---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>
Date: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] [ Re: please correct]--From Karl Javorszky
To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
Regarding:
1) Your basic - axiomatic - set of different facts, which you describe as
"... properties of things, irrefutable and objective, which have nothing to
do with any expressive way related to the thing ..." would be the basic set
of arguments {1,1,...,1,2,2,...,16}.
2) Your set of primary relations is built on this basic set. You describe it
as "... some attributes of things that someone can find... ...Among which
some are true to the facts, but some are incompletely, while others are not
in any way."
All properties of things are mediated by observer's biological senses, as
well as by observer's cultural equipment. There ARE NO "properties of
things" unmediated by biology and culture. Consider that while we have
three-color detection in our visual system, birds have four, and so the
colors we and birds see will be completely different. Consider also that
the light spectrum is divided in different ways in different cultures. The
Western scientific attitude supposes that it is detecting and describing the
world as it is even if there were no observer. A more moderate opinion was
advanced by Percy Bidgman with his 'instrumentalism'.
STAN
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> wrote:
> Message from Karl Javorszky
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Qiao Tian-qing,
>
> thank you for inviting my opinion in your viewpoints re information.
>
> To the cultural embedding of the term "information": this cannot be
> otherwise. If we had a clear and precise definition of any one logical term,
> we would posses that fixed point that Archimedes has looked for in order to
> displace the Earth from. All logical terms are interdependent and
> give/receive their meaning by their relations to other logical terms. Which
> perspective a culture takes while regarding the interdependences determines,
> which aspects are relevant for the definition.
>
> Your idea that "...information is the collection of three kinds of
> things´ attributes: things themselves (including cause or effect formed
> through their interaction), the attributes of things that someone thinks and
> simulates, and the attributes of tools someone or something uses when
> considers, expresses, or simulates something. " can be found in that
> system of references that is coming from a+b=c in the following ways:
>
> 1) Your basic - axiomatic - set of different facts, which you describe as
> "... properties of things, irrefutable and objective, which have nothing
> to do with any expressive way related to the thing ..." would be the basic
> set of arguments {1,1,...,1,2,2,...,16}.
> 2) Your set of primary relations is built on this basic set. You describe
> it as "... some attributes of things that someone can find... ...Among
> which some are true to the facts, but some are incompletely, while others
> are not in any way." The attributes of things that someone can find are
> here distinguished from the things. (This goes slightly against
> Wittgenstein, who says that "the thing is the collection of the
> possibilities of being included in a relation", so he thinks there is no
> real difference between the mental image of a number and that of what
> additions this number can take place in.) In actual fact, it may be that you
> are more profound than Wittgenstein, because:
> the additive model makes a difference between the numbers that are sorted
> and the sorting order, and - more importantly - among different sorting
> orders among each other. The orders are in a different way distinct to each
> other than the numbers.
> Also, order concepts mirror your idea very well, that some orders are
> congruent - even identical -, while some are only partly, and under some
> specific circumstances, congruent with each other, while there are
> collections of order concepts that are contradictory and cannot yield an
> existing result. This is mirrored exactly in the numbers.
> 3) Your set of meta-orders you describe as: "... attributes of tools used
> by someone." The tools are the order concepts by means of which [the
> matches between place and amount being the result of an order concept being
> relevant, that is, in existence] the facts become visible as true or false
> (congruent or contradictory). We choose an order concept by which we try to
> explain the world. (We have a geographical, a sociological, an economical
> way of explaining some parts of History, and the explaining perspectives do
> not contradict, rather extend the other way of ordering the facts.) This is
> also very well reflected in the numbers. So far, we have talked about the
> relevance
> of the ordering aspects (primary relations, your Nr. 2), and now we
> investigate how the set of ordering aspects has come about. This is the
> importance
> property of the additions. Within a system, we have the discussion, which
> aspect is relevant, while the comparison of systems is maybe even more
> important. The importance brings the past and the future into the play, as
> it is the sequence of logical arguments that creates (individuates, makes
> unique) the three-dimensional picture's contents. It matters now, whether X
> has been or has not been the case.
>
> Now, how do you add information in three levels? That the things are
> ordered in such a basic fashion (primary facts) may or may not depend on
> that these ordering aspects (primary relations, Nr. 2) have been selected
> as relevant from among the ordering aspects of this perspective point, while
> the fact that this perspective point has been selected is important.
>
> This seems to be well-defined and translatable into each other. There may
> be some more detail needed to be worked out, but the general idea that Info=
> info1+info2+info3 appears to be accessible to calculations.
>
> Thank you for asking my insignificant opinion, and of course I am always
> ready to assist if there are steps planned to dissect this idea of
> information is additive over three levels: (facts, relations,history).
>
> With great respect:
> Karl
>
> 2011/2/28 <whhbs...@sina.com>
>
>> Dear Karl,
>>
>> These are my viewpoints, please correct my viewpoints.
>>
>> Please allow me to frankly state my point of view:
>>
>> Professor Y.X.Zhong wrote that we should define information
>> systematically. For example, information in the sense of ontology and
>> information in a sense of theory of knowledge, etc.. This idea sounds
>> beautiful, but unpractical, for there are too many sons and daughters to
>> information. Statistics shows, there were no less than 130 definitions of
>> information until 1980. Information, as a word, has been followed for
>> decades and is hard to change for people are used to their conventional
>> conceptions. Information becomes undefinable, because the present fact
>> is: the concept of information has become a self–contradictory and common
>> term used confusedly, universally. I wonder whether we can build new
>> relevant conceptions which are simpler and more effective. What we need to
>> research is the common features of information in its old use.
>>
>> According to my idea, the customarily named information is the collection
>> of three kinds of things´ attributes: things themselves (including cause or
>> effect formed through their interaction), the attributes of things that
>> someone thinks and simulates, and the attributes of tools someone or
>> something uses when considers, expresses, or simulates something. The first
>> kind of attributes of things is based on facts, for example, the three
>> states of water. This are physical, chemical, biological, social or any
>> other properties of things, irrefutable and objective, which have nothing to
>> do with any expressive way related to the thing (such spoken and written
>> languages, music or pictures). The second kind is related with the inner
>> thoughts, or expressions through talk, or sentence, namely, some attributes
>> of things that someone can find; or the attributes of things that could be
>> simulate according to science and technology. Among which some are true to
>> the facts, but some are incompletely, while others are not in any way. The
>> third kind is the attributes of tools used by someone (or something) when he
>> himself thinks, or expresses, or simulates something, i.e. the state of
>> brain neurons when he thinks, the line trend of words when writes, the
>> vibration frequency and intensity of sound when speaks, the bit of circuit
>> devices in a computer, or the models of devices used in an experiment, etc..
>> Supposing that the sign X represents the first kind of attributes, X’ the
>> second, and Xnlfb the third, and info represents the information, we can
>> simply express the customarily named information as follows:
>> info = X +X ’+X nlfb (FIS2010, in Beijing Conference).
>>
>> Common features of information, i.e. things’ attributes.
>>
>> Moreover, please take care of those false information based on nothing.
>>
>> Thanking the patience!
>>
>> Qiao Tian-qing
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> QTQ
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
