Dear Francesco, Thank you so much for your enlightening post on logic that is rising the topic one level up. You refer to Hegel who recognised complementary relationship between quality, quantity and their synthesis – measure, which is very central for the current discussion. I made English translation of your mail (below) and I hope it is adequate enough.
However, in your mail, if I understand it correctly, and in the rest of the current discussion, it is assumed that mathematics is quantitative science. As we are in the beginning of the era of big data that makes people believe that “data speak for themselves” and that sciences just collect and summarise/systematically represent data, it is very important to point out that mathematics is much, much more than data and its processing. It is qualitative science in the same sense that logic is. Algebra is not quantitative science. Algebra is the study of mathematical symbols and the rules for manipulating these symbols. Topology is not quantitative science. Topology is the study of qualitative properties of topological spaces that are invariant under certain kinds of transformations. Here is an explanation why it is essential not to identify quantitative literacy with mathematics. https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/qr/qr_and_the_disciplines.html All the best, Gordana From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> on behalf of Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com<mailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:56 To: "y...@pku.edu.cn<mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>" <y...@pku.edu.cn<mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>> Cc: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes Dear colleagues, existence implies articulate knowledge in the various sciences of nature, human and social. So the "Science of Logic", not the logic of science, by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1812-1816) applies to any kind of science. In fact, pure science of reason is divided into three doctrines of: - being (quantity, quality and their unity - measure) https://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slbeing.htm; - essence, which studies thought in its reflection or mediation, that is, the concept as it is "per se" and thus appears; - concept, study of the concept "in itself and for itself". The first presentation of reality takes place in the immediate, intuitive forms of quality, quantity and measure, but one must grasp what is hidden origin in the reality of being: the essence that represents the "truth of being". Hegel's reinterpretation provides ontological foundations to (the theory of) economic value conceived as a combination or energy / information relationship based on dialectical quantity / quality and "qualitative quantity" or measure. Hegel does not contrast the quantity with quality, but tries to gain complementarity by deriving the first from the second. Quantity is the denial of quality. Quantity and quality vary continuously, they are characterized by variability, but quantitative variation is indifferent to the quality that does not change with the change in the quantitative dimension. If the quantity is a time of outwardness indifferent to the sphere of quality, it justifies or explains Hegel's lack of consideration for purely quantitative considerations and therefore for those quantitative or hard mathematical sciences. He believes that the propositions of geometry and arithmetic have an exclusively analytical and therefore tautological nature, denying them all heuristic efficacy. This strong criticism of the rigor and scientific validity of mathematical models does not prevent him from carrying out an analysis that highlights the inadequacy of determinations, quantitative for the same mathematics, in which, according to this philosophical approach that strongly influences scientific epistemology, it raises qualitative criteria making it become "sweet." If maths are forced to incorporate qualitative or ordinal criteria, they have to move to the sphere of measure or "qualitative quantity". Of course, the science of logic has served me to elaborate the New Economy (see in particular Rizzo F., "Science can not be human, civil, social, economics (c), enigmatic, noble, prophetic", Aracne , Rome, 2016, pp. 604-615; or Rizzo F., "The City of Man, Subordinated to Faith", in Human Rights and the City Crisis by Corrado Beguinot et al., Giannini, Naples, 2012). So, to make it short, "qualitative quantity", "emo-rationality" and "meaning, information, communication" are fundamental to the whole of knowledge. I apologize for being overdue and thank you in advance for your critical attention. Francis. From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>> on behalf of Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com<mailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:56 To: "y...@pku.edu.cn<mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>" <y...@pku.edu.cn<mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>> Cc: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes Cari colleghi, l'esistenza implica la conoscenza articolata nelle diverse scienze della natura, umane e sociali. Quindi la "Science of Logic" , non la logica della scienza, di Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1812-1816) vale per qualsiasi tipo di scienza. Difatti la scienza pura della ragione si divide in tre dottrine: - dell'essere (quantità, qualità e misura); - dell'essenza, che studia il pensiero nella sua riflessione o mediazione, cioè il concetto in quanto è "per sè" e dunque appare; - del concetto, che studia il concetto "in sè e per sè". Il primo presentarsi della realtà avviene nelle forme immediate, intuitive, della qualità, quantità e misura, ma bisogna cogliere ciò che è all'origine nascosto nella realtà dell'essere: l'essenza che rappresenta la "verità dell'essere". La rilettura di Hegel fornisce i fondamenti ontologici al(la teoria del) valore economica concepita come una combinazione o una relazione energia/informazione basata sulla dialettica quantità/qualità e sulla "quantità qualitativa" o misura. Hegel non contrappone la quantità alla qualità, ma tenta di coglierne la complementarità facendo derivare la prima dalla seconda. La quantità è la negazione della qualità. Quantità e qualità variano continuamente, sono caratterizzate dalla variabilità, ma la variazione quantitativa è indifferente nei confronti della qualità che non cambia al mutare della dimensione quantitativa. Se la quantità è un momento di esteriorità indifferente alla sfera della qualità si giustifica o spiega la scarsa consi derazione di Hegel per le trattazioni puramente quantitative e dunque per quelle scienze matematiche quantitative o dure. Egli ritiene che le proposizioni della geometria e dell'aritmetica abbiano una natura esclusivamente analitica e dunque tautologica, negando loro ogni efficacia euristica. Questa forte critica al rigore e alla validità scientifica dei modelli matematici non gli impedisce di svolgere un'analisi che evidenzia l'insufficienza delle determinazioni, quantitative per la stessa matematica nella quale, secondo questa impostazione filosofica che influenza fortemente l'epistemologia scientifica, irrompono criteri qualitativi facendola divenire "dolce". Se la matematica è costretta incorporare criteri qualitativi o ordinali, deve far proprio il passaggio alla sfera della misura o "quantità qualitativa". Beninteso, la scienza della logica mi è servita per elaborare la Nuova economia (Cfr. in particolare Rizzo F., "La scienza non può non essere umana, civile, sociale, economi(c)a, enigmatica, nobile, profetica", Aracne, Roma, 2016, pp. 604-615; oppure Rizzo F., "La città dell'uomo. Sottesa dalla fede", in Human Rights and The City Crisis a cura di Corrado Beguinot ed altri, Giannini, Napoli, 2012). Quindi, per farla breve, "quantità qualitativa", "emo-ra-zionalità" e "significazione, informazione, comunicazione" sono fondamentali per l'INTERA conoscenza. Chiedo scusa per essermi dilungato e vi ringrazio anticipatamente per la vostra attenzione critica. Francesco. 