Dear Stan, Dear All, My justification for pursuing this thread, if our leader agrees, is that the Foundations of Information Science are not going to be all that different from the Foundations of Science /tout court/, as seems to be coming out.
I thus see that radical skepticism about science and fundamental religious belief have something in common: an aspect of irresponsibility. The believer says all is the will of God, including my tendency to behave badly, so I have no responsibility to choose differently. The skeptic says that (all) science is a human construct, and has erred in the past, so I have no responsibility to choose that part of science to which this statement is inapplicable. However, if one is unable to learn enough to make that choice, then his skepticism is unfounded. My Post-post-modernism is, in my humble opinion, "stepping forward" again, in a movement counter to Stan's "stepping back" :-), but one in which it is accepted that absolute certainty is an illusion. Since I totally share Stan's list of political establishments to be unseated (or at least inhibited), to which I would add organized crime and the "shadow elite", my critique is offered to bring out the need for both approaches, and to hope that their "dual existence" is seen as part of a broader dualism at the basis of science. The consequence for me is that Information Science must be able to discuss, as rigorously as possible what it is that people like Assange, and their opposnents actually do with and to information. Best wishes, Joseph > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Ulanowicz" <u...@umces.edu> > To: "Stanley N Salthe" <ssal...@binghamton.edu> > Cc: "Karl Javorszky" <karl.javors...@gmail.com>; "Joseph Brenner" > <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>; <u...@cbl.umces.edu> > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 1:33 AM > Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky. Plea for (responsible) dualism > > >> Stan, Karl, Joseph: >> >> Karol Wojtyla described the relationship between science and religion >> rather succinctly: Science prunes religion of superstition; religion >> warns science against false absolutes. >> >> Stan and legions of others are at work trying to deconstruct religion. >> You all obviously don't need my help (although I do at times appreciate >> constructive de-mythologization). >> >> Like Stan, however, I also view science in the postmodern vein as a >> construct, and not a very solid one at that -- certainly no where near >> the absolute that advocates of scientism claim it is. Just how tenuous >> and far from absolute is not very well-appreciated. >> >> That's the side of the dialog that I have been pursuing. I don't see >> myself as deconstructing science, however. Far from it. I see my >> directions as freeing science from puerile ideology in order to make >> significant progress on serious problems via new approaches. Hubris? >> Very possibly! But somebody needs to attempt that pathway. >> >> Science makes for strange bedfellows! :) >> >> Peace, >> Bob >> >> Quoting Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>: >> >>> in my first for the week, Replying to Joseph: >>> >>> Dealing as I do with hierarchies and thermodynamics, I have come to the >>> postmodern conclusion that our explicit scientific knowledge is a >>> logical >>> construct -- unlike our intuitive 'knowledge' (viz. qualia) of the world >>> we >>> are IMMERSED IN. In these scientifically-based efforts we create a >>> logical >>> simulacrum (which I call 'Nature') of The World. Its basis is logic and >>> esthetic, but today it also passes through a pragmatic filter imposed by >>> those who pay for the science. This latter bias works mostly in choice >>> of >>> study objects. Stepping back from active engagement in the process of >>> gaining primary knowledge in these ways, I feel that I am these days >>> engaging in a renewed Natural Philosophy -- an attempt to construct a >>> scientifically based 'mythology' for moderns, meant as an alternative to >>> religious myths. These latter importantly have also engaged, via >>> rituals, >>> the qualia we are immersed in. Inasmuch as Natural Philosophy has no >>> such >>> practices associated with it, the primary function of the emerging >>> Nature is >>> to challenge the religiously based myths associated with the rituals in >>> an >>> attempt to unseat the associated political establishments (Rome, the >>> Caliphate, the Republican Party, etc.) that enforce them. