<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style style="display:none;">
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";
panose-1:2 11 6 2 3 5 4 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.xp1, li.xp1, div.xp1
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=FR link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>CM;
Something truly meaningless could exist in a place where there is no
constraint. <o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:black'>Christophe’s last lines get at the
heart of the matter: restated positively: something truly meaningful could
exist in a place <i><span style='font-style:italic'>only </span></i>in place
where there <i><span style='font-style:italic'>are</span></i> constraints.<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>CM:
Can a trend to increasing complexity be considered as a constraint for a post
big-bang universe?<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:black'>My answer is yes, but if the trend is
inherent in the universe, increasing complexity is a property of it. We are
thus in a teleological discussion of whether the ‘purpose’ of the
universe is to increase its complexity, as Gerhard Luhn has suggested. My
conclusion is that property and constraint are a dialectic pair, evolving, like
information, <i><span style='font-style:italic'>with </span></i>the unfiverse.<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:black'>Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=xs1><font size=3 color=black
face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:black'>Joseph</span></font></span><font size=2
color=navy face="Lucida Sans Unicode"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
Fis [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On
Behalf Of </span></b>Christophe Menant<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> dimanche, 20 septembre 2020
23:00<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Marcus Abundis;
fis@listas.unizar.es; Pedro C. Marijuan<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [Fis] Informatic
Principles (redux) – Reply to Christophe, Karl, and Francesco.</span></font><span
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=xp1 style='background:white'><span class=xs1><font size=3
color="#201f1e" face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#201F1E;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm'>Dear Marcus and dear
Pedro,</span></font></span><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
<br>
<span class=xs1>We all agree, I guess, that life manages meaningful
information. A drop of acid is meaningful for a paramecium who will get away to
satisfy a « stay alive » constraint. But at the core of the
meaning generation we do not find life, we find the constraint. It is the
constraint that justifies the reason of being of the meaning, that justifies
the action that will satisfy the constraint. It is the constraint that
justifies the fabricated difference by using the received difference. The
constraint is related to the nature of the agent: stay alive (individual &
species) for animals, look for happiness for humans, act as programmed for
robots. Meaning generation is not limited to life. The Meaning Generator System
is only a system (a set of elements linked by a set of relations). It can be
used for any system submitted to an internal constraint. </span><br>
<span class=xs1>And to perhaps answer your concern, Marcus, local constraints
can be a starting point for an analysis of « meaning » in a
pre-biotic universe, and also as source of agency, teleology, and autonomy (</span></span></font><a
href="https://philpapers.org/archive/MENICA-2.pdf"><span lang=EN-US>https://philpapers.org/archive/MENICA-2.pdf</span></a><span
class=xs1><font color="#201f1e"><span lang=EN-US style='color:#201F1E;
border:none windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm'>).</span></font><font color=black><span
lang=EN-US style='color:black'> </span></font></span><span class=xs1><font
color=black><span lang=EN-GB style='color:black'>Something truly meaningless
could exist in a place where there is no constraint. Can a trend to increasing
complexity be considered as a constraint for a post big-bang universe? </span>I
don’t know....</font></span><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
Regarding human performances and human nature, my interest is with an
evolutionary scenario for self-consciousness where meaningful representations
(networks of meanings) make a thread for an auto-representation leading to
self-consciousness (</span></font><a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI"><span
lang=EN-US>https://philpapers.org/rec/MENCOI</span></a><span class=xs1><font
color="#201f1e"><span lang=EN-US style='color:#201F1E;border:none windowtext 1.0pt;
padding:0cm'>).</span></font></span><font color=black><span style='color:black'><br>
<span class=xs1>There is still a lot to do with these interesting subjects.</span><br>
<br>
<span class=xs1>All the best</span><br>
<span class=xs1>Christophe</span><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="98%" align=center tabindex=-1 style='display:inline-block'>
</span></font></div>
<div id=divRplyFwdMsg>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 color=black face=Calibri><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;color:black;font-weight:bold'>De :</span></font></b><font
size=2 color=black face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri;
