Dear Colleagues, Re Pedro's point and other related postings . . .
> I would never bet for a new info-reductionism, or explanatory monism, science is an elegant Babel construction always condemned --or enjoying-- the plurality of disciplinary languages and views.< I echo the "questions" around communication and information at different levels, and BETWEEN different systems/levels – this further takes me back to a point I raised at the end of Deacon's last (second) session, but that was not really addressed. This has to do with the nature of emergent things BETWEEN systems (or levels of analysis). This proved (in his sessions) to be a rather chronic issue in trying to grasp/convey Deacon's modeling – or now, even in modeling an effective FIS(?). The Deacon session didn't really seem to "land" anywhere (re Pedro's "condemned/enjoyed Babel") . . . and here we are again, no? So I am now left to wonder if "we" are to accept the futility of modeling emergent things (which seems to be a critical deeper issue), that might otherwise offer a "bridge" between systems/levels, or if that imagined/impossible(?) "new info-reductionism, or explanatory monism" is to be actively attempted and explored here? As a new member, I simply wish to know what might be reasonably tolerated. Thanks to all for your earlier thoughts! [image: --] Marcus Abundis [image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis <http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
