules of combinatorics, one discovers
that whatever small thing it is that consists of two parts, in an idealised
assembly, under external influences the elements will group up, spontaneously,
because it is in their nature to react so. Please watch the exciting life of
elements of a set while being reordered. One can educate himself massively on
the subject of ‘order’ by playing with his tautomat. Like playing with a
general version of the Rubik cube. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Had our culture allowed concepts of individuality of elements as the
basis of Logic and therefore of Arithmetic and all her descendants, we would
live in a different society. It could not have happened before our times
anyway, because one needs computers to delineate and concretise the concepts
that we discuss. We have now the technical means to sing about the heroics of
the little individual Dinge an sich; what we need now is the inner permission
to be curious. Some songs will sound familiar to professionals: there are
charms, up and down jumpers, spinners, bosoms, muons and some more. The
individual Dinge are quite flexible: in dependence of external influences, they
will match up with distinctly separate gangs of other individual Dinge,
therefore taking part in several great adventures. The problem is that you do
not need to excavate a huge circular tunnel with the circumference of a great
number of kilometres, so a small city’s worth of well-paid professionals will
not earn their bread, once people say, well one can figure that out much
cheaper! Bring me <i>n</i> urns and <i>n</i> balls, <i>d </i>colors, some
robots and a few scribes and you will see what particles build up a unit (the
term <i>particle </i>in itself is an authoritarian one, imposing identity on
the object named by suggesting it is a part, a small one, of a greater Ding. It
is otherwise: the greater is built up of the parts, not the smaller gets
created by misadventures of the Whole. Let us stay with Kant, it is the Ding an
sich, but now, ready for a spin out in the world, painted in two colors. These
coloured things team up for some moments for some tasks, and some of them stay
together for very long, but the world is not a collection of fragments of a
broken Ultimate Whole.)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i><span style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB">By the way,
I would argue that the clarity of the status of matter, i.e., the chemical
table of elements and their compositions, augmented by a huge range of physical
measurements that span variables from all physical units of measure, is vastly
clearer than any theory of physics.<span></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i><span style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB">Does not the
theory of wave mechanics emanate from the physics of atoms and composites? Or,
shall we simply agree that the relationships from between physical theories
form a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”;</span></i><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> “The union
of units unite the unity."</span></i><i><span style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB"><span></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">The chemical elements are logical archetypes. That they exist and that
they have such characteristics, which allow them to be grouped in several ways
into types, is beyond any question. They are part of the setup. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Let us discuss a large warehouse with many items that are subject to
seasonal fluctuations of demand. The inner logistics of the warehouse has to
keep up with optimising the retrieval costs by re-arranging the contents such
that the most often sold product shall be the closest to the packaging area.
Now we state two hypothesises: 1) if the warehouse is not optimised, pileups,
traffic jams, are to be expected among delivery boys fetching the merchandise,
2) the actions of optimising the warehouse contribute to the inner traffic of
the warehouse, and by that means cause pileups, traffic jams, are to be
expected among delivery boys fetching the merchandise. The quantity and the
quality (type, constituents) of the pileups will differ, but pileups will come
into existence. Some points in space are more sought after than other points
(entrance and exit of the warehouse). The pileups are distinguishable. These
are what is called chemical elements. We are playing presently with interference
patterns coming from the two differing sub-segments of the common space, but
arranging playing-card type pictures of triangles intersecting each other is a
very time-consuming hobby. Anyone interested in naturally generated hiccups and
pileups in theoretical space?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Now the time has come to go beyond
answering your questions and offering a concept which can clarify the relation
between the special case (Shannon) and the general system. This relates to the
sadly neglected topic of the cuts.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">As we have learnt that 5 is 1+1+1+1+1, we
have seen this demonstrated on the number line, with cuts creating the unit
distances. Then we have learnt that 2+3=5. We have seen two and then three
units placed alongside each other and we have counted that these are indeed
five. What we neglected to ask, is the following: what happened to that noble
and valiant Cut of the Second Class that formerly separated the Two from the
Three? Had it been demoted to a simple, unimportant, common Cut First Class?