color:black'> Fis <fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es> de la part de Marcus
Abundis <55mrcs@gmail.com><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Envoyé :</span></b> jeudi 17 septembre 2020
11:15<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>À :</span></b> fis@listas.unizar.es
<fis@listas.unizar.es><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Objet :</span></b> [Fis] Informatic
Principles (redux) – Reply to Christophe, Karl, and Francesco.</span></font>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Christophe,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I found several interesting points in your 2020 brief. I note them
here, using your own numbering system:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> 1 c) No general coverage is available for the notion of meaning.<<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Of course, superficially, you are right to state this, about
'general coverage', but we can do better. The answer to this problem is that
one must use 'logical primitives', applied to diverse domains, in contrast
to more conventional 'material primitives' thinking. Indeed, it is Shannon's
use of a *logarithmic* logical primitive that supports Signal Entropy, and
accounts for the model's success. I use (S)ubject and (O)bject roles, and
(V)ariability in S-O roles, as my logical primitives.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> 2 c) Management of local constraint introduces information and
meaning.<<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I absolutely agree with this view, it is *exactly* on point
(superficially) – but I apply it in a different way than you do. You
choose to limit this to Life, but I go to the level of Physics. Part of
the problem is that Life (to me) seems imprecisely defined – are viruses
'alive' is Gaia 'alive', etc. – the answer to these issues depends on how
losely/firmly one defines *underlying* (even lower-order) terms. So at what
point do we say 'THIS is the correct level for beginning our analysis?' I
ask you to consider a counter-question to your item '2 c)' – At what
point/level is something truly non-informatic and meaning-less, and how do you
(or science) define/present that level? This question is useful in developing
an *a priori* analysis. For me, everything *berfore* a quantum/functional
'wave-form collapse' is meaningless and non-informatic (Wheeler's
quantum foam). How do you answer this question for yourself? The view you offer
above is a nice framing *for me* as it can be applied equally to inanimate
Force and Energy, and elementary particles . . . in addition to applying to
Life – which then begins to approach 'general coverage' for informatic
meaning, thinking and modeling.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> 3 a) The word "meaning" is most of the time associated
to human performances.<<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>You qualify this as 'most of the time' . . . leading me to wonder about
'other times' and how you address those other times? How/where is this matter
of meaning *firmly* bounded for you? As I do not agree the notion of it being
tied exclusively to Life, I find further discussion on this point in your 2020
document unsatisfying. Hence, I ask for a more-precise framing.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>> 3 b) The unknown nature of human mind makes human meaning a
complex subject.<<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>One could as easily say 'the unknown nature of Nature' which seems
to me to be a more critical matter (in a simple to complex cosmos). In a *true*
scientific sense we succeed in modeling only a very small fraction of what
Nature presents us. Still, there is an unavoidable tendency to be fascinated
with Human Consciousness as one's focus . . . but this is an anthropocentric
approach, where there are much larger issues and dynamics to consider, and with
much more likely accessible solutions – even beyond Life, and surely
beyond humanity.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Karl,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Interesting twist on magnetics as proto-informatic . . . but which
might equally be applied to all four fundamental forces, I think. At which
point is the application of any Force informatic in itself, and at what point
is it proto-informatic? The compass needle is an interesting analogy, but that
needle requires interpretation (which I think is your point), where I would say
the expression of *any* force is meaningful in itself (i.e., gravity enables
planets, which enables a moon, which enables rotation and wobble, which enables
cycles and seasons, which supports Life, etc.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Francesco,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I found your note on DNA and viruses relevant and again pointing to
(for me) the innate imprecision of how Life is defined. I understand that
others may not accept Life is ambiguously defined – but for now, we
will have to agree to disagree on this matter, while I continue to pay close
attention to the matter. I hope I interpreted your note's meaning correctly.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>This is my third post for the week, so I am 'out' until Sunday . . .<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>M!<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>