Dear FIS,
the discussion here is excitingly interesting from the standpoint of formal
logic. The points that one may comment on regard:
tautology
structure
totality of structures interacting with one another
epistemological constructions
relationship between matter/energy
perspectives of descriptions
philosophic relativity
to name but a few.
Formal logic addresses all these points and introduces a neutral web of
well-defined concepts, the relations of which allow quite exact definitions
of the above terms.
We find empistemologically clear and well-defined explanations for these
terms by taking recourse to the words of a formal language (in the sense of
Wittgenstein), namely to the natural numbers. We may be in the situation of
those of our forefathers who have felt that there is a comprehensive
explanation to spatial arrangements they observed but lacked the exact
understanding of the words "height", "distance", "angle" and so forth. I
don't know who proposed using simple calculations regarding the sides of
triangles to arrive at trigonometry, but the principles that can be read off
the tables of trigonometry demonstrate that numbers do have a use outside of
mathematics, too.
The concepts of "sinus" and "cosinus" and "tangent" etc. could be understood
after one has seen how these concepts are generated by simple numeric
procedures.
Please allow me to propose for general usage some tables based on natural
numbers. The concepts can prove to be well usable and versatile, after one
has seen how the concepts are generated.
The Table to be introduced into this discussion is quite simple, in fact not
more complicated (from the level of its intellectual principles) as dividing
the lengths of sides of triangles. It uses following novelties in the
dealings with natural numbers:
1) we discuss the instances of a+b=c for values of a,b 1..16;
1.1. This yields 136 cases of additions, from 1+1=2 to 16+16=32
1.1.1 we alsways assume a<=b
2) we concentrate on the "symmetry" of a and b, that is on u=b-a;
2.1 u can be in the range of 0 to 15
3) we generate measures for the relation of u to a and b
3.1. we build k=u-a
3.2. we build k+u=t
3.2.1 we make an addition ((b-a)-a)+(b-a)=2b-3a
3.3. we build -u=a-b
3.3.1 we do this for reasons of commutativity
3.4. we build q=-u-b
3.5. we build w=q+(-u)
3.5.1. we make an addition ((-u-b)+(-u))=((a-b-b)+(a-b))=2a-3b
3.6. we thus have 4 additions:
3.6.1. a+b=c
3.6.2. k+u=t =((b-a)-a)+(b-a)=2b-3a
3.6.3. q+(-u)=w =((-u-b)+(-u))=((a-b-b)+(a-b))=2a-3b
3.6.4. reading column 3 down we see c+t=-w =(a+b)+(2b-3a)= -
(2a+3b)=3b-2a
3.7. we propose to investigate, which of the 4 additions is generally
relevant in each case of a,b
3.8. we call the terms a,b,c,k,u,t,q,w, and and measure s=17-{a+b|c}
"aspects" of a+b=c
4. we introduce the conept of "order"
4.1. we order the set of 136 additions by sorting them
4.1.1. we use the procedure "sort()" from excel or any other software to do
so
4.2. we sort the collection on two of the aspects
4.2.1. we have then 72 sorting orders, 9 aspects once as 1st, 8 aspects once
as 2nd sorting key
4.3. each case of a+b has then a specific sequential place in the sequence
1..136
5. we re-sort from sorting order alpha,beta into sorting order gamma.delta
5.0.1. alpha,beta,gamma,delta are any of the 9 aspects
5.0.2. alpha#beta, gamma#delta
5.1. we investigate the place changes of the individual cases of a+b
5.2. those cases that move together we call a "thread"
5.2.1. the term "thread" may possibly be the concept behind the word
"string" used in Physics
5.3. some resorts yield no changes, some do
5.3.1. those resorts that yield no changes we call the "structure"
5.4. there are resorts that offer themselves as unit resorts
6. The unit resorts allow constructing two Euclid spaces
6.1. the two Euclid spaces differ slightly
6.2. the two Euclid spaces can be merged into one Euclid space
6.2.1. in this merged space one loses either the position's exactitude or
the extent's exactitude
6.2.2. the differences of the two Eulid spaces may well be the concept
behind the word "information"
7. there are several - but by no means an infinite number of - realities of
orders' consequences
7.1. the terms "relevance" and "importance" of ordering concepts can easily
be defined.
8. The term "logical archetype" is defined by those standard rearrangements
that are geometrically representable in an Euclid space
8.1. the term "logical archetype" may well be the concept behind the words
"chemical element".