Does this little inexactitude not come back and hunt us as a mysterious vanity
of Nature?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Shannon keeps the deep silence of one who
has ridden roughshod across the Society of Cuts. Not so us.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">We account for the cuts very exactly,
because it is them who determine the structure of the set. If you have a Cut of
Class {(2,(7,4,3),/insert funny notation here/, etc. } (that is a cut that
separates two from among seven of which 4 are in 1 more group and 3 in 2 more
groups) being different from a Cut of Class {8,(11,7,0,5)}, then you can keep
count of the cuts and keeping count of the states of the set is more or less
superfluous. If you have a usual distribution of the types of cuts, then the
actual measurement (experience) can be compared to that, on the level of the
messages about cuts, which more or less exactly describes the state of the set.
The additional advantage of bookkeeping the cuts is that they translate into
First Class cuts, if the need arises to become linearised. If we play with 136
puppets (as is the most reasonable way to do), Shannon has 136 cuts that are
all alike. The tautomat generates a varied diversity of cuts that are a
description of the set’s state. If we match each state of the tautomat to one
of the states of Shannon, we see that in the intervals 1-32 and 97-135ff
Shannon has more alternatives to carry messages expressed by the state of the
set that numbers <i>n</i> elements. Within the range of 33-96 however, with a
peak at 67, up to 3.4 times more alternatives are there for the state to have
states in its form (reading) as a complete assembly than as a sequenced
collection of elements. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Information is a description of the
remaining alternatives. The remaining alternatives do not exist in this moment
/they remain/. This is the reason the birth of the concept is so much of
endless pain and futile efforts. In logic it is strictly forbidden to talk
about things that do not exist. Maybe one can help with the idea that we talk
about the cuts, because the cuts do exist. Their biodiversity has not been
addressed yet. The cuts appear to be the origami mechanism that unfolds from a
linear order into an elaborate composition. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">The last point is a reassuring thought: we
already do have a very detailed table of all possible collections of cuts – of group
boundaries – which come from the elements’ belonging-to to cycles. It looks
promising to investigate, how the collection of cuts does not change if the set
is linearised. It appears that the cuts are the actual carriers of information,
as they detail, which alternatives remain, and this independently of linear or
spatial neighbourhood.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Thank you for addressing by your questions
some interesting topics.<a name="_GoBack"></a> </span></p>
</div><div>Karl<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 15:51 Uhr schrieb Karl Javorszky <<a href="mailto:karl.javorszky@gmail.com">karl.javorszky@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>The following is Part 1 of a two-parts piece</div><div><br></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB">Dear Jerry,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB">Thank you
for the insightful questions. I shall work them through:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB">What are the
objectives of the inquiry into the scientific nature of information? It seems
that the very name, FIS, suggests that Shannon information is insufficient for scientific
information. One might ask “Why”? Is it because of the nature
of matter? Do the constraints on the nature of matter the boundary of the
concept of information? </span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB"><span></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">The problem with the classical concept – now known as the Shannon
concept - of information is not relating to that what Shannon does impeccably
well. We discuss here an extension to the Shannon system, by 1. Showing it to
be a special case, and 2. Placing it in a more general framework. The urge to
do this comes not from Shannon doing anything wrong, but from our wish to
understand why Nature uses 3 places, on each place 1 token of 4, to transmit
information. In the Shannon world, words in a sentence have no inner relations
to each other. We see however, that the system only functions (the organism
only lives) if the words are in a specific succession. Nature employs an inner
web of rules that governs the permissibility of some logical statements
(specific triplets) on some places. We are looking for the inner thread that
strings the possible logical statements one after the other, according to a
rule. This rule we want to make easily understandable. Shannon does not talk
about this subject, because in his view, each place can be filled up by {0,1},
independently of the content of preceding or subsequent carrier units transmitting
the message.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB">One aspect
of Shannon information is that it requires that the transmissible form of
information be represented in terms of bits and bytes. Indeed, bits
and bytes are the only permissible forms of representation of Shannon
information. The units of Shannon information are numeric of indefinite
magnitude, are they not? As numeric units, Shannon units are unbounded in scale
and are unlimited in scope. This fact that Shannon information can represent
unbounded scales (magnitudes) is one key element of the wildly successful
theory</span></i><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB">.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Shannon sees the alternatives to be lined up, one statement of {0,1}
following the next until all <i>n</i> units are either 0 or 1. We however look
at the whole collection of <i>n</i> elements, not concentrating on their <i>sequence</i>
but on their <i>structure</i>. The term structure describes the sentences of