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Joseph Brenner >>> <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> In agreeing with Bob, I would like to point out that his critique is >>>> not >>>> "theoretical philosophy". He is calling attention to something >>>> essential >>>> missing in the pictures and models of Stan and Karl, namely, 1) the >>>> "life >>>> and blood" of the world; 2) that that "life and blood" follows >>>> different >>>> rules than the entities in the models; 3) those rules are based on real >>>> dualities of equal ontological purport: order and disorder, continuity >>>> and >>>> discontinuity, entropy and negentropy; etc.; and 4) these dualities >>>> play >>>> out in real interactions in biology, cognition and society, for example >>>> in information and non-information. >>>> >>>> It is perfectly possible to see "grids" of numbers and levels or >>>> hierarchies >>>> in Nature as abstract structures - this is indeed Karl's word, as is >>>> his >>>> use >>>> of "independence" - but this is not going toward the world, but away >>>> from >>>> it. The world includes Karls and Stans and Josephs and Bobs, and I >>>> challenge >>>> anyone to propose a theory that insures that our "antagonisms", which >>>> are >>>> real, also receive some logical treatment. >>>> >>>> I for one do not know everything about everything I'm made of (cf. our >>>> fluctuon discussion), but I have the feeling it is not abstractions or >>>> sequences of numbers. I mentioned string theory, but I am by no >>>> means pushing it as the full story. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Joseph >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Robert Ulanowicz" <u...@umces.edu> >>>> To: <fis@listas.unizar.es> >>>> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:52 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All: >>>> >>>> At the risk of being seen as the one who tries to throw a monkey >>>> wrench into the fine discussion you all are having, I would like to >>>> mention that the foregoing thread had focused entirely on alternatives >>>> among monist scenarios. >>>> >>>> I see the world as dual, not in the sense of Descartes, but of >>>> Heraclitus. If I am correct, then any strategy predicated on a monist >>>> principle is destined to lead to disaster. (Stan and I have gone round >>>> and round on this. I see entropy as double-sided and not simply as >>>> disorder. [Ecological Modelling 220 (2009) 1886-1892].) >>>> >>>> But I'm hardly the only one to warn against a monist view. Terry >>>> Deacon's model of self-organization, the "Autocell" acts similarly. >>>> The process starts by using up external gradients as quickly as >>>> possible, but gradually shuts down as the autocell nears >>>> self-completion. (Deacon, T.W. and J. Sherman. 2008. The Pattern Which >>>> Connects Pleroma to Creatura: The Autocell Bridge from Physics to >>>> Life. Biosemiotics 2:59-76.) >>>> >>>> The best to all, >>>> Bob >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Robert E. Ulanowicz | Tel: +1-352-378-7355 >>>> Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory | FAX: +1-352-392-3704 >>>> Department of Biology | Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab >>>> Bartram Hall 110 | University of Maryland >>>> University of Florida | Email <u...@cbl.umces.edu> >>>> Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA | Web >>>> <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>: >>>> >>>> > *Replying to Karl, who said:* >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > one can use a stable model used by neurology and psychology to come >>>> closer >>>> > to understanding how our brain works. This can help to formulate the >>>> > thoughts Pedro mentioned being obscure. >>>> > >>>> > One pictures the brain as a quasi-meteorological model of an extended >>>> > world >>>> > containing among others swamp, savanna, arid zones. The dissipation >>>> > of >>>> > water >>>> > above these regions causes clouds to form and storms to discharge the >>>> > vapor >>>> > within the clouds. The model observes the lightnings in the model and >>>> sets >>>> > them as an allegory to thoughts (these being electrical discharges) >>>> > as >>>> > opposed to hormones (that are the fluids in the swamps). So there is >>>> > an >>>> > assumed independence between the rainfall, the humidity of the >>>> > ground, >>>> > cloud >>>> > formation and lightnings. The real meteorologists would not agree >>>> > with >>>> the >>>> > simplification that the lightning is the central idea of a rainfall, >>>> > but >>>> > this is how the picture works (at present). >>>> > >>>> > Why I offer these idle thoughts from the biologic sciences to FIS is >>>> > that >>>> > it >>>> > is now possible to make a model of these processes in an abstract, >>>> logical >>>> > fashion. The colleaugues in Fis are scientists in the rational >>>> > tradition >>>> > and >>>> > may find useful that a rational algorithm can be shown to allow >>>> simulating >>>> > the little tricks Nature appears to use. >>>> > >>>> > Nature changes the form of the imbalance, once too many or too few >>>> > lightnings, once too much or lacking water - relative to the other >>>> > representation's stable state. There are TWO sets of reference. The >>>> > deviation between the two sets of references is what Nature uses in >>>> > its >>>> > manifold activities. