I am not aware of anything in computing or computer science that says that 
recursions must have a bottom.

This whole "it-bit" question appears to me to be a basic category mistake. 
Perhaps someone can clarify for me in more definite terms exactly what an "it" 
is. 

Before you do so, however, let me add the following: The definition "an 'it' an 
implementation of a 'bit'" will not satisfy me. Conversely, telling me that it 
has something to do with units of mass/energy from which bits may arise is not 
helpful either (though I may applaud the constructive nature of the statement). 
No equivalence statement appears to be useful. 

In the end some kind of epistemological statement is necessary, perhaps one 
that says something to the effect that "bits" are ways of speaking about "its." 
But this statement is not an especially useful either, except perhaps to 
observe that bits have their subject of discourse. 

There is little justification to view any current information theory as being 
more than a way of speaking about the unfolding of the world. More 
specifically, despite current fashion, Quantum Theory and the Photo Electric 
Effect, there is no scientific justification for placing bits "into" the 
foundations of the world. 

Hence, I can make no sense of a "Fluctuon." 

With respect,
Steven


--
        Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
        Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
        http://iase.info
        http://senses.info







On Sep 25, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> Regarding the very interesting discussion of ”it” from ”bit” and vice versa.
>  
> Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
> implementational) presupposes some “it” in which “bit” is implemented. In 
> computing, recursions must have a bottom.
>  
> Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, “it” and “bit” 
> cannot be distinguished at all?
> They simply are an “it-bit” like in Informational Structural Realism of 
> Floridi who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an 
> informational structure.
>  
> Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual wave-particle 
> nature. 
> Why cannot they be “it-bit” as well?
>  
> Best,
> Gordana
>  
>  
> From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
> Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
> Sent: den 25 september 2010 10:48
> To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
>  
> Dear Joe,
>  
> Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is, 
> energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
> certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
> same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
> non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
> something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
> material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.
>  
> Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon’s concept of 
> information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the 
> Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.
>  
> One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the 
> biologically inspired concept of information as “a difference which makes a 
> difference” (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can 
> provide meaning to the information.
>  
> I would not call this “anti-realist”, but “anti-positivist”. The 
> specification in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as 
> different from res extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological 
> status. All other science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically 
> prevailing.
>  
> Best wishes,
> Loet
>  
> Loet Leydesdorff 
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to