the form: <i>among all n, <i> are in the most numerous subset and
<j> are in the second most numerous subset and <k> are in both of
these and among the <k>, <q> are such that they also belong to the
<f>-th most numerous subset too. </i>Etc. etc. It is debatable, how many
of these overlap-describing sentences can coexist, but this is what we look
into.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">(Example: we conduct a marketing sweep over a population and will find
out, how many married women in the age bracket 30-35 are concurrently running a
car and donate to a poverty cause.) After generalising the marketing
manoeuvres, one will arrive at a web of boundaries delineating elements against
other elements while including them also in subsets with other elements. For
lack of a better word, one may propose the overlapping inclusion/exclusion
boundaries generated by belonging-to in their entirety as the <i>structure</i>
of the collection. As we regard the structure of the collection, it is – at
first – irrelevant, where the elements are, and who their neighbours in a
linear line-up would be.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB">Another
aspect of information is the scope of the meanings of information. What are the
limits on the scope of Shannon information? How are the scope of the bits
and bytes represented in the the theory? Is the scope of a Shannon message
constrained numerically in any way? If so, how is the scope of
information represented in a Shannon message?</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB"><span></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB">The Shannon
hypothesis of Information is that all communication can be encoded into
transmissible forms of numbers that contain the message.</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB"><span></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">All carriers and methods of carrying messages are basically a match of a
state of the set to a number on <b>N</b>. How many different messages can be
transmitted is determined by a setup of {carriers, symbols, rules [of
writing/reading the symbols on the carriers]}. To transmit Q different
messages, one may need <i>k </i>carrier objects if one uses <i>s</i> different
symbols and uses the rules of reading the carriers {sequentially, commutatively}.
The Shannon method is the simplest, therefore the most practical, by using 2
symbols (black/white, full/empty, 0/1, etc.) and reading them in a sequence. Shannon
uses what is in the art world <i>méthode brutaliste</i>. It is great,
applicable and faultless, does what it should, but it is neither optimal, nor
sophisticated. You cannot beat Shannon for straightforwardness, identification
precision, practicability for very simple machines. What you can compete on is
efficacy and intelligence based on comparisons and similarities.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Let me digress into the world of spy-craft and invent a devilishly
cunning opponent. He used to send his messages to his agents here, very well-built
agents, by the way, by sending them necklaces of <i>n </i>pearls. Our able
colleagues in the field have always found an opportunity to secure the necklace
and we discovered that on each of the pearls a small number was etched. The
numbers went 1 thru <i>n</i>. It looked as if the jeweller had selected <i>n</i>
pearls and enumerated them, which would be reasonable. What we figured out,
however, was that the pearls were not in that sequence on the ficelle as the indication
had suggested: their sequence was always different. So, we went to hunt for,
and found a deciphering book which unveiled: 365412: declare war 243156: offer
more bribes and many more of the sinister machinations of our eternal foe. We
immediately made sure that during some routine controls, the string of the
necklace got unhappily torn, and the pearls were restored on a new ficelle,
with profound excuses from us.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">All were happy in the Department, until we found out that the lady no
more received pearls but flacons of exquisite perfume that contained
miraculously also always <i>n</i> distinguishable chemical compounds. (If they
had used wine, they would have mixed distinguishable chateaux.) It was now the
proportion of the ingredients among each other that they cunningly used as a
method of identifying an element of <b>N</b>. We could gain only a fragment of
the deciphering book, where the rules said: if the moisturising ingredient is
more than the orange fragrance ingredient and the glycerine content does not
exceed the fatty acids of free radicals, then: talk about a treaty with his
neighbour, if the relation of the two most common ingredients exceeds the
relation of the fourth to the fifth most common ingredients, then: offer to
cooperate in mining, and so forth, always a changing composition of the fluid
matched to a number on <b>N</b>. Then they added insult to injury and went back
to pearls but added dispersed differing symbols to the pearls, and had the
cheek to present us the pearls in a pouch and saying this saves us the trouble <i>de
rompre la ficelle</i>. Obviously, it is more trouble to handle actual materials
with microscopes and measurement equipment than to handle pearls of a necklace
onto each of which one etches as many symbols as one wishes. This was an
unusual and fascinating challenge for us, but we were at loss, because we have
internalised at the age of 7 the implicit instructions of Teacher alongside
with her explicit instructions about what to do if we see an <i>a</i> and a <i>b</i>
together. Implicitly, there was a sneer at those who did other things with <i>a</i>
and <i>b</i> than add them up to <i>c</i> like everybody who has understood
what is important and what is to be focused. Teacher discouraged implicitly,
between the lines, doing anything else with charming <i>a</i> and handsome <i>b
</i><span>but adding them up into <i>c</i>.</span>
We had just too much engrained the habits of dwellers in our caves, watching
the passing shadows which Fate ordered to pass before the entrance of the cave.
