Dear Karl,       

 

The assumption I would like to
check that we share is that existence and energy are primitive and numbers
something derived. When one moves from the quantum vacuum or singularity into
the thermodynamic world, as soon as change occurs, something is no longer
totally itself; there is something new along side of it in 4D space-time. The
number of entities has increased, and this is the situation is the reality of
which addition is the model. Iteration, which also occurs in reality, does the
rest. If I understand you correctly, you feel that numbers, once available and 
manipulated
in more complex ways, can model many other things, especially, of course, 
aspects
of information.

 

If a numerical perspective is
convenient and even necessary for an understanding of nature, I would
still like to know if it is sufficient. Are you able to capture, in your
information theory, for example, the informational processes involved in:

 

·        
emotions

·        
creativity

·        
anti-social behavior (rational and irrational)

·        
complex political processes

·        
your own theory?

 

I think it would make for a more interesting and productive discussion if you 
were to tell us where your
theory does NOT apply, rather than let us raise naïve objections to which you 
already
have clear answers. I would like to know, for example, which of several 
possible approaches to the definition of a "logical object" are involved; at 
what point the limitations of machines become determining; and under what 
conditions one should seek to maximize (because valuable) heterogeneity as 
opposed to homogeneity. Very interesting discussions can then be envisaged at 
the “boundaries”
between different approaches.

 

Thank you and best wishes,

 

Joseph



----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----

Von: karl.javors...@gmail.com

Datum: 20.01.2011 21:03

An: "Jerry Chandler"<jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com>, "Joseph 
Brenner"<joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>, "Pedro C. Marijuan"<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>

Betreff: Info Theory



Hope that the FIS server will eventuially accept this, too. For you, 
individually:

Information Theory:

Let me answer the points raised so far:

Joe Brenner:

My hope is that this discussion will have a
good deal to do with qualitative as well as quantitative aspects of
information. Perhaps people should state clearly what the primary interests and
objectives are of their remarks. 



Jerry Chandler:

The unspoken premise of many discussants
appears to me to be a view of information theory as a universal glue, a
universal predicate, a universal code.
The assertion is outspoken, explicit and apodictically declaratory: information 
theory IS a universal glue, a
universal predicate, a universal code

Yet, any effort to use quantum logic to
describe inheritance requires the construction of semantic bridges between
messages before the encoding occurs. The existence of such semantic links or
connections is intrinsic to the logical premise or assertion lies in the
encoding process, not the experimental science that generates the information.
The
concepts and procedures underlying quantum logic and inheritance root
BOTH in a common concept of rationality. Rationality as understood and
codified heretofore roots in traditional concepts of additions. Once the
next techniques of addition will have been mastered, both quantum logic
and inheritance will be understood to agree to the same unified
underlying theory of information.



"Why did the sciences develop separate
and distinct encoding systems for expressing the natural behaviors of
nature?"There
is an epistemological and a neurological-traditional explanation for
this phenomenon. Thinking can discover (as Thomas said ca 1260 in Summa
Theologiae) that an order exists behind the orders. This is in fact so.
So a discursive distinction between concepts observed as appearances of
the minor orders and concepts deducted as being principles of the maior
order is reasonable. The neurological-traditional teaching orients
itself on requirements and limitations of the human neurology. The
complexity of understanding the advanced techniques of additions places
it far outside the capacity of human brains to conceive yet alone
understand and utilize. The unsolved - in fact, without the help of
machines: unsolvable - task of mastering the additions has forced human
scientists and philosophers to assign processes that can only be
understood by advanced additions to the realm of "irrational";
reasonable again. (The task to observe patterns on 136x9x72 integers is
outside human capacity unaided by machines. Ours is the first generation
to have pattern-recognising machines at its disposal at leisure.) 



(The theory will..) inform us of the natural
foundations of Shannon information theory and
give the logical reasons for its spectacular practical and economic success.
 The
theory will inform us of the natural foundations of the FIS information
theory and give the logical reasons of its - yet to be reaped -
spectacular practical and economic success. The Shannon procedures will
be recognized to be a special case of information theory, as were
Newton's Laws recognized to be a special case of general relativity
theory.




The session shall discuss 
* Pythagoras' concept of numbers as descriptors of Nature,* Heraclit's 
assertion that change and movement are the essence of Nature,
* additions as grouping of similar objects 

* sorting orders as a different kind of additions (heretofore non-numericised)
* switching the focus from individual (addition) to group processes (among 
additions)
* utilising contrasting, differentiating aspects of a+b=c

* ordering the collection
* a discourse about ordering as minimizing cuts and maximizing homogeneity
* establishing the overall coefficient of disagreement (logical - numerical - 
inner dissent)
* giving names to concepts observed on the collection of logical objects


After these steps, it will become evident that very many applied
sciences use additions as a basic tool. Insofar these sciences are
interested in general or specific answers to the question "which is
where?" they will be happy to learn that the answer is indeed included
in the question, after we shall have constructed 2 Euclid spaces and
shown each instance of "which" to have - as part of a triplet - a place
in two Euclid spaces, which are connected by two planes.


These concepts go far beyong the human brain's capacity to actually
calculate. We can make use of machines that do the calculations. The
human's part in the effort remains to conceptualise that there is an
inner consistence between "which" and "where". 


The proposal is to construct by collaborative efforts a logical tool
which can be used to yield names and definitions. The manifold aspects
of the term "information" can receive definitions. 
The tool being a
numerical table, the facts are unquestionable. Everyone is free to give a
name to observations by deictic methods. There are plenty of semantic
bridges available awaiting names.


Karl







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

Reply via email to