<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Dear Joseph,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>We may or may not agree on many points, and I
greatly respect your thoughts. In your last message, however, I read a position
which merits a more declarative reaction, in my eyes. I will try to put it - in
the spirit of our present session - with as much humour as I can.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>You write:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i><span>In some
approaches, such as Karl's, reference is not made to epistemology as such, but
to abstract entities of thought ("numbers") the rules for whose
changes and behavior capture, inefficiently, only a very small fraction of real
phenomena.</span></i><span><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><i><span>This is not
scientific.</span></i><span> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Please allow
me to debate two points:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>1) <i>abstract
entities of thought ("numbers") the rules for whose changes and
behavior capture, <u>inefficiently</u>, only <u>a very small fraction</u> of
real phenomena.<span></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>If there is
one thing that this person repeatedly and insistently tries to tell you all, in
the past 25 years, it is that he has found a way to use these abstract entities
("numbers") in a <b>novel way</b>, by adding more rules to the
changes and behaviour of these abstract entities.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Due to these
innovations, two things happen:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>a) the
changes and behaviour of the abstract entities capture the real phenomena <b>far
more efficiently; </b>and<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>b) the changes
and behaviour of the abstract entities capture a <b>far greater fraction </b>of
real phenomena.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>2) <i>This
is not scientific<span></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>It is hard
to find anything more scientific than number theory. Scientific means that <span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>People are in agreement about what they discuss,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Hypotheses can be subject to verification,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>The methodology of arriving at results is agreed on,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>The experiments can be reconducted and will bring
forth identical results,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>The start, the conduct and the evaluation of the
results of any experiment (hypotheses) are agreed to be factual truth<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Your
statement</span></b><span> is, colloquially rephrased: <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>No use
watching spectacles with agreed on units. The definition of units and of
methods guarantees that nothing new and surprising can come about playing with
abstract entities, specifically numbers. These are but our inventions, and we
have invented them so, that they can by their nature not picture anything
meaningful. Anyone who states otherwise is a charlatan.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>This humorous
session</span></b><span> is a perfect background for my statement, colloquially rephrased:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Watch ye all
now! You will not believe your eyes! You would not have thought this possible!
The greatest miracle since the Sumerians!<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Watch my
paper and pencil. Let me draw snowmen for you. Let us talk about dolls. That
what you are about to experience now will hit you deep in your unconscious. You
need to re-learn what you have learnt at the age of 6 years. There is more to
the romance of <i>(a,b) </i>than that sanitised, family version of <i>a+b=c </i>where
all goes well, which you were taught. We now show what happens <i>in reality </i>(anyone
interested in a contrast logic – reality?) among the two: <i>(a,b). </i>Rivalries
and more.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>Watch my
tables</span></b><span> which here I generate with these 16 fingers of mine (shows <i>anime </i>with
many fingers on both hands). <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>We change the
term “unit” for a “pair”. Like we do not count inhabitants but married couples,
each unit in our demoscopy consists of <i>one piece a </i>and of <i>one piece b</i>.
These are our <i>logical primitives (M. Abundis).<span></span></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Our logical
primitives have a <i>habitat. </i>They have linear ranks, planar places and
spatial positions. We can order them by hand in any way we want to, and we
shall imagine their habitat to be axiomatically subject to <i>periodic changes</i>.
Periodic changes alter the appurtenance of a primitive to a specific rank in a
sequence, in accordance to the requirement posed by the periodic change
presently in force. If the linear rank has changed, so the planar places will
change with it, and the spatial positions, too. <b>Periodic changes bring forth
spatial movements.<span></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Now watch
what these logical primitives do in their brand-new habitat! As they are forced
to move (first in rank, caused by this, on plane, caused by this, in space),
their movements create <b><i>paths (strings, filaments, cycles)</i></b><i>. </i>You
have seen migration paths of migratory animals. You have seen the Rubik cube.
Now what you are demonstrated here is the ultimate Rubik cube, in the version
Nature appears to prefer to use, with <i>136 </i>movable (pairs of) elements. Our
cube has <i>72 </i>edges, because we use <i>9 </i>properties of the primitives,
each once as the first, and once as a 2<sup>nd</sup> sorting criterium. The
path is given by the order imposed by the periodic changes, which re-activates
relationships among the primitives, by which they get organised into cycles.
