Dear Arturo, Joseph, all,
This seems a very productive line of thought. But is "dimension" the right word?
Lou, for example, has just exercised his agency in producing a
wonderful alternative description of Russell's paradox. Is it another
dimension? Or is it just another description? It seems very similar to
what Bateson does in Chapter 3 of Mind and Nature ("Multiple
descriptions of the world") where he discusses the representation of a
quadratic equation.
By "dimension", do you refer to the countable elements that would be
considered in the Shannon equation (i.e. the the number of discrete
components comprising a message)? The index in Shannon is not the same
as a physical dimension, and as Bob Ulanowicz pointed out a couple of
weeks ago, Shannon's weakness is that he cannot account for shifts in
the distinctions which are drawn between countable things.
As Loet has discussed, the relation between alternative descriptions
is one of overlap of constraint: mutual redundancy is core to it.
There is mutual redundancy in between Lou's description and
Krassimer's description. The paper on mutual redundancy that Loet sent
round a while ago spells this out very clearly.
As an educationalist, this resonates with me. Gordon Pask, who was a
pioneer in educational technology, explained that understanding is
expressed through the capacity to generate multiple redundant
descriptions of phenomena.
Dimension, as it is used in physics, is not this.
best wishes,
Mark
On 26 October 2017 at 07:54, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> Dear Arturo,
>
> I think this formulation is correct and very useful. It implies, in the
> formal sense of real implication, a dynamics of emergence of the more
> complex states. Gerhard Luhn has also pointed to this emergence (he calls it
> of 'new laws') as a property of the universe, of which are our brains are a
> fairly interesting part. . .
>
> As in Terry's recent note, this 'enriched' input avoids the straitjackets of
> binary values or simple self-contradiction.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tozziart...@libero.it
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:45 AM
> Subject: [Fis] Adding dimensions
>
> Dear FISers,
>
> it is clear (and it has been demonstrated) that what you call "agent" is
> something that... increases the dimensions of the discourse.
>
> For example, our brain, rather than "extract" information from the
> environment, makes exactly the opposite process, by "diluting" and
> "increasing" it.
> Starting from sensorial inputs from the 3D (plus time) environmental data,
> our brain processes them in 4D plus time (or even more!) dimensions. This
> means that, when I see a cat in the street, my mind enriches it with other
> dimensions (emotions: "how nice is that cat!"; higher brain activities:
> "that cat is a feline"; and so on)
>
> Arturo Tozzi
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
--
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Institute of Learning and Teaching
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool
Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
