Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Joseph and FIS colleagues,

"When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the 
underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of of 
simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the 
lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow 
of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner 
loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never 
attainable..."
This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).

I think that more important than the concrete advancements along the 
fluctuon model guidelines is the validity of the pioneering vision. It 
was this "vertical flow of percolating information" what inspired in 
early 90's the creation of FIS and a new dialog including the social 
sciences and the humanities, not restricted to the biological and 
ecosystems domains. Beyond the "biomimetic" horizon of Complexity 
theorists and Artificial Life schools (then in their peak), this type of 
reflection was proposing a new informational perspective to be extended 
to the inner generativity of multiple realms in the scientific 
enterprise (not to start a new reductionist game, but to offer a 
fresh-new player in the whole social recombination of knowledge).

Some trends in information physics are undoubtedly running very close to 
this direction (see for instance Lee Smolin's books; or "Decoding 
Reality" on quantum information science by Vlatko Vedral, 2010) rather 
unfortunately ignoring this pathway. It could be argued that some 
parties in Systems Biology are also running along this trend. And 
leaders of "advanced" Artificial Intelligence are nowadays proposing a 
reflection on the nature of Intelligence that conduces to reconsider 
information itself and the foundations of information science in a 
general sense.

Perhaps in this general framework our more detailed discussions (eg, 
about info signatures) or the extent of Shannon's Theory, or the 
plausibility of cellular (quantum?) intelligence, or how to articulate 
social information sciences... or my unanswered question on the 
materiality of the microphysical laws of nature themselves --as 
information that acts on information--- appear with more cogency.

all the best

---Pedro

Joseph Brenner escribió:
> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
> The following "impressionist" recap is intended not as a critique, but 
> simply to perhaps help organize the continuation of this fascinating 
> discussion.
>
> For me, almost all the notes have illuminated aspects of the 
> "Foundations of Information Science", where participants have 
> re-presented their theories developed over many years. Some of the new 
> interactions, such as those between Robert U., Loet and Koichiro, 
> deserve development in their own right.
>
> However, my and Kevin K.'s basic question of whether /new evidence 
> exists of any interaction between the world modeled by fluctuons and 
> the thermodynamic world/ has in my opinion not been answered. If none 
> of us has this knowledge, then we must somehow "send a mission" to 
> those who might have it that could report back to us. I do not 
> consider myself as competent enough in physics to simply rephrase 
> Conrad's statements from the papers available.
>
> In relation to this, it is helpful when participants indicate their 
> basic positions about Conrad's /kind/ of theory. Steven did. There is 
> also the idea of a "physics-neutral" theory. Perhaps a total picture 
> of information can be built up without /any/ reference to the 
> structure (or lack of it) of the sub-quantum world?
>
> I disagree, of course: microphysical laws will, I believe, define the 
> information about information "in reality" that Pedro refers to. This 
> thread, that includes Karl's approach to physics and logic, needs to 
> be explored further. It is possible, (by now I guess it is reasonable 
> to assume most of you know my view on this), that information cannot 
> be defined completely by reference to a sentential logic such as that 
> proposed by Karl. Further, I am very curious, and would welcome 
> comments on in relation to information, about progress in the theory 
> of dissipative systems that has been made /since/ Prigogine, such as 
> the catastrophe theory of Thom and Petitot (itself rather outdated).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 1:37 PM
> Subject: [Fis] Recapping the discussion?
>
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> A usual practice in past chaired discussions is that after the first
> round of debates, after three weeks or so like in the current session,
> the chairs recap the discussion by refocusing it on the most salient or
> relevant aspects, or just by pointing to some unnoticed connections.
> Could it be OK in this case? In the interim, while Kevin and Joseph try
> to find their time to follow this tradition, I would point to 

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Pedro,

Thank you for calling my attention and that of the Group to Conrad's vision
and this most important quotation. It is certainly congenial to my logical
system, in which downward causation, imperfect circularity and
self-inconsistency are accepted as a matter of course and assigned their
necessary ontological value.