You have to see the cycles in order to understand that the term <i>periodic
changes </i>implies as a logical consequence <i>spatial-temporal structures. </i>(A
few sessions back, pictures similar to Youri’s were shared. Biologic Geometry.)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>We now come
to the question of the cylinder and the rabbit</span></b><span>. I deeply
sympathise with a reluctance to spend time on a promised wonder, since the
subject knows that there is no way to produce a number theoretical rabbit out
of a number theoretical cylinder. Yet, exactly this is what is happening here.
The enormity of the breaking of taboos gives energy to your conjurer who keeps
telling you that this is indeed a mathematical act of apparent creation and
destruction.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>The rabbit
and the cylinder have a <b>background – foreground</b> relation to each other. We
know that we perceive similarities before a background of diversities, and that
we perceive diversities before a background of similarities. The movements of
the primitives come in two main types: <i>similarity-related and
diversity-related</i>. Similarity-related are all those results (data,
properties) which are counted on such continuities which have identical steps.
(Like <b>N</b>) Of such continuities, there are <i>10 </i>in the life of the
logical primitives. These <i>10 </i>sorting order axes we stitch together into <i>two
</i>rectangular axed Euclid spaces (there go <i>6 </i>axes), which are crossed
by <i>two </i>planes more (the remaining <i>4 </i>axes.) The cylinder is a
spatial grid in two versions transcended by two planes. The rabbit is that what
is not the spatial grid, undergoing the remaining <i>62 </i>periodic changes.
In this view, the space is the background, being made up of identical units (of
distance), and everything else is the diversity in the foreground. Of course,
in a reading based on diversity, one observes that some primitives want to stay
close to each other (attracting each other or merging), while some others’
proximity causes the creation of additional units measured in similarity (that
things repulse each other or explode).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>This being a
demonstration of accounting where nothing gets created and nothing gets lost,
what <b>has been a cylinder must become a rabbit and the other way around</b>,
otherwise the people will cry cheat. The great surprise is that this is indeed
possible. The metamorphosis happens by translating the characteristic
properties of both rabbit and cylinder into units of a dimension of a measure,
for which maybe <i>cohesiveness</i> would be a good name. Eddington has shown
that a cohesive assembly can have no more than <i>{136,137} </i>distinguishable
object-level elements, which result is confirmed by the limits on the number of
(symbols most elementary of) the stories one can narrate about the adventures of
the logical primitives. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>The
cohesiveness</span></b><span> is understood to be a Flexible Principle of Nature (a sliding natural
constant), here visible in its natural form caused by a slight discongruence
between two combinatorial functions. The discongruence itself gives rise to the
fundamental thought that things can be coherent, consistent, cohesive to <i>differing
degrees</i>. Old school thinking does not allow for questioning the coherency
of logical statements: either these are congruent, coherent and consistent or
they are not at all. The lack of the traditional, extremely stable, invariant
cohesiveness is the philosophical reason for there being any two parts of the
world, and be they logic and reality, matter and space, similarity and
diversity.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>The fact of
the matter is, that there is a loophole of roughly 340 % in one direction and
350 % in the other direction through which loophole transformations of
alternatives into probabilities and certitudes can take place. The same degree
of cohesiveness can be defined to exist, if on <i>n </i>logical primitives <i>(q,w,Z,etc)
</i>logical relations exist, and on a second set (or later) the same <i>(q,w,Z,etc)
</i>logical relations exist on <i>m </i>logical primitives, maybe with a
sliding proportion. Due to the slight inconsistency in the answers to: <i>what is
an object but a collection of its relations? </i>in dependence of <i>n, </i>with
matches in the density of relations similar – diverse if the objects count <i>32,
97, </i>and mismatches with opportunities to make a deal between similar and
diverse if the objects count <i>11, 66</i>, there is <i>a natural bazar open to
exchange</i> form or space for matter or energy, potential with certitude. The
algorithms for molecular geometry come from these terms of trade. <b>{Similar,
diverse, numerous} are interdependent.</b> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Narratives as
such can consist of only one kind of descriptions, similarity-related or diversity-related.