This is of course only a very cursory introduction. The idea is new but it
seems to be quite useful to contribute to a discussion within FIS. The usage
of this kind of approach to words is, that one may well point out: "this is
what I mean as I say 'structure' or 'information' or 'ordering principle'".
Exact science has to be rooted in solid logic, where the words one uses do
have a clear and unmistakable definition. Nothing is better suited to be
used as a concept but the natural numbers subjected to the operation a+b=c.
We have investigated, how the place of a logical statement changes in
dependence of one's decision, which of the aspects is important and/or
relevant. Is it more important and/or relevant, how "balanced" a,b are, or
how balanced the imbalance is as compared with a or b. The approach
presented here takes the symmetry between a and b as the core property of
a+b=c, that is of logic.
Thank you for allowing the opportunity to present a tool which may indeed be
useful in information theory.
Karl
2010/9/29 Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>
> Dear Gordana and All,
>
> Gordana's note is very useful, as I think it makes possible a further
> discussion of what is at the "heart" of information. The following,
> partially negative comments, should be seen only as an attempt to get closer
> to that heart.
>
> 1. Floridi indeed claims that reality is an informational structure, but if
> the reality of information - its structure and constitutive elements - has
> not been defined, we are in full tautology. If there are really fluctuons
> "down there" (the theme of this discussion), this may have consequences for
> all of our theories, mine included.
>
> 2. This judgment is confirmed :-) by the citations: a) One can agree (I do)
> with Floridi's interpretation of reality as the totality of structures
> interacting with one another, but we still do not know what a structure is,
> ontologically, and there is a *caesura *with the implication for
> information; b) Referring to "physicists who say that reality is
> fundamentally informational" is begging the question at issue.
>
> 3. It is not quite accurate to say that Floridi's Levels of Organization
> (LoOs) give access to an "ontological side" that will enable us to see an
> informational reality for two reasons: a) we have not established that
> reality is primarily informational nor what this might mean (see above); b)
> LoOs, to quote Floridi do "support an ontological approach, according to
> which systems *for analysis *(my emphasis) are supposed to have a
> structure in themselves *de re*, which is allegedly captured and uncovered
> by its description. For example, levels of communication, of decision
> processing and of information flow can all be presented as specific
> instances that can be analyzed in terms of LoOs." However, I submit that we
> are still dealing, here, with epistemological constructions.
>
> 4. It is not necessarily true that an "ontological informational structures
> should be seen in conjunction (sic) with computational processes". Let us
> consider, quite seriously, that there is a */disjunction/* between
> ontological informational structures and computational processes.
>
> 5. On the question of "it 'or' bit", I suggest that bits are the simplest,
> most abstract elements of information, constitutive of its lowest semantic
> level. Its are something more, for example, as Kevin Kirby said,
> fluctuons can perfectly well be looked at as "its", given their apparent
> interactive characteristics. Understanding the relationship (one or more ?)
> between information and matter/energy may be easier if we consider that we
> might be talking about the same thing from two perspectives.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joseph
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>
> *To:* Kevin Kirby <ki...@nku.edu> ; fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:38 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Fluc replies - more
>
> Dear Kevin, Dear all!
>
>
>
> What I was thinking about, referring to Floridi’s Informational Structural
> Realism is his claim that reality is an informational structure
>
> *“A preferable alternative is provided by an informational approach to
> structural realism, according to which knowledge of the world is knowledge
> of its structures. The most reasonable ontological commitment turns out to
> be in favour of an interpretation of reality as the totality of structures
> dynamically interacting with each other.” *Floridi [11] p. 151.
>
> http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/4/878/pdf
>
> I could have referred to physicists Zeilinger, Lloyd, or Vedral and number
> of other authors who would say that reality fundamentally is informational.
>
>
>
> Now, the question of objective vs. subjective levels (levels of
> organization vs. levels of abstraction). One may be interested in the
> first place in the epistemological aspect and then focus on what* an agent
> *can see from that informational reality. On the other hand one may put
> the focus on the ontological side and ask *what informational reality *an
> agent can* *see. Those two things are closely related. I agree with you
> that if we only focus on levels of abstraction we will miss something, as
> LOA only reflect epistemological side. Besides epistemology we need
> ontology, which is reflected in Levels of organization LOO.
>
>
>
> What I find interesting is the interplay of epistemological and ontological
> informational structures. Those informational structures should be seen in
> conjunction with computational processes. All of that is also closely
> connected to the question of it or bit, or the relationships between
> information and matter/energy.
>
>
>
> Present FIS discussion shows that there is an interest and a lot of things
> to do in order to elucidate our current understanding of the relationship.
