Dear Krassimir,
On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote:
Dear FIS Colleagues,
Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about
scientific
and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around.
The
letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today.
The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and
perceiving the data and models as well the proper attitude to the
world
cultural heritage is one of the main problems to be investigated. The
world common data bases make possible to exchange data of any kind.
Some
data could not be proved easy, some are assumed as "clear". What is
the
proper attitude to the ocean of the data we create and perceive? In
addition, now we have a new phenomenon – artificially created data.
The Modern Societies
--------------------
Every group of Infoses, people in particular, forms a society if
there is
an agreement for communication interactions. An important element of
this
agreement is the availability of a common data base.
We should not picture the data base like a number of drives with a
certain
data recorded, although it is the way it has been since the
beginning – it
was recorded on clay plates, papyrus, paper, etc. The ability for
digital
storage of the data lays the beginnings of the genesis of the “modern
societies”. It is obvious that, there are as many societies as many
different data bases exist, and a single Infos could belong to more
than
one society.
OK.
The difference between the beliefs and the science
---------------------------------------------------
Every belief is a totality of models, which are assumed and followed.
Where is the difference between the belief and the science, which is
also
a combination of models to be followed?
The answer is in the way we perceive these models and the attitude
to them.
There are two approaches – a hard and an easy one.
The easy one is wonderfully described by the motto of the medieval
theologian Anselm of Canterbury, lately canonized as St. Anselm
(1033-1109): "Credo, ut intelligam!" (I believe in order to understand
[St.Anselm]). One has to believe in the model, to understand and
follow
it. This is the religious approach – every subjective notion can
turn into
a commonly accepted model or dogma, as long as there is someone to
believe
in it and follow it implicitly.
The “difficult” approach is described with the phrase "Intelligo, ut
credam !" (I understand in order to believe), used by the German
reformer
Thomas Muentzer (~1490-1525) [Muentzer]. You have to understand the
model
and only after then to trust it if possible. This is the scientific
approach – every science builds models – hypothesizes, which are
repeatedly tested before assumed to be true. The scientific approach
includes a permanent revaluation and improvement of the existing
models
according to the permanently changing environment.
In every society, building and exchanging of models are basic
activities.
Whether they are perceived with the “easy” or the “difficult”
approach is
a question only of the circumstances, executors and users.
Keeping in mind the limited abilities of the human brain, we can
presume
that the “easy” approach would probably dominate. Just a small part
of the
humanity would be able to build and understand the “difficult”
scientific
models. The users will not have the strength to test the models for
themselves so the only option left would be to “believe in order to
understand”.
The role and the importance of particular beliefs in a certain
society are
determined by the influence of the people ready to doubt the religious
models, on the others who easily and “blindly” follow the dogmas. Let
remark that in the scientific world the “easy approach” is everyday
practice. We all believe that the scientific works represent proved
facts
(maybe by authors). However, who knows? We trust in authorities.
Sometimes we have to doubt!
That is why the background to modern science is in the wisdom of St.
Augustin (354-430): "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!" [St.
Agustin], i.e. it is in the harmony and dialectical unity of the
scientific and beliefs’ approaches [K.Markov, 2008].
Very nice, although in my approach, I identify "science" and belief,
in a first axiomatic approximation. later, new axioms can be added to
introduce the nuances, when needed (and such nuances does exist, and
eventually are imposed by the working hypothesis (mechanism).
Materialism or Idealism
-----------------------
Very important theme, raised from letter of Logan Streondj, is about
Idealism and Materialism.
Let note that both are religious approaches but not scientific.
I agree. But if we decide to do metaphysics or theology with the
scientific method, we can put the metaphysics in the hypothesis, and
search for criteria of verification.
The first,
Idealism, is based on belief about existence of God, Free Information
without material base, Intelligent Creation of the World,
Information Cube
which is transferred from one body to another, and etc. The second,
Materialism, is based on the opposite belief - all phenomena pointed
above
do not exist. But both interconnect their reasoning to these
phenomena.
The scientific approach is absolutely different. Scientists do not
assume
anything in advance and try to make reasoning based only on
repeatable and
controlled experiments.
I hope, the FIS List is a scientific forum and all posts nave to be
based
on repeatable and controlled experiments!
I agree with this partially. Metaphysics/theology *can* be done with
the scientific method. When we do that, the evidence are for Mechanism
and against Materialism.