Traditionally, we have only used – in science – the narrative based on similar
units. In actual Nature no thing can exist of which the complete narrative
contains only descriptions of similarity, or only of diversity. The
cohesiveness is a three-way balance: how many things are how similar and how
diverse relative to each other?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><b><span>To summarise:<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Simple
symbols, like numbers, are extremely useful for checking whether one talks
nonsense. If one can’t relate the true-telling mechanism to the subject of his
research, one is not yet at the stage, where one can make a reasoned hypothesis
and check whether it is true. The attitude towards the true-telling mechanism,
that it is inefficient and only useful for a small portion of questions, is
understandable in view of the limitations of true-telling machines in commercial
use up to our days. Now, with the help of computers, some patterns were
discovered while looking into the self-organisational, adaptive properties of
the most simple symbols, like numbers. The utilisation of these patterns to understand
transformations between <i>background – foreground – number of players – their predictable
positions – their properties – the properties of their surroundings – the system
of distances among players – etc. </i>is presently not yet widely done. No
problem, this rabbit – cylinder like matter – space interdependence, rooted
solidly in natural numbers, will find its way into the toolbox of many
professionals, and maybe there will be also some scientists among those who are
interested in <i>Rubik Sudokus</i>. You cannot lose a bet on the idea that
sorting, ordering and reordering simple logical tokens will turn up unavoidable
patterns and that these patterns will be interesting for Physics and Chemistry.
<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>With great
respect:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span>Karl<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS",sans-serif"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Courier New""><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><span> </span></p>
</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Fr., 11. Feb. 2022 um 09:41 Uhr schrieb <a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a> <<a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</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"><font size="3">Dear Pedro, Youri, Karl and All,</font><div><font size="3"><br></font></div><div><font size="3">As we move toward the more usual form of FIS discussion, there is one aspect that, at least for me, emerged from our recent exchanges: it is the concurrent evolution of three if not more somewhat incompatible lines of thought. I suggest this "co-emergence" needs to be looked more closely. As a start, I quote from Youri of Jan. 31: </font></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><pre>In this respect, I have the impression that an epistemological perspective
on one's own activity is more conducive to a form of humour,
relativity and makes people less rigid and therefore less aggressive ?
</pre></blockquote></div><div><pre><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:"trebuchet ms"">I find throughout our discussion (and many others) an <i>under-emphasis </i>not<i> </i>to say neglect of ontological perspectives which are linked to science by their relation to the dynamics of thought. This dynamics is particularly visible in humor but the principle is much broader and applies to complex changes in general. One reason for the emphasis on epistemology is that ontology is often misdefined in a way that limits it to classification and categorization. In some approaches, such as Karl's, reference is not made to epistemology as such, but to abstract entities of thought ("numbers") the rules for whose changes and behavior capture, inefficiently, only a very small fraction of real phenomena.</span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:"trebuchet ms"">This is not scientific. The "equivalent of humor" that Youri correctly urges that we look for is for me in the non-computable, emergent processes of life and creativity. We are thus quickly back to art but also science and philosophy. The critiques made by Pedro and others of philosophy should be directed against not a synthetic philosophy that includes science (and a suitable logic), but against a largely epistemological philosophy that lacks an essential minimum of physics.</span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:"trebuchet ms"">One term used by Pedro captures almost everything I am trying to say: "inter-individual bonding". Change and an "science-philosophy" (the term is of Wu Kun) of change is immediately implied since such bonding like any real bonding is a dynamic process, with an ethical dimension 'built in'. The role of information, at the interface between ontology and epistemology, also appears in a more functional way. I hope that others may suggest other and better relations between these concepts.</span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:"trebuchet ms"">Best,</span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:"trebuchet ms"">Joseph</span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:"trebuchet ms""><br></span></pre><pre><span style="font-size:medium;font-family:"trebuchet ms""> </span></pre></div><div><font size="3"> </font>----Message d'origine----</div><div><blockquote style="margin-right:0px;margin-left:15px">De : <a href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com" target="_blank">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a><br>Date : 09/02/2022 - 14:16 (CEST)<br>À : <a href="mailto:youri.timsit@mio.osupytheas.fr" target="_blank">youri.timsit@mio.osupytheas.fr</a>, <a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>Objet : Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9<br><br><div>
Dear Youri and FISers,
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Thanks for your reflections on humor.
