Joseph -- On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>wrote:
> ** > Dear Stan, > > To return to your question, I think that there is a disjunction between our > usual logics and the actual, changing world but that it is fatal only in > *those > *logics. Logic in Reality reduces to standard logic for simple process > phenomena involving minimal interactive aspects - those which > science handles easily. But LIR applies to more complex phenomena whose > evolution I would not consider outside science. Could we say that LIR is a > way of bringing change better within science? > > Thus my answer to your question is yes. LIR, to use your phrase, > encompasses change as it happens. It describes logical characteristics > of the evolution of processes in a multi-dimensional configuration space. > The elements of the logic are changing values of the actuality and > potentiality of the elements in interaction (e.g., system and environment). > The > disjunction thus becomes, itself, a process describable by LIR. > So, just to get a clearer statement -- we can have a differential equation describing some kind of change. But here the constants are fixed, and so the change is predetermined, and used to describe only average, standard or characteristic changes. So, you seem to be saying that in LIR format one can describe changes where the constraints are not fixed. If so, would the changes of the constants be in some way predetermined? Or could that be open as well? > > I do not expect that people who wish to retain the characteristics of > standard category theory can accept the above any more than those who > require that logic refer only to propositions and their truth-values. I > have said that a conceptual mathematical theory applicable to my Logic in > Reality is both possible in principle and desirable. I only insist that none > such yet exists, since what does exist is eliminative with respect to the > interactive realities LIR attempts to discuss, among them information. > Does the above comment give some hint of what would be required, or accomplished by this math? STAN > > Cheers, > > Joseph > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu> > *To:* joe.bren...@bluewin.ch ; fis@listas.unizar.es > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:16 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Category Theory and Information. Back to Basics > > Joseph -- > SS: Your objection seems to me to imply a fatal disjunction between our > usual logics -- the basis of science -- and the actual (changing) world. > For example, in biological ontogeny we begin at one scale, and GRADUALLy > assemble a larger scale. During this transition the system is ambiguous as > to scale. It is CHANGE which faults our thinking here, not the idea that a > developing embryo can be modeled as existing at more than one scale. I > suppose you can then tell us that your system of logic (LIR) takes care of > this, by encompassing change as it happens. Yes? > > STAN > >> >> For complex process phenomena such as information, involving >> complementarity, overlap or physical interactions between elements, these >> doctrines fail. The "mathematical conceptualization" they provide does not >> capture the non-Markovian aspects of the processes involved for which no >> algorithm can be written. If any algebra is possible, it must be a >> non-Boolean one, something like that used in quantum mechanics extended to >> the macroscopic level. >> >> I have proposed a new categorial ontology in which the key categorial >> feature is NON-separability. This concept would seem to apply to some of the >> approaches to information which have been proposed recently, e.g. those of >> Deacon and Ulanowicz. I would greatly welcome the opportunity to see if my >> approach and its logic stand up to further scrutiny. >> >> As Loet suggests, we must avoid confounding such a (more qualitative) >> discourse with the standard one and translate meaningfully between them. >> However this means, as a minimum, accepting the existence and validity of >> both, as well as the possibility in principle of some areas of overlap, >> without conflation. >> >> Best, >> >> Joseph >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Gavin Ritz >> *To:* 'Joseph Brenner' >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:45 AM >> *Subject:* RE: [Fis] Chemo-informatics as the source of morphogenesis - >> bothpractical and logical. >> >> Hi there Joseph >> >> This takes us >> >> back to the question of the primacy of quantitative over qualitative >> >> properties, or, better, over qualitative + quantitative properties. >> >> Is this not a good reason to use category theory and a Topos (part of an >> object), does not the axiom of “limits” and the axiom of “exponentiation- >> map objects” deal philosophically with “quantity and limit” and “quality and >> variety” concepts respectively. >> >> Is this not the goal of category theory to explain the concepts in a >> conceptual mathematical way. >> >> Regards >> >> Gavin >> >> >> >> This for >> >> me is the real area for discussion, and points to the need for both lines >> >> being pursued, without excluding either. >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Gavin Ritz <garr...@xtra.co.nz> >> *To:* 'Joseph Brenner' <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:45 AM >> *Subject:* RE: [Fis] Chemo-informatics as the source of morphogenesis - >> bothpractical and logical. >> >> Hi there Joseph >> >> >> >> This takes us >> >> back to the question of the primacy of quantitative over qualitative >> >> properties, or, better, over qualitative + quantitative properties. >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this not a good reason to use category theory and a Topos (part of an >> object), does not the axiom of “limits” and the axiom of “exponentiation- >> map objects” deal philosophically with “quantity and limit” and “quality and >> variety” concepts respectively. >> >> >> >> Is this not the goal of category theory to explain the concepts in a >> conceptual mathematical way. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Gavin >> >> >> >> This for >> >> me is the real area for discussion, and points to the need for both lines >> >> being pursued, without excluding either. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