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > This model looks at the physical equivalences in two realms by >>>> > modeling in thermodynamics. Today in thermodynamics we have an >>>> > advancing >>>> > perspective known as the `Maximum Entropy Production Principle´ >>>> > (MEPP) >>>> for >>>> > relatively simple systems like weather, or Maximum Energy Dispersal >>>> > Principle´ (MEDP) for complicated material systems like the brain. >>>> > In >>>> > both >>>> > cases the dynamics are controlled by the Second Law of >>>> > Thermodynamics, >>>> > which >>>> > imposes that the available energy gradients will be dissipated in the >>>> > least >>>> > possible time, taking the easiest routes available. This becomes >>>> > very >>>> > interesting in the brain, where the flow of depolarizations would >>>> > then be >>>> > predicted to be biased in the direction of more habitual `thoughts´. >>>> > I >>>> > think that this prediction seems to be born out in our own >>>> > experiences of >>>> > the frequent return of our attention to various insistent thoughts. >>>> > I >>>> > recommend that Karl inquire into MEPP. For this purpose I paste in >>>> > some >>>> > references. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > STAN >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > MEPP related publications: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2009. Economies evolve by energy >>>> > dispersal. >>>> > Entropy, 2009, 11: 606-633. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010. Physical foundations of >>>> > evolutionary >>>> > theory. Journal on Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 35: 301-321. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010. Cultural naturalism. Entropy, >>>> > 2010, >>>> > 12: >>>> > 1325-1352. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Bejan, A. and S. Lorente, 2010. The constructal law of design and >>>> > evolution >>>> > in nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 365: >>>> > 1335-1347. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Brooks, D.R. and E.O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy: Toward A >>>> > Unified >>>> > Theory Of Biology (2nd. ed.) Chicago. University of Chicago Press. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Chaisson, E.J., 2008. Long-term global heating from energy usage. >>>> > Eos, >>>> > Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89: 353-255. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > DeLong, J.P., J.G. Okie, M.E. Moses, R.M. Sibly and J.H. Brown, 2010. >>>> > Shifts >>>> > in metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major >>>> evolutionary >>>> > transitions of life. Proceedings of the Natiional Academy of >>>> > Sciences. >>>> > Early >>>> > EDition >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Dewar, R. C., 2003. Information theory explanation of the >>>> > fluctuation >>>> > theorem, maximum entropy production, and self-organized criticality >>>> > in >>>> > non-equilibrium stationary states. Journal of Physics, A >>>> > Mathematics >>>> and >>>> > General 36: L631-L641. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Dewar, R.C., 2005. Maximum entropy production and the fluctuation >>>> > theorem. >>>> > Journal of Physics A Mathematics and General 38: L371-L381. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Dewar, R.C., 2009. Maximum entropy production as an inference >>>> > algorithm >>>> > that translates physical assumptions into macroscopic predictions: >>>> > Don't >>>> > shoot the messenger. Entropy 2009. 11: 931-944. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Dewar. R.C. and A. Porté, 2008. Statistical mechanics unifies >>>> > different >>>> > ecological patterns. Journal of Theoretical Biology 251:389-403. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Dyke, J. and A. Kleidon. 2010. The maximum entropy production >>>> > principle: >>>> > its >>>> > theoretical foundations and applications to the Earth system. >>>> > Entropy >>>> > 2010, >>>> > 12:613-630. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Herrmann-Pillath, C., 2010. Entropy, function and evolution: >>>> naturalizing >>>> > Peircean semiosis. Entropy 2010, 12: 197-242. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kleidon, A. (2009): Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and Maximum >>>> > Entropy >>>> > Production in the Earth System: Applications and Implications, >>>> > Naturwissenschaften 96: 653-677. