Hi Bob (U), Reading your (Tue Feb 2 21:18:25) note. > minority opinion among the FIS group . . . > believe that information possesses both epistemic and ontic features< I find myself wondering if there is a specific reason you believe this is a "minority opinion" rather than the exchanges reflecting people struggling with an interesting problem from various perspectives?
Have I missed something fundamental to this group? For me, Otto's (Tue Feb 2 13:06) note that: > seems what is crucially needed is a theory that brings together . . .< captures the essence of the matter, but that we (FIS?) have yet to surmount. Loet's note (Mon Jan 18 07:58:42) in reply to my own dualistic struggles on "Meaning versus Functional Significance" got me to scratching my head . . . > In my opinion, such an approach is fully consistent with Shannon’s H. > S = k(B) * H > The Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality (Joule/Kelvin) so that S is thermodynamic > entropy. H is a mathematical formula. It can be used to measure your “functional significances”, > cannot it? And, of course he is correct in saying this . . . it is hard to think of ANYTHING that does not entail some manner of (entropic) functional significance. But teasing apart the differences is something rather different. So the naive dualistic notion I was proposing did nothing to improve things (really). As I reflect on this (and Howard's "communications") further I think the point Terry Deacon raised in his IS4IS talk on "levels of analysis" and the importance of keeping divisions clear points me toward home. I recall how Type Theory (naming levels of analysis) was used to resolve similar logical paradoxes, akin to the dualistic debate seen here. As I said, this all points to an interesting problem . . .
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