</div>
<div>
Curiously, within the crazy variety of themes my research group was focusing while I was active in IACS institute, laughter got our sustained effort (Jorge Navarro worked a lot on it).
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
We approached it as an evolutionary phenomenon related to the extension and intensity of inter-individual bonding in social groups.
</div>
<div>
We published a couple of papers, an introductory one:
<br>
</div>
<div>
--"The Bonds of Laughter: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Information Processes of Human Laughter"
<br>
<a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.5602.pdf" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.5602.pdf</a>
</div>
<div>
And a more polished version in Kybernetes journal:
</div>
<div>
--"Laughing bonds: A multidisciplinary inquiry into the social information processes of human laughter"
</div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026/full/html" target="_blank">https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026/full/html</a>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Given the highly peculiar sound structure of laughter and our neuroscientific hypotheses, we had contemplated its possible application as an auxiliary tool in the detection, diagnostic, and prognostic on several mental disorders (particularly in depression). We developed an ad hoc experimental methodology, applied to a competitive research project, and got the project and very promising applied results--with a stream of publications. For instance: "Validation of laughter for diagnosis and evaluation of depression". In:
<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/journal/Journal-of-Affective-Disorders-0165-0327" target="_blank">Journal of Affective Disorders</a> 160(1–3):43–49 DOI:
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.02.035" rel="noopener" target="_blank">10.1016/j.jad.2014.02.035</a>
</div>
<div>
In spite of the dissolution of our group, the project is still potentially alive. There is an important hospital of Madrid willing to work on our methodology & software and finally develop , say, a "commercial" program and App. (Other partners would be very welcome!)
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
About humor, I have always had a high respect for it; as being related to laughter mechanisms, it differs in the importance of language, meaning, and social context.
<br>
</div>
<div>
Probably our main research hypothesis applies there, but it should have more development and sophistication. The evolutionary context of "play" becomes central.
</div>
<div>
Humor appears essentially as a play with words (also images, or actions) that by the the act of playing "degrade" the usual serious thing to a childish or abstruse occurrence, making then a strong contrast. The difficult point is that it has to be solved "positively" out from a benevolent or distanced position. Otherwise it becomes sarcasm or just malevolent ridicule.
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Humor in science is not welcome as Youri comments. I think the enormous bureaucratization and technologization of our profession matters quite a bit.
</div>
<div>
In any event, as long as playing is sufficiently maintained and welcome as a social attitude in adults too --and not condemned-- there is some hope...
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
Best--Pedro
<br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>
El 06/02/2022 a las 16:31, Youri Timsit escribió:
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Humour, systems and information
Dear all,
All these discussions around humour could lead to the following question:
Does humour in a given system contain information about itself and about
the system to
which it is addressed?
In system, we can for example include religion, science or art or try to
extend this
reflection to any physical system and thus find an equivalent of humour in
biology, physics, mathematics and information theory.
Any system contains a series of rules and conventions that give it
structure and maintain
consistency. One might, at first glance, suggest that humour is an element
that
endangers the order of this structure. In one way or another, it questions
and
challenges certain rules, plays with conventions and thus undermines the
established order in a given system.
Of course, there are certainly different categories of humour... (I am not
familiar with
the philosophy of humour, nor with the work that has considered the place
of
humour in information theoryŠ)
Let's take, for example, a play on words: a shift in meaning turns a
discourse on its head,
but also the entire semantics, the entire edifice of a language, and this
is
perhaps why it can make people laugh, it's associated with the vertigo of
the
order of a world that vanishes in a fraction of a second. What suddenly
makes
one laugh? the awareness that nothing holds together?
Umberto Ecco, the great semiotician, placed humour - the laughter of
Christ - at the centre
of his novel 'The Name of the Rose'. He showed that religious orthodoxy
left
little room for humour, which could threaten its coherence and very
existence.