I also understand the importance of the derived informational perspective
and its consequence for a new understanding of the social recombination of
knowledge, as well as the critical questions you refer to in your last
paragraph - information acting on information, etc. I not only agree with
this perspective, but it was in this "spirit" that I tried to capture the
role of fluctuons in my "9 Points" sent to you personally. (Perhaps you may
consider it appropriate to"publish" the 9 Points now or in the near future.)

The lack of new evidence from physics for fluctuon interactions with higher
levels would not invalidate your/my view of the value of Conrad's vision.
However, such scientific evidence would be valuable in its own right as well
as possibly suggest new, non-reductionist applications.

Stan's statement points in this direction: "Then, Conrad can be seen to have
been working to try to rescue microscopic physics from those maintaining
that there cannot be a view from anywhere; that all views are by someone
located in time and space, and so, in effect, cannot be objective."
Can we talk objectively, at least in part, about the sub-quantum realm that
we will never observe directly? I believe the answer is yes, but it requires
a new approach to the meaning of being "located in time and space". In my
view and I think in that of Koichiro, it is time and space that are "located
in" or associated with us. Evidence of the influence of sub-quantum
fluctuations on biological entities may become more accessible from this
standpoint, or not. To be continued, I hope.

Best,

Joseph

- Original Message - 
From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap


Dear Joseph and FIS colleagues,

"When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the
underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of of
simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the
lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow
of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner
loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never
attainable..."
This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).

I think that more important than the concrete advancements along the
fluctuon model guidelines is the validity of the pioneering vision. It
was this "vertical flow of percolating information" what inspired in
early 90's the creation of FIS and a new dialog including the social
sciences and the humanities, not restricted to the biological and
ecosystems domains. Beyond the "biomimetic" horizon of Complexity
theorists and Artificial Life schools (then in their peak), this type of
reflection was proposing a new informational perspective to be extended
to the inner generativity of multiple realms in the scientific
enterprise (not to start a new reductionist game, but to offer a
fresh-new player in the whole social recombination of knowledge).

Some trends in information physics are undoubtedly running very close to
this direction (see for instance Lee Smolin's books; or "Decoding
Reality" on quantum information science by Vlatko Vedral, 2010) rather
unfortunately ignoring this pathway. It could be argued that some
parties in Systems Biology are also running along this trend. And
leaders of "advanced" Artificial Intelligence are nowadays proposing a
reflection on the nature of Intelligence that conduces to reconsider
information itself and the foundations of information science in a
general sense.

Perhaps in this general framework our more detailed discussions (eg,
about info signatures) or the extent of Shannon's Theory, or the
plausibility of cellular (quantum?) intelligence, or how to articulate
social information sciences... or my unanswered question on the
materiality of the microphysical laws of nature themselves --as
information that acts on information--- appear with more cogency.

all the best

---Pedro

Joseph Brenner escribió:
> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
> The following "impressionist" recap is intended not as a critique, but
> simply to perhaps help organize the continuation of this fascinating
> discussion.
>
> For me, almost all the notes have illuminated aspects of the
> "Foundations of Information Science", where participants have
> re-presented their theories developed over many years. Some of the new
> interactions, such as those between Robert U., Loet and Koichiro,
> deserve development in their own right.
>
> However, my and Kevin K.'s basic question of whether /new evidence
> exists of any interaction between th

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Stanley N Salthe]

I would like to comment upon Conrad's statement:

"When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the
> underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of
> simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the
> lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow

of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner

> loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never
> attainable..."
> This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).
>

  This message has been advanced in more detail in my own studies,
published in:

1986.  Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Columbia University Press (Conrad;'s
work up to then informed this book)
1993.  Development and Evolution. MIT Press (Chapter 3)
2002.  Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory.  General Systems
Bulletin 31: 13-17. (I am updating this paper, and am willing to send a copy
to anyone who requests it.)

