[Fis] end of session
Dear FIS colleagues,
The ongoing session on information theory ("information: mystery
solving") will be closed soon. At his convenience, Mark Burging will
send the usual Colophon with his impressions and some synthesis.
These are pretty complicate weeks for teaching and research, so some
pause in the discussions will be appreciated by many. In any case, the
list is always open to tangential discussions and spontaneous new
themes. Personally I would like to contribute next week to the ongoing
exchanges on information and the nature of time --from the point of view
of neurosciences, am affraid conventional time is quite untenable (as
well as the personal sense of!)
best wishes
---Pedro
-
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] end of session
Very Unfrequently Asked Questions We have proposed a rethink of the procedure of additions. We state that setting a1+b1=c=a2+b2 with a1#a2 (that is, saying that between 2+5 and 3+4 there is no real difference and ignoring this difference carries no costs and working on this difference is a waste of time) is a crude rounding. We say that the concept of additions merits a revisiting and that not accepting a rounding error (which we commit by setting 6+11=8+9) greatly improves our ability to count more exactly. Furthermore, looking into the interdependences of additions allows us to model Nature in fruitful ways. This idea has been repeated and repeated again, with a very elaborate numeric Table as demonstrational tool. So far, the response has been rather hesitant. Questions in the following fields could help to find the useful behind the unexpected: 1. Psychology 2. Numerical 3. Nature 4. Sociology 5. Applications and Business Let me help the reader by offering a structure by which understanding the concept of a+b=c becomes easier. The following are questions that could well be raised: 1.1. Is this an explanation in the sense of the term “explanation” as used in epistemology and psychology? 1.2. What is the novelty value of the invention? 1.3. Is it reasonable that the normal reader of the concept goes into resistance? 1.4. Is it to be expected that the normal reader of the concept goes tilt (becomes mute)? 1.5. Is the rounding error connected to thinking one-dimensionally, similarity-oriented? 1.6. What is the relation between foreground and background? 2.1. Is a sequence 1,2,3,… one-dimensional? 2.2. Are additions generally seen as one-dimensional? 2.3. Is a sorting procedure a specific partition of the set? 2.4. Does the difference between a and b translate into a linear position in the set? 2.5. What is a maximally structured set? 2.6. Why 136? 2.7. Does the set leak above 136? 2.8. Is the search path to individual elements differently long in multidimensional sets? 3.1. Is the DNA traditionally seen in the literature as one-dimensional? 3.2. Does the model offer two logically and physically different sub-spaces with 3 rectangular axes each? 3.3. Can the two sub-spaces be merged into one, Newtonian, space? 3.4. Does the model show spatial properties of objects to be translatable into mass properties? 3.5. Does the model offer clear definitions for properties of time? 3.6. Are the spatial points thru which strings run a concept for mass? 3.7. Could the spatial geometry of molecules be understood by means of the model? 4.1. Has the usage of additions heretofore been an ex cathedra dogma? 4.2. Is the insistence on the irrelevance of the difference between 2+4 and 3+3 a cultural heritage? 4.3. Is the concept of the right hierarchy connected to experiences transmitted by the gravitation? 4.4. Is it usual to be very angry with someone who makes the system as understood so far collapse? 4.5. Why has this so-called “invention” not been invented so far? 5.1. Can I publish very many papers if I understand before others what is a+b=c? 5.2. Is this the time to jump the band-wagon? 5.3. Is there anything to publish left for me? 5.4. Is this stuff good to sell to the general public? 5.5. Has anyone made a Book Of Additions with many colourful drawings yet? 5.6. About 1% of the population of the Earth is a mathematician. Is that a market? 5.7. Could this idea work in the fashion (using the principle) like the neurons integrate information? 5.8. Would it be profitable to have such a Table on both ends of a communication channel? 5.8. Are there inventions ready to patent if only I ask for a private meeting? Varna is a nice town, specifically end of June. I shall be there from the 21st till the 26th and look forward to any of these questions. It would be friendly of you if you could advise about which you would like to work on. Of course, I will do my best if you come up with some other questions, but of course it is open if I can give you an answer to those. Looking forward an interesting exchange: Karl ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] end of session
Dear All,
please let me contribute to the summary of this session. Of the
multi-faceted work we have done, I'd like to touch but two points: a.
applicability and code, b. time.