In Western music, another system based on multiple conventions ranging
from the rules of
harmony to bourgeois decorum in concert halls, humour has little place. A
musical performance, such as a classical music concert or an opera, would
be
the place of a musical discourse of course, but also of a ceremony, a
ritual
even, intended to reinforce the established order, the social structuring
of
the Western bourgeoisie. It is very rare that humour and derision disrupt
these
ceremonies (see the movie of F. Fellini, Prova d¹orchestra).
However, some composers have made a point of teasing out these
rituals: Haydn, for example, broke with protocol in his 'farewell
symphony',
where the musicians leave one by one before the end of the piece... the
opposite can be seen in the film The Concert (2009, Radu Mihaileanu),
where the
two trumpeters arrive late with large bags filled with jars of sweet and
sour
pickles at the Théâtre du Chatelet of Paris. These scenes create a comic
effect that shakes up the order and rituals of the Viennese or Parisian
upper
middle class in a bittersweet way. The humour here carries a message: it
disturbs, disrupts and questions conventions, but also the conventions
associated with 20th century musical representations.
Science, like religion, is not conducive to humour: the seriousness of
scientific
theories and the experiments that are supposed to demonstrate them do not
tolerate humour. However, a scientific theory should be, Œin theory¹,
refutable
(Popper) and in this respect, ephemeral.... Being aware of the brevity of
existence should however encourage a certain distance, humour and
derision...
but unfortunately, we rarely laugh at a scientific conference. Most
researchers
take themselves very seriously and it must be admitted that you don't come
to a
seminar to have a laughŠ
I would dream of a congress where after the conferences, actors or clowns
would take up
our speeches by caricaturing them... this would create a more cordial
atmosphere between researchers. David Lodge, in a "small world", also
made fun of scientific rituals, we should make all students read it...
With his Cantatrix Sopranica, George Perrec has
made a mockery of scientific protocol! A magnificent parody of an article
published in Nature, with colourful bibliographic
references and a beautiful caricature of the scientific method that is both
serious and grotesque. Serious and Grotesque are unfortunately the
qualifiers
that one could attribute to many articles published in "Great"
journals... and that one finds retracted quite early (see the Lancet
episode).
The established order and the Narcissism of researchers (see Science,
narcissism and the quest for visibility from Bruno Lemaitre; DOI:
10.1111/febs.14032) is a major obstacle to humour in research.
Thus, one could hypothesise here that humour contains indispensable
information: this
information challenges and shakes up the rigid rules of a system and
allows it
to evolve.... If we extrapolate to biology, the appearance of a mutation, a
sequence shift, would therefore be a form of humour... ? the humour of DNA?
Youri
Le 06/02/2022 12:00, « <a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</a> on behalf of
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">fis-request@listas.unizar.es</a> » <a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue"><fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es on behalf of
fis-request@listas.unizar.es></a> a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Send Fis mailing list submissions to
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">fis-request@listas.unizar.es</a>
You can reach the person managing the list at
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">fis-owner@listas.unizar.es</a>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
16--CLOSING (Loet Leydesdorff)
2. Re: [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
16--CLOSING (Francesco Rizzo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2022 11:13:14 +0000
From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue"><loet@leydesdorff.net></a>
To: <a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">karl.javorszky@gmail.com</a>, fis <a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue"><fis@listas.unizar.es></a>
Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
16--CLOSING
Message-ID: <emba24b591-9376-42ee-bc49-0d7eff2db1b2@pc2014>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Dear Karl,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>The Lecture by Youri has opened many approaches towards understanding
the general concept of information, specifically in a biologic context.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>The concept of information, defined specifically in a biological context
is for that very reason not the general concept of information. This
confusion does not help for the understanding. In economics, for
example, one should not work with a biological concept of information.
Information can be measured in bits and bytes. I have not heard a single
argument in this discussion of how the biological theorizing leads to
(proposals for) the measurement of information. Without the beginning of
an operationalization, the theory remains a pure philosophy. I don't
think that one should go for a biological philosophy, including social
darwinism etc.