  The 'devil is in the details' as they say.  From that point of view,
Conrad's "the flow of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with
multiple inner loops." requires a lot of work, which I have laid some
groundwork for in the above listed texts.

STAN

>
>
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Fis] Fw: Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez]

Forwarded message, From Jamie Rose 




De 
James Rose 

Fecha 
Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:42:39 -0700 (PDT)

A 
fis@listas.unizar.es

CC 
ro...@home.ease.lsoft.com

Asunto 
Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap









And not to be overlooked is Robert Rosen's extensivework identifying and detailing the complex pluralism of effective information relationships call "entailments". By at least 2 decades before Conrads "the flow of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner loops."  Jamie Rose

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear colleagues, 

 

Perhaps, I misread or misunderstand some of these discussions, but it seems
to me – having read Conrad – that in the background their philosophy is
cosmological or, in other words, an attempt to ground “bits in it”. I
understand that “it” is considered as a fluctuon and no longer a given, but
in flux: the assumed flux generates uncertainty or information.

 

It does not appeal to me. Having studied philosophy, I may no longer be in
need of such grounding in a metaphysics of metabiology (as I am not in need
of a religion). What appeals to me in the mathematical notion of information
is its basis in uncertainty and its dimensionlesness. In philosophical
terms, it seems to me that Shannon mathematized the Cartesian Cogito: the
uncertainty can nowadays be expressed as bits of information. Bits of
information are yet meaningless without the specification of a system of
reference: the cogitatum. Unlike Descartes, however, the cogitatum is no
longer considered as a God (the Transcendent Other), but any system of
reference can be specified. The specification of the system of reference
provides meaning to the information: the difference(s) can then make a
difference for the specified system of reference. The theoretical task is to
specify the selection mechanisms in these systems of reference. 

 

It seems to me important to follow Herbert Simon’s notion of vertical and
horizontal differentiation and then to agree with Conrad that these
differentiations can be interwoven and oblique. Synergies can be expected to
emerge at some places more than others. The autopoiesis model is functional
for the specification of the interactions among selection mechanism. At each
level (vertically) or in each dimension (horizontally) the specification of
selection mechanisms may give rise to new scientific specialisms. This
complex fabric is reflected in the scientific literature; for example, in
the reference relations among scientific texts and journals. Note that what
is considered horizontal or vertical can be tumbled because these remain
constructs of the meta-theoretical descriptions of a dynamics of the
sciences as discursive constructs. 

 

For each of the discourses, one can expect the possibility to deconstruct
and to clarify beyond a limited number of interfaces with neighbouring
discourses. Beyond that horizon, the specific selection mechanisms of the
discourse in question can become unsharp and uncertainty begins to prevail.
Uncertainty is the cosmological – or perhaps better: chaological –
assumption about the environments of the (selection) system. 

 

Wasn’t it Tycho Brahe’s suscipio descipiendo, descipio suscipiendo? Nothing
but uncertainty; if order emerges, selection mechanisms must have been
specified. (That is an epistemological assumption.) However, these selection
mechanisms are not given. Who would have been the One who could have given
them to us other than our various intellects and their interacting
discourses? 

 

Fortunately, I don’t send this on a Sunday morning. J

 

With best wishes for a nice Saturday,

 

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
  l...@leydesdorff.net ;
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 3:35 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

 

I would like to comment upon Conrad's statement: 

"When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the
underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of
simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the
lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow

of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner

loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never
attainable..."
This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).

 

  This message has been advanced in more detail in my own studies,
published in:

 

1986.  Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Columbia University Press (Conrad;'s
work up to then informed this book)

1993.  Development and Evolution. MIT Press (Chapter 3)

2002.  Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory.  General Systems
Bulletin 31: 13-17. (I am updating this paper, and am willing to send a copy
to anyone who requests it.) 

 

  The 'devil is in the details' as they say.  From that point of view,
Conrad's "the flow of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with
multiple inner loops." requires a lot of work, which I have laid some
groundwork for in the above listed texts.

 

STAN  



-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bio