>
> I would like to kindly invite you to contribute to the following special
> issue of the journal Information:
>
> . http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information/special_issues/matter/
>
>
>
> With best regards,
>
> Gordana
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]
> *On Behalf Of *Kevin Kirby
> *Sent:* den 29 september 2010 00:29
> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* [Fis] FW: Fluc replies - more
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
> It is fascinating to follow the trails here from fluctuons to the it/bit
> issue and beyond.
>
> As I read Conrad's theory, a fluctuon is not a prima facie informational
> object; it is not bit-like, or qubit-like for that matter. It is as "it" as
> any particle -- even a virtual particle, a vacuum fluctuation -- can ever
> be. (Joe and I agree here.) That being said, fluctuons could still find a
> home in a dual-aspect theory like that which Gordana has been developing (in
> the same way as electrons, protons, etc.)
>
> Is Conrad an idealist? A materialist? Well, in much of his work he
> emphasized the special nature of matter, how it is the material substrate
> that makes evolution work. It was not, pace Dennett, the dumb Darwinian
> algorithm of variation + selection, but the amazingly productive degeneracy
> and verticality of the organization of the physical world that made it work.
>
> On the other hand, he also believed in what he called "the principle of
> philosophic relativity" (in a paper of the same name in 1997) or later, the
> "principle of antinomic freedom". He said that he wanted to strive for a
> theory that was good in a variety of "philosophical coordinate systems."
> (The particular issue that motivated this position dealt with free will
> versus determinism.) Well, despite that stance, I still think he was a
> materialist of a sort.
>
> The overview by Kevin Clark on how he related Kaluza-Klein induced matter
> theories to biophysics is tantalizing, and it certainly strikes one as in
> the spirit of Conrad's work. He did believe that the Ricci tensor, for
> example, would be interpreted in terms of density in his masson seas, and I
> suppose this could be consistent with some sort of induction down from 5D
> space into ordinary spacetime. (But this quickly goes far beyond my
> expertise here.) I do wish we could get more gravitational physicists to
> tease apart Conrad's ideas -- separating what could work from what is
> pleasing but a dead end.
>
> But as Koichiro points out in his closing recollection, one need not look
> only to the graviton here.
>
> On flows across scales, this itself need not be mysterious. Take a single
> photon hitting a rhodopsin molecule in the retina of a vertebrate then
> [...long chain here...] triggering a fight-or-flight response. Is that a
> flow across scales? Sure. Fluctuons come in to biology because life relies
> on subtle conformation changes of proteins, the tactile dance of enzymes,
> and quantum superposition effects play roles here, as well as fluctuations
> in the vacuum seas. This is where Conrad daringly closes the loop: in this
> low-mass high-information regime of biomolecules we see a striking
> similarity to the high-mass regime near black holes: the chasing of
> unreachable self-consistency.
>
> Koichiro's posting captures the metaphysical pathos of all this with these
> beautiful sentences: " What is unique to the Fluctuon model is its emphasis
> on the participation of persistent and itinerant disequilibrium or a
> Fluctuon in implementing conservation laws internally, though there is no
> room for it in the mind of the standard physicist. This perpetual
> disequilibrium is all pervasive and reverberating up and down and from left
> to right and back."
>
> Now, pulling this back around to logic and Joseph Brenner. Dealing frankly
> with inconsistencies is paramount here. If our formalism of level is akin to
> Floridi's Levels of Abstraction, we will be missing something. (These LoAs
> are formalisms that capture things about the nature of abstraction, but
> capturing something in a formalism is not the same as illuminating it.)
> Joe's LIR is "inconsistency-friendly" which suggests that this is a meeting
> point with fluctuons perhaps?
>
> (I have run long, and will defer responding to Pedro's great new post on
> additional connections later.)
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> P.S. As a side note, let me share my perplexity with the initial comment in
> Steven's post. Recursion is most frequently defined so that it has a bottom,
> thus ensuring finiteness, just as mathematical induction requires a base
> case, and just as standard set theory has an axiom of regularity (or
> foundation). Interesting things can be done with conceptually infinite
> recursion (e.g. fractal geometry), or non-well-founded set theory (e.g.
> Barwise's treatment of the liar paradox), but traditional well-founded
> recursion is, well, the "foundation" for computer science.
>
> _________________________________
> Kevin G. Kirby
> Chair and Professor, Department of Computer Science
> Northern Kentucky University
> Highland Heights, KY 41099
> ki...@nku.edu (859) 572-6544
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