Best,
Loet
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/31f158cf/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank"><http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/31f158cf/attac
hment-0001.html></a>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2022 14:59:24 +0100
From: Francesco Rizzo <a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue"><13francesco.rizzo@gmail.com></a>
To: Loet Leydesdorff <a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue"><loet@leydesdorff.net></a>
Cc: fis <a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue"><fis@listas.unizar.es></a>
Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Fis Digest, Vol 85, Issue
16--CLOSING
Message-ID:
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue"><CAEvKwyTCjpP63GCsbVK1pD00zU-725AMZd1y9JQAny3f0caMzA@mail.gmail.com></a>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Caro carlo e Cari tutti,
nessuna scienza dell'informazione, compresa quella di Shannon, pu? basarsi
sull'esattezza delle misurazioni delle variabili dei fenomeni
che analizza e studia, figuriamoci l'economia. D'altra parte all'economia
interessano pi? le valutazioni che le misurazioni. Cio? il prezzo
o valore di mercato di un bene (capitale) pu? calcolarsi tenendo conto
dell'affidabil?t? e della probabilit? dei dati della cosiddetta realt? di
mercato e dei comportamenti degli operatori economici (acquirenti e
venditori) che, fra l'altro, stabiliscono un rapporto di complementarit?
con i beni economici medesimi.. Nascono cos? i valori normali dal punto di
vista soggettivo, sottesi. da un'economia quantistica.
Questo per?, come economista, non mi ha impedito di elaborare una teoria
del valore basata sulla legge dell'informazione in uno con
il processo produttivo di tras-in-formazione, di cui la Fis si ?
(pre)occupata in passato.
La legge generale e universale dell'informazione consiste nel prendere o
nel dare forma a tutto e a tutti: alle persone, alle idee e alle cose-.
Sulla base di questo procedimento che, in maniera interattiva e
relazionale coglie il relativo valore delle differenze, ? possibile
esprimere
giudizi di valore, pi? o meno attendibili. Quindi v'ha una sola legge
dell'informazione, ma infiniti modi di misurarla-valutarla.
Spetta alle diverse discipline teoriche o alle pratiche operative darsi le
norme o regole ad-atte alle proprie specifiche misurazioni o valutazioni.
Ad es. gli economisti matematici, che a partire dal diciannovesimo secolo
hanno incominciato ad applicare il calcolo infinitesimale al fine di
quantizzare-quantificare le variabili della produzione e della
distribuzione della ricchezza, sono in irreversibile crisi, in grande
sfacelo, fuori strada,
perch? incapaci di comprendere e vedere-leggere la realt? economica
capitalistica.
Vi chiedo scusa se sono stato pi? lungo di quanto volevo essere.
Un abbraccio
Francesco
Il giorno sab 5 feb 2022 alle ore 12:13 Loet Leydesdorff <
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">loet@leydesdorff.net</a>> ha scritto:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear Karl,
The Lecture by Youri has opened many approaches towards understanding
the
general concept of information, specifically in a biologic context.
The concept of information, defined *specifically *in a biological
context is for that very reason not the *general *concept of
information.
This confusion does not help for the understanding. In economics, for
example, one should not work with a biological concept of information.
Information can be measured in bits and bytes. I have not heard a single
argument in this discussion of how the biological theorizing leads to
(proposals for) the measurement of information. Without the beginning
of an
operationalization, the theory remains a pure philosophy. I don't think
that one should go for a biological philosophy, including social
darwinism
etc.
Best,
Loet
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
----------
INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
por
la Universidad de Zaragoza.
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" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter</a>
-personal-en-listas
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.
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a>
----------
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/af424ae2/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank"><http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220205/af424ae2/attac
hment-0001.html></a>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
------------------------------
End of Fis Digest, Vol 86, Issue 9
**********************************
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre></pre>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a style="text-decoration:underline;color:blue">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
----------
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
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" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a>
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.
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a>
----------
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br></p>
<div id="gmail-m_1615496735525667495DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(211,212,222)">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:18px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" width="46" height="29"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:17px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Libre de virus. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="https://rich-v01.bluewin.ch:443/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1" target="_blank"></a>
</div><br></blockquote><br><p></p></div></blockquote></div>