Is it idealism? Well, all there is are numbers, and it is not a
problem to consider them as idea or programs, as this happens by
itself through the additive and multiplicative relations between the
numbers. This explains also where the information comes from, in the
form of first person histories-selection. There are no evidence for
Aristotle primary matter, which seems to have been a fertile
simplifying assumption only. But there are evidences for the many
histories in arithmetic (indeed those evidences are theorems), and for
the predicted statistics on those histories (the many-world aspect of
quantum mechanics without reduction).
About 10 principles of Informatics
----------------------------------
Dear Pedro,
I highly appreciate your proposition of principles!
I have no remarks about principles 6-10.
But the principles 1-5 are not clear for me.
My interpretation is given below marked by letter M (M1, M2, etc.).
These of Pedro are marked by letter P (P1, P2, etc.).
In my practice these principles had been used many times to solve and
explain practical problems.
The primary concept I used is the concept of “entity” – there are many
examples of real entities.
Entities interact permanently and after each interaction some internal
changes in the entities may appear.
Such changes are called “reflections”. In Computer science the
corresponded concept is “Data”.
Further reasoning is given below:
P1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
M1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not
every
reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended
reflections are
information.
But here you seem to assume primary material entities? I agree that
human's information relies heavily on material entities. Just to
communicate with you, I am using a physical computer. But physicalness
is an internal phenomelogical view, relying on the statistics on all
computations already emulated in the "block-mindscape" constituted by
arithmetic. Matter exists in the digital machine or number's
phenomenology (as a consequence of the Mechanist theory, which is my
field of expertise: I do not claim it to be true, I claim it to be
testable, and plausible given what we know today).
The universal numbers (the universal machine run in arithmetic)
reflect each others already.
P2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages,
or
flows.
M2. Reflections may be comprehended as structures, patterns, messages,
flows, etc.
P3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be
processed
(either computationally or non-computationally).
M3. Reflections can be recognized, can be measured, and can be
processed
(either computationally or non-computationally).
Yes. OK. In fact machine's reflection is only very partially capable
of being measured, and machines' reflexion is only partially
justfiable. For example, we recover consciousness by the proposition
of the type "true, not doubtable, not rationally justifiable, not
expressible, yet individually knowable". That gives an equation with a
non empty set of solutions for a large class of universal machine
(those with enough rich introspection abilities).
P4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-
production
processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying
energy flows.
M4. Reflection flows are essential organizers of life's self-
production
processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying
energy flows.
P5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles
underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.
Same in arithmetic, when you plunge "meta-arithmetic" in arithmetic,
following the method of Gödel.
M5. Communication is based on special kind of reflections created by
one
entity and reflected by a second one. This way, the reflections
comprehended as information by the first entity may be secondary
(transitively) reflected by the second one. Such exchanges among
adaptive
life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all
scales.
OK. I think we agree on many things, except your curious invocation of
matter which is slightly ambiguous on its primary-or-not character.
I would not equate information with reflection though, but there are
important relationship between meaningful (true or possibly true)
information and reflection.
Material or physical information exists, but is of a very different
nature than mental and number-theoretical, or logical information. The
first one arises from limits defined from the machine's perspective,
when emulated by infinitely many computations in arithmetic. It is
that material aspect of machines handling of information which makes
the Digital Mechanist (alias computationalism) testable in the
empirical domain.
Of course we get closer to Plato and Neoplatonism (the monist Plato of
the Parmenides; not so much the one of the Timeaeus) than to
Aristotle's materialism. Eventually the physical science are reduced
to elementary arithmetic, but here I mean "intensional arithmetic",
where a number can be a code for a digital machine. Note that
intensional arithmetic is isomorphic to a part of extensional
arithmetic. Each universal number can be used to construct the
isomorphism, like Gödel already did in 1931.
Kind regards,
Bruno
Krassimir
Bibliography
[St.Anselm] http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/middleages.html ,
http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/hop30.htm
[Muentzer] http://www.thomas-muentzer.de/,
[St.Agustín] http://www.conoze.com/doc.php?doc=157
[K.Markov, 2008] K. Markov, S. Poryazov, K. Ivanova, I. Mitov, V.
Markova. Culture Aspects of Inforaction. International Journal
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES & KNOWLEDGE, Volume 2, 2008, Number 4, pp. 335-342.
http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
