Hi Loet,
Thank you for your Fri Jul 1 post:
> to define information as “a difference which makes a <
> difference”. . both differences have to be specified.<
> Differences(1) can make a difference(2) for a system of <
> reference (receiver). <
• This is surely correct! This also aligns with what the video presents –
that “differences themselves must be differentiated” (also Bateson), framed
via metadata (data about data). But the video enlarges this view by naming
four minimal needed differences (delta O [object], delta S [subject], delta
Q [expansion],and delta x [reduction]) to infer a universal (evolving)
model of information. But then I am struck by your post’s last line:
>The idea that one can reconcile two analytical different <
> concept in a “universal” theory is mistaken.<
• I am unsure of what you mean here. Do you assert that an UTI is *per se*
impossible? Or do you mean *at least* two distinct analytic concepts must
be presented beside each other, in a complementary manner? The “impossible
view” I disagree with, and I claim this is a psychological problem in how
one frames their model (type theory is the answer). A “two concept” view I
agree with, which I show as natural material duality (dual aspect: delta O
& delta S) . . . but then one must go further to accommodate evolution –
hence, four minimal modeled differences.
• Again, I wonder *just how much* we agree and disagree – of course, as you
say, there is no “cosmic commandment” saying that we must agree. Still, I
hope to understand the details of any specific differences (pun wholly
intended) that do arise.
Dear Pedro,
Your 29 June post notes an old session on Mechanics. I examined the
archives (http://fis-mail.sciforum.net) for such a session and all I found
was four brief entries that begin with:
> Re: mechanics vs. info Erdi Peter (Tue 23 Feb 1999) <
• Those entries did not offer much detail. Did you have another session in
mind? Also, you close your last post:
> sorry if this was a disruption, but your discussion <
> invites [one] to transgress the boundaries. <
• To an extent, this is true. But I also note, and briefly typify, this
“difficulty” (e.g., order vs. disorder) in the introductory text. Further,
a “UTI impossible” view noted in my reply to Loet seems plausible only when
emphasizing “higher-order” roles. Thus, I stress an *a priori* model –
which emphasizes a more-simplified view.
• I say a bit more – a priori views demand something “well informed”
individuals may find hard. A “beginners mind” is needed (from meditation),
or an “intellectual innocence,” even if we never truly “forget what we
know.” A *humble* view denies the detailed expertise most of us are trained
in. “Expertise” also hinders true trans-disciplinary views. This is all
part of the Cultural Legacy that we inherit and that I pointed to in my
earlier post re Shannon’s usage of “information.” I will say a bit more on
this in another post.
Regardless, Loet and Pedro, I sincerely thank you both for your thoughts.
Marcus
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