To have a businessman in our group is a blessing. We are reminded that
science is not only a pastime but should bring some profit, too. The
hypothesis we have accepted (I do not dare to write: "the result we have
agreed on") is that there was a deep logical flaw in our "rational" thinking
these last centuries. We have culturally accepted a rounding error in our
calculations by concentrating on one - rather debatable - definition, namely
that a1+b1=c=a2+b2 with a1#a2. This has turned out to be the result of a
wishful thinking. Our ancestors have not been able to look deeper into the
consequences of this rounding error. Our generation has had access to
computing devices which have allowed shifting through wast amounts of data
until some numerical facts could be found that allow a much exacter modeling
of Nature than the classical way of reckoning has so far made possible.
The basic tool one uses - in its easiest and lightest, primitive version -,
is a Table with 136 rows and 72x71 columns and 9 planes. The actual
complexity is in fact a bit more demanding. Yet, this Table appears to give
a good model for quite many applications relating to order, information,
movement, places, mass, velocity, alternatives, potentials (energy) and many
more concepts one is happy to have found a rational explanation (definition)
for.
The Table will at first be studied in C++ or Matlab varieties. After its
usefulness will have been recognised, it will be doubtlessly integrated in
chips (prominently, on both ends of a communication channel), therefore
written in machine code, if not hardwired.
The practical uses of the Table cannot now be enumerated. Focused hearing,
pattern recognition and cryptography will be the most evident beneficiaries.
As the concept behind the Table deals only with a+b=c, the concept will be
useful in every field where formal logic contributes. The relationship
between place and mass is of a high importance both in Physics and in
Chemistry. The quality property of assemblies of mass in (relatively) fixed
places is what Chemistry in the sense of Biochemy and - later - Genetics
deals with. So, the businessman in our midst may look forward to fruitful
results of the translation of basic science into applications.
Natural numbers and operations with them cannot be patented. Their
applications can. This group may have made progress beyond the most
optimistic estimations - if the group can and will act responsibly. Now, it
is the turn of the businessmen to be active. The proposition is out in the
open.
To the discussion on what we call colloquially "time". There can be at least
three different readings found if one understands the concepts behind a+b=c.
First, there is the length of a "convoy". This is a local, closed loop of
time. Second, there is time as the differentiating semantic marker between
cause and effect. This can be read off the Table by means of the ties. If
the ties are ordered, there must have been a before. Third, there is the
global reading of time. This is visible on differentiations of a+b=c as a
temporal-spatial process. One unified reading being logically impossible
(there cannot be concurrently contradicting readings of priorities of
orders), there evolve subsegments in space in which each a different version
of the local times exist. As not all possible reorders can take place
concurrently, there will be sub-alternatives, in each of which those
reorders can take place which would be elsewhere contradictory.
Thank you for the collaboration and the high level of discussions in this
session.
Karl
2011/5/27 Pedro C. Marijuan
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> The ongoing session on information theory ("information: mystery
> solving") will be closed soon. At his convenience, Mark Burging will
> send the usual Colophon with his impressions and some synthesis.
>
> These are pretty complicate weeks for teaching and research, so some
> pause in the discussions will be appreciated by many. In any case, the
> list is always open to tangential discussions and spontaneous new
> themes. Personally I would like to contribute next week to the ongoing
> exchanges on information and the nature of time --from the point of view
> of neurosciences, am affraid conventional time is quite untenable (as
> well as the personal sense of!)
