Dear Pedro, Dear Loet and All, My thanks first to Pedro for his note, especially for its emphasis on the necessity of scholarly style. I thank Loet also for what may be a quite unexpected result of my partial defense of his approach, his restatement of the Cartesian dualistic position. This brings out some differences, whose value may now be discussed, with the non-Cartesian dualisms of LIR.
Thus I agree that reality includes the res cogitans, and also physics as a science as much as the object of physics, the res extensa. Uncertainty is, I think, in reality, and not in our inability to define position and momentum at the same time, vs. a unitary reality. It is perhaps easier to see in complex emerging situations: the outcome of this discussion is uncertain, as we move between something like knowledge and something like ignorance. I assume (Loet please correct me) that the concept of the res cogitatum, the thing thought, applied to the res cogitans, allows for self-reference. The discussion now turns on the question of access. In contrast to Loet's reading, Logic in Reality says that we have access to nature, the res extensa, but not only as a referent to the former via discourse, epistemologically. In addition, despite our incapacity of interacting directly with nature at microphysical levels of reality, the laws which govern change at our level are isomorphous with those at ours, making possible some cognition of nature, ontologically, due to our inseparability from it. Information, in this view, refers to the various processes that constitute both 'the act and the fact' of this access, and its subsequent processing at higher levels of complexity (not abstraction). I see some of the difficulties in semiotic approaches as coming from assuming that the necessary stage of interpretation of information is not also a natural cognitive process following the same rules as those at lower levels. As I have tried to argue previously but look forward to doing again ;-), such a view is relevant to Terry Deacon's approach to the dynamics of information, adding something to the 'how' side, but there is a lot more to be done here. Best wishes, Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: Loet Leydesdorff To: 'Joseph Brenner' ; 'fis' Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:42 PM Subject: RE: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . . Loss of Information Dear Joe and colleagues, It “flamed” a bit. Thank you for the intervention. The confusion is not only ours, but also in the literature. Indeed, we should not blame each other for it. I know that you wish to ground information in “reality”: “logic in reality” or LIR. But I understood during the conference for the first time, that “reality” then includes res cogitans. For example, “uncertainty” would be “in reality” if I correctly understand you. Would this imply that physics as a science would be part of the reality as would its object (“nature”)? I would classify the first as res cogitans (in this case, cogitatum) and the second as res extensa. But we have no access to the latter (“nature”) but as a referent to the former (discourse). Is this part of the logic in reality? Is that in the neighbourhood of what you mean with LIR? Best, Loet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:11 PM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . . Loss of Information Dear Colleagues and Reasoned Opponents, A scientific position may be the object of rational disagreement and discussion, but the 'ganging up' of some individuals on a highly respected colleague is disgraceful and unacceptable. The formulation of Loet's comment was somewhat rapid, since the key questions are 'what physics, what mathematics (and what logic)". As Loet knows well, he and I do not agree on all issues surrounding information. Here I believe he might have been over-reacting to speakers at the conference who took superannuated postions on the physical grounding of information. Among these positions is the idea that there must be exact, immutable defintions and terminology, as if we were not all involved in a complex learning process. Who is doing the alleged 'needless blurring of terms'? If after all this Abundis is still wondering how he can contribute, as he has already said, perhaps he should draw the obvious conclusion. The inability to engage in civilized debate corresponds to an enormous LOSS of information in our Information Society. I would not blame the new media, since they are only tools, but they enable the very facile expression of some ideas better left for other venues. Sadly, Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith To: Marcus Abundis Cc: Foundations of Information Science Information Science Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . . Trust me. You are in good company. Steven On Jun 14, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote: From Loet's post: >During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our colleagues wish to ground information in physics.< I would say that I was disappointed . . . For me this exchange on It from Bit is problematic as its seems to simply revisit the same problem introduced with Shannon's use of the term “information“ in his Mathematical Theory of Communication – but dressed with a slightly different face. I had this same problem with “lack of precise thinking“ (or terminology?) in the It from Bit video from last month. This endless(?) debate around an old issue of “meaningful information“ versus “meaningless information“ (aka DATA awaiting MEANINGFUL interpretation) I find unhelpful in addressing FOUNDATIONAL issues. If we cannot keep our terms straight I am not sure how progress is made. Yes, of course physics has a place in the conversation, but the needless blurring of basic terms does not, I think, advance the project. If a basic nomenclature and/or taxonomy cannot be agreed and then abided in these conversations, it leaves me wondering how I might contribute. I am new to this group, but this seems like it should have been dealt with from the start in agreeing the FIS group goals. Marcus Abundis about.me/marcus.abundis _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