We would never have played ourselves alone, on our own volition, on the
instruction of no one from above or outside, being in a cave, with reflectors,
human-sized puppets of pairs and cameras and their positions, generating our
own shadows and discussing what we see. That would have been wandering off the
right path of how one has been instructed to think. We were desperate.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Then we called in the reptiles from Bletchley Park. At that time, they still
had some basic science people there working on the theory of messages
transmission, specifically the cryptology aspect of it, so they could offer us
some useful hints that helped us along. (In Vienna, it so everyday to talk in
double meanings, and to talk in dialect is to belong to the speakers of that
dialect, and cryptography is just the question of how private a dialect can
get, until only two people understand it, and all these aspects have caused
Wittgenstein to occupy himself with the clear message, not the purposefully
hidden one.) They pointed out that indeed there is an advantage in presenting
the pearls of a necklace in a pouch as opposed to lined up, <b>if the sender
uses between 32 and 97 pearls. </b>They even pointed out that using roughly 11
elements sequenced, 6 times concurrently, while reading the assembly of 66
elements as a whole, as a complete collection, would allow information
compression and de-packaging. Nature appears to use this method of translating
3x4x6 roughly into 64 which again points to one in 20, which is sequenced
again. They said, there is a sleeper cell, sleeping quite professionally,
somewhere in Zaragoza <i>(où a été trouvé le fameux manuscrit)</i>, but
actually everywhere on the planet. One hears that the principal statement of this
radical group - they profess allegiance to their faith that there are two
independent or more-or-less-independent logical systems at work – is actually
totally public in the Online Encyclopaedia of Integer Sequences. <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Follows Part Two<br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span></span></span></p>
</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am So., 20. Okt. 2019 um 08:47 Uhr schrieb Bruno Marchal <<a href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be" target="_blank">marchal@ulb.ac.be</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi Jerry, Hi colleagues,<div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 19 Oct 2019, at 07:18, Jerry LR Chandler <<a href="mailto:jerry_lr_chandler@me.com" target="_blank">jerry_lr_chandler@me.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><div><br></div><div>This re-posted because the first sending was not distributed.<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Begin forwarded message:</div><br><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif">Jerry LR Chandler <<a href="mailto:jerry_lr_chandler@icloud.com" target="_blank">jerry_lr_chandler@icloud.com</a>><br></span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif"><b>Re: [Fis] FIS discussions</b><br></span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif">October 13, 2019 at 10:56:19 PM CDT<br></span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif"><a href="mailto:annette.grathoff@is4si.org" target="_blank">annette.grathoff@is4si.org</a><br></span></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,sans-serif"><b>Cc: </b></span><span style="font-family:-webkit-system-font,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,sans-serif">fis <<a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a>><br></span></div><br><div><div>Dear Annette, List <br><div><br style="font-size:15px"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size:15px">On Oct 13, 2019, at 4:04 PM, <a href="mailto:annette.grathoff@is4si.org" target="_blank">annette.grathoff@is4si.org</a> wrote:</div><br style="font-size:15px"><div><p style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,"Trebuchet MS";font-size:15px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration:none">The next huge difficulty (connected to the unclear status of matter) is to model the influence of<span> </span><em>what makes a difference</em><span> </span>on relationships which enable matter. Threshold levels are nice, but how can the quality of relationships be in-formed through the special quality (pattern) carried and transmitted by<span> </span><em>a difference which makes a difference</em>? Philosophy helps us in understanding how meaningful communication can develop in contextual environments and Sociology hints to connections between meaningfulness and stability respectively cooperation and trust. But this both is observed in very highly developed systems and provides little help for understanding more basic dynamics. Regarding those, I bet on wave mechanics to promote our basic knowledge here (but you know that I got very involved in this in my project, so bias is not excluded).</p><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div><font size="4">What are the objectives of the inquiry into the scientific nature of information? It seems that the very name, FIS, suggests that Shannon information is insufficient for scientific information. One might ask “Why”? Is it because of the nature of matter? Do the constraints on the nature of matter the boundary of the concept of information? </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">One aspect of Shannon information is that it requires that the transmissible form of information be represented in terms of bits and bytes. Indeed, bits and bytes are the only permissible forms of representation of Shannon information. The units of Shannon information are numeric of indefinite magnitude, are they not? As numeric units, Shannon units are unbounded in scale and are unlimited in scope. This fact that Shannon information can represent unbounded scales (magnitudes) is one key element of the wildly successful theory.