>
> best wishes
>
> ---Pedro
>
> -
> 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 l
Re: [Fis] end of session
I prefer that you do not speak for others, to any degree. I certainly exclude
myself.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://senses.info
On May 30, 2011, at 1:37 PM, karl javorszky wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> please let me contribute to the summary of this session. Of the multi-faceted
> work we have done, I'd like to touch but two points: a. applicability and
> code, b. time.
>
> To have a businessman in our group is a blessing. We are reminded that
> science is not only a pastime but should bring some profit, too. The
> hypothesis we have accepted (I do not dare to write: "the result we have
> agreed on") is that there was a deep logical flaw in our "rational" thinking
> these last centuries. We have culturally accepted a rounding error in our
> calculations by concentrating on one - rather debatable - definition, namely
> that a1+b1=c=a2+b2 with a1#a2. This has turned out to be the result of a
> wishful thinking. Our ancestors have not been able to look deeper into the
> consequences of this rounding error. Our generation has had access to
> computing devices which have allowed shifting through wast amounts of data
> until some numerical facts could be found that allow a much exacter modeling
> of Nature than the classical way of reckoning has so far made possible.
>
> The basic tool one uses - in its easiest and lightest, primitive version -,
> is a Table with 136 rows and 72x71 columns and 9 planes. The actual
> complexity is in fact a bit more demanding. Yet, this Table appears to give a
> good model for quite many applications relating to order, information,
> movement, places, mass, velocity, alternatives, potentials (energy) and many
> more concepts one is happy to have found a rational explanation (definition)
> for.
>
> The Table will at first be studied in C++ or Matlab varieties. After its
> usefulness will have been recognised, it will be doubtlessly integrated in
> chips (prominently, on both ends of a communication channel), therefore
> written in machine code, if not hardwired.
> The practical uses of the Table cannot now be enumerated. Focused hearing,
> pattern recognition and cryptography will be the most evident beneficiaries.
>
> As the concept behind the Table deals only with a+b=c, the concept will be
> useful in every field where formal logic contributes. The relationship
> between place and mass is of a high importance both in Physics and in
> Chemistry. The quality property of assemblies of mass in (relatively) fixed
> places is what Chemistry in the sense of Biochemy and - later - Genetics
> deals with. So, the businessman in our midst may look forward to fruitful
> results of the translation of basic science into applications.
>
> Natural numbers and operations with them cannot be patented. Their
> applications can. This group may have made progress beyond the most
> optimistic estimations - if the group can and will act responsibly. Now, it
> is the turn of the businessmen to be active. The proposition is out in the
> open.
>
> To the discussion on what we call colloquially "time". There can be at least
> three different readings found if one understands the concepts behind a+b=c.
> First, there is the length of a "convoy". This is a local, closed loop of
> time. Second, there is time as the differentiating semantic marker between
> cause and effect. This can be read off the Table by means of the ties. If
> the ties are ordered, there must have been a before. Third, there is the
> global reading of time. This is visible on differentiations of a+b=c as a
> temporal-spatial process. One unified reading being logically impossible
> (there cannot be concurrently contradicting readings of priorities of
> orders), there evolve subsegments in space in which each a different version
> of the local times exist. As not all possible reorders can take place
> concurrently, there will be sub-alternatives, in each of which those reorders
> can take place which would be elsewhere contradictory.
>
> Thank you for the collaboration and the high level of discussions in this
> session.
> Karl
>
> 2011/5/27 Pedro C. Marijuan
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> The ongoing session on information theory ("information: mystery
> solving") will be closed soon. At his convenience, Mark Burging will
> send the usual Colophon with his impressions and some synthesis.
>
> These are pretty complicate weeks for teaching and research, so some
> pause in the discussions will be appreciated by many. In any case, the
> list is always open to tangential discussions and spontaneous new
> themes. Personally I would like to contribute next week to the ongoing
> exchanges on information and the nature of time --from the point of view
> of neurosciences, am affraid conventional time is quite untenable (as
> well as the personal sense of!)
>
> best wishes
>
> ---Pedro
>
