Limits of Glue Joe:...that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived.
Yes of course. We know that Nature exists and has manifold properties. (Thomas Aquinas). We speak about our experiences with Nature. To make certain that we understand each other clearly, we use words with progressive degrees of formal meaning. The extreme of this is that we use the public language, i.e. numbers, - where no person has (should have) subjective connotations, and the denotations of the words are clear. The imagery built up by this method has the shortcomings that it is a very abstract, detached, idealised way of speaking about Nature. It has the advantages that we each know that we mean the same as we say "in this model Nature is in a constant change" as we refer to the fact that the Euclid spaces which give mass a localisation are derived from the concept that a reordering always takes place, no side of a logical argument having any innate, intrinsic claim of being more true than other aspects. It is a continuous reordering which brings forth the convoys of objects moving together (“strings”) and one of the readings yields coordinates in two perfectly rectangular spaces. So the basic principle is that it moves, as Heraclit said it should. What I say in normal, subjectively colored language is that space is actually two spaces which are merged into each other. The fabric of space is made up of the undecided logical (sub-)questions of the relevance of aspects. If it is more descriptive of a+b=c that 2a-3b is in such and such way more related to b-2a than to 2b-3a (just to mention an example), then space either constricts or expands or the strings going thru the truth points of this debate have to carry more fillings or less. The stuff must be somewhere. The 4D space you ask about is perfectly there, with strings attached, twice. Yes, physiology is a science of accounting and maintaining very strict limits. This is even more true of neurology. That we humans have funny ideas is built into the mechanism and can be seen e.g. on wolves, bears, apes as they play and chase imaginary prey (which is strictly speaking a hallucination). The translation sequenced-commutative is what we see in the DNA and in the functions of the brain. The electrical discharges which we call thoughts are sequenced and come from specific places, but are otherwise uniform. The cells fire or fire not. They have two logical states. This is the Shannon way of doing things. Then, interdependent with this, we have multiform material which is displaced. The fluids are only generally somewhere in the region, they can lose their place, and quite importantly they are of several varieties. The anti-Shannon idea is that there are more forms in Nature (which we can speak about in a formalized fashion) than this one and not this one. The model presented is not an explanation for everything and all. It is a tool to play with. We have 16 kinds of building blocks in two sets, black and white. We pair the blocks and order them. Then we reorder them again. We then discuss which pair goes with which other pairs together in a convoy. This appears at first sight very complicated but is extremely logical. The glue in question connecting and partly fusing concepts in our brain and between sciences and societies and among particles and galaxies is well pictured in the formal language by the strings that show the (possibly irrelevant) spatial coordinates of the convoys. It is not the accountant’s job to give names to amounts systematically under way and partly misplaced. It is the scientists’ prerogative to decide what they call a string, a field, a force, a molecule. Accounting processes connect points in Euclid spaces with extents. We present accounting transformation of “where” into “how much” and the other way around. The model will not yield useful results if the concepts are not clear enough. So it can not be used to explain the revigorisation on figuring out a solution, catching an idea nor the birth of supernovae out of pressure of space, although something appears similar. The present usefulness could be somewhere between chemistry and physiology. 2011/1/23, Gavin Ritz <garr...@xtra.co.nz>: > Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy > and > entropy production? > or the the fabric behind these two concept? > If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and > formulae for this binding? > > It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations > of > information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce > (Information Theory) > Regards > Gavin > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>; > fis@listas.unizar.es > Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM > Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory > > > 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