</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Another aspect of information is the scope of the meanings of information. What are the limits on the scope of Shannon information? How are the scope of the bits and bytes represented in the the theory? Is the scope of a Shannon message constrained numerically in any way? If so, how is the scope of information represented in a Shannon message?</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">The Shannon hypothesis of Information is that all communication can be encoded into transmissible forms of numbers that contain the message.</font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>How would you relate Shannon hypothesis with the hypothesis of Digital Mechanism in the cognitive science (aka philosophy of mind, aka theology of numbers)?</div><div><br></div><div>I would say that Shannon hypothesis, as you define it, implies the Mechanist hypothesis. In that case the whole of physics becomes a branch of arithmetic (including meta-arithmetic). </div><div><br></div><div>The difference which makes all difference, in that case, is the difference between 0 and 1, or it is the difference between the combinators S and K, or any difference making a structure into a universal machinery in Turing’s sense.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Does the same hypothesis, the same critical concept, apply to the neighboring concept of real scientific information, that is, the natural forms of scientific information as used by working scientists (physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, physicians, ecologists, and other specialists)?</font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No. As all computations are executed in the arithmetical reality, physics becomes a perspectival statistics on all computations, and this entails that matter is NOT Turing emulable. Digital Mechanism makes Digital physicalism impossible. Arithmetic determines a differentiating flux of consciousness, but the statistics cannot make matter entirely Turing emulable. If “I” can survive with a digital virtual body, then my body cannot be Turing emulable, as it is determined by a statistics on a non computable domain. No machine can determine which machines support her, and its body is determined by all computations going through its current relative state. You can derive the quantum logics from this.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><span style="font-size:large"> Is this a conundrum?</span></div><div><font size="4">Or, it merely a matter of "getting the physics right”?</font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Physics has to be justified from a theory of information, in its large sense of “theory of consciousness”.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:large">By the way, I would argue that the clarity of the </span><font size="4">status of matter, i.e., the chemical table of elements and their compositions, augmented by a huge range of physical measurements that span variables from all physical units of measure, is vastly clearer than any theory of physics. </font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"> Does not the theory of wave mechanics emanate from the physics of atoms and composites? Or, shall we simply agree that the relationships from between physical theories form a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”</font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Assuming Mechanism, everything (quanta and qualia) arise from elementary arithmetic, or from elementary combinator theory (or from any other universal machinery). It happens that the two SK equations of the combinator theory are enough:</div><div><br></div><div>Kxy = x</div><div>Sxyz = xz(yz)</div><div><br></div><div>+ some identity axioms, but no need of logics (!). Well, we add often the difference axiom S ≠ K, to avoid the trivial combinatory algebra with one unique identity combinator, as III = I, and IIII = (II)II trivially.</div><div><br></div><div>Then we can prove (using logic) that without assuming at least one universal machinery (like the numbers, or the combinators) we cannot get anyone of them. With assuming any of them, we get them all, and their many interaction, conflicts, quantum physical realities, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>We are back at Pythagorus, when we assume Mechanism, or Shannon hypothesis, I would say. But with Church’s thesis and computer science, that is also much more than Pythagorus. It is basically the whole neoplatonist theology up to Damascius.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Bruno</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Cheers</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">Jerry</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4">“The union of units unite the unity."</font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div><div><font size="4"><br></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>----------<br>INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL<br><br>Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.<br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>----------<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>