2017-11-19 6:34 GMT+01:00 Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn<mailto:y...@pku.edu.cn>>: Dear Terry and Loet， I think both of your posts put forward a very important concept to information studies, i.e., HIERARCHY. Terry stated: "Communication needs to be more carefully distinguished from mere transfer of physical differences, …… Any transfer of physical, physical differences in this respect can be utilized to communicate, and all communication requires this physical foundation." I hope to raise a similar question: what is the mode of the existence of information? My answer is: No information can exist in a bare way. That is to say, any existence of information is premised on the existence of substrate, and the substrate can be hierarchical. In the same way, no information can be communicated or processed in a bare way if and only if it has been embedded in the substrate. In human information, substrate can be divided into sign, paper, etc., or other electronic devices. In genetic information, substrate can be divided into base, DNA or RNA, chromosome, cell, and organism. The study about the mode of existence of information is an important aspect of ontological research of information science. In Terry’s statement: "Simply collapsing our concept (compression, collapse) of 'communication' to its physical substrate ……", or in Loet’s words: "One should not confuse communication with the substance of communication." Again, this is a hierarchy problem. Because no information can be communicated in a bare way, so the communication of information is premised on the communication of substrate, the same is true in the processing of information. Then, any communication of information is twofold: communication of information and communication of substrate. The study about the mode of communication and processing of information is the important aspect of dynamical research of information science. Best wishes, Xueshan From:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 4:19 PM To: Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu<mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>>; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes Dear Terry and colleagues, I agree that one should not confuse communication with the substance of communication (e.g., life in bio-semiotics). It seems useful to me to distinguish between several concepts of "communication". 1. Shannon's (1948) definitions in "The Mathematical Theory of Communication". Information is communicated, but is yet meaning free. These notions of information and communication are counter-intuitive (Weaver, 1949). However, they provide us with means for the measurement, such as bits of information. The meaning of the communication is provided by the system of reference (Theil, 1972); in other words, by the specification of "what is comunicated?" For example, if money is communicated (redistributed), the system of reference is a transaction system. If molecules are communicated, life can be generated (Maturana). 2. Information as "a difference which makes a difference" (Bateson, 1973; McKay, 1969). A difference can only make a difference for a receiving system that provides meaning to the system. In my opinion, one should in this case talk about "meaningful information" and "meaningful communication" as different from the Shannon-type information (based on probability distributions). In this case, we don't have a clear instrument for the measurement. For this reason, I have a preference for the definitions under 1. 3. Interhuman communication is of a different order because it involves intentionality and language. The discourses under 1. and 2. are interhuman communication systems. (One has to distinguish levels and should not impose our intuitive notion of communication on the processes under study.) In my opinion, interhuman communication involves both communication of information and possibilities of sharing meaning. The Shannon-type information shares with physics the notion of entropy. However, physical entropy is dimensioned (Joule/Kelvin; S = k(B) H), whereas probabilistic entropy is dimensionless (H). Classical physics, for example, is based on the communication of momenta and energy because these two quantities have to be conserved. In the 17th century, it was common to use the word "communication" in this context (Leibniz). Best, Loet ------ Original Message ------ From: "Terrence W. DEACON" <dea...@berkeley.edu<mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>> To: "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Cc: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>; "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>> Sent: 11/17/2017 6:34:18 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes On communication: "Communication" needs to be more carefully distinguished from mere transfer of physical differences from location to location and time to time. Indeed, any physical transfer of physical differences in this respect can be utilized to communicate, and all communication requires this physical foundation. But there is an important hierarchic distinction that we need to consider. Simply collapsing our concept of 'communication' to its physical substrate (and ignoring the process of interpretation) has the consequence of treating nearly all physical processes as communication and failing to distinguish those that additionally convey something we might call representational content. Thus while internet communication and signals transferred between computers do indeed play an essential role in human communication, we only have to imagine a science fiction story in which all human interpreters suddenly disappear but our computers nevertheless continue to exchange signals, to realize that those signals are not "communicating" anything. At that point they would only be physically modifying one another, not communicating, except in a sort of metaphoric sense. This sort of process would not be fundamentally different from solar radiation modifying atoms in the upper atmosphere or any other similar causal process. It would be odd to say that the sun is thereby communicating anything to the atmosphere. So, while I recognize that there are many methodological contexts in which it makes little difference whether or not we ignore this semiotic aspect, as many others have also hinted, this is merely to bracket from consideration what really distinguishes physical transfer of causal influence from communication. Remember that this was a methodological strategy that even Shannon was quick to acknowledge in the first lines of his classic paper. We should endeavor to always be as careful. — Terry _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto: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