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kleidon, A. (2010): Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Maximum Entropy >>>> > Production and Earth-system evolution, Philosophical Transactions of >>>> > the >>>> > Royal Society A, 368: 181-196. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Kleidon, A. and R. Lorenz (eds) Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and >>>> > the >>>> > Production of Entropy: Life Earth, and Beyond Heidelberg: Springer. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Lineweaver, C.H. 2005. Cosmological and biological reproducibility: >>>> > limits >>>> > of the maximum entropy production principle. In Kleidon, A. and >>>> > Lorenz, >>>> > R. >>>> > Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy: Life, >>>> > Earth >>>> > and Beyond. Springer Pp. 67-76. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Lineweaver, C.H. and C.A. Egan, 2008. Life, gravity and the second >>>> > law of >>>> > thermodynamics. Physics of Life Reviews (2008) >>>> > doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2008.08.002 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Lorenz. R.D., 2002. Planets, life and the production of entropy. >>>> > International Journal of Astrobiology 1: 3-13. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Mahulikar, S.P. and H. Herwig, 2004. Conceptual Investigation of the >>>> > Entropy >>>> > Principle for Indentification of Directives for Creation, Existence >>>> > and >>>> > Total Destruction of Order. Physica Scripta. Vol. 70, 212-22i. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Martyushev, L.M., 2010. Maximum entropy production principle: two >>>> > basic >>>> > questions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 365: >>>> > 1333-1334. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Paltridge, G., 1975. Global dynamics and climate -- a system of >>>> > minimum >>>> > entropy exchange. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological >>>> > Society >>>> > 101:475-484. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Salthe, S.N., 1993. Development And Evolution: Complexity And Change >>>> > In >>>> > Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Salthe, S.N., 2004. The spontaneous origin of new levels in >>>> > dynamical >>>> > hierarchies. Entropy 2004, 6[3]: 327-343. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Salthe, S.N., 2010. Development (and evolution) of the universe. >>>> > Foundations of Science. In Press >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Schneider, E.D. and Kay, J.J., 1994. Life as a manifestation of the >>>> > Second >>>> > Law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19: >>>> > 25-48. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Schneider, E.D. and D. Sagan., 2005. Into the Cool: Energy Flow, >>>> > Thermodynamics, and Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Sharma, V. and A. Annila, 2007. Natural process - natural selection. >>>> > Biophysical Chemistry 127: 123-128. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Swenson, R., 1989. Emergent attractors and the law of maximum entropy >>>> > production: foundations to a theory of general evolution. Systems >>>> Research >>>> > 6: 187-198. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Swenson, R., 1997. Autocatakinetics, evolution, and the law of >>>> > maximum >>>> > entropy production. Advances in Human Ecology 6: 1-47. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Ulanowicz, R.D.and B.M. Hannon, 1987. Life and the production of >>>> > entropy. >>>> > Proceedings of the Royal Society B 232: 181-192. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Vallino, J.J., 2010. Ecosystem biogeochemistry considered as a >>>> > distributed >>>> > metabolic network ordered by maximum entropy production. >>>> > Philosophical >>>> > Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 365: 1417-1427. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Virgo, N. 2010, From maximum entropy to maximum entropy production: a >>>> > new >>>> > approach. Entropy 2010, 12: 107-126. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Zupanovic, P., S. Botric, D. Juretic and D. Kuic. 2010. Relaxation >>>> > processes and the maximum entropy production principle. Entropy, >>>> 2010.12: >>>> > 473-479. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Zupanovic, P., D. Kuic, Z.B. Losic, D. petrov, D. juretic and M. >>>> > Brumen >>>> > 2010. The maximum entropy production principle and linear >>>> > irreversible >>>> > processes. Entropy 2010, 12: 996-1005. >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
