Dear Steven, Pedro and List:

Two excellent posts!

Steven:  I look forward to your ratiocinations and there connectivity with 
symbolic logic. 

It is my view that one of the foundational stumbling blocks to communication 
about syntactical information theory (and its exactness!) is the multi-meanings 
that emerge from the multiple symbol systems used by the natural sciences.

Stan's post is a superb example of how anyone change the semantic meaning of 
words and talk about personal philosophy in context that ignores the 
syntactical meaning of the same word such that the exact sciences are 
generated.  Of course, this personal philosophy remains a private conversation. 

 Steven and Pedro (and I), by way of contrast, are seeking a discussion of 
public information and the exactness of public information theory.  



Words to live by:

"The union of units unifies the unity of the universe"


On Sep 11, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

> Dear Steven and FIS colleagues,
> Many thanks for this opening text. What you are proposing about a pretty
> structured discussion looks a good idea, although it will have to
> confront the usually anarchic discussion style of FIS list! Two aspects
> of your initial text have caught my attention (apart from those videos
> you recommend that I will watch along the weekend).
> First about the concerns of a generation earlier (Shannon, Turing...)
> situating information in the intersection between physical science and
> engineering. The towering influence of this line of thought, both with
> positive and negative overtones, cannot be overestimated. Most attempts
> to enlarge informational thought and to extend it to life, economies,
> societies, etc. continue to be but a reformulation of the former ideas
> with little added value. See one of the last creatures: "Why Information
> Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies" (2015), by Cesar
> Hidalgo (prof. at MIT).
> In my opinion, the extension of those classic ideas to life are very
> fertile from the technological point of view, from the "theory of
> molecular machines" for DNA-RNA-protein matching to genomic-proteomic
> and other omics'  "big data". But all that technobrilliance does not
> open per se new avenues in order to produce innovative thought about the
> information stuff of human societies. Alternatively we may think that
> the accelerated digitalization of our world and the cyborg-symbiosis of
> human information and computer information do not demand much brain
> teasing, as it is a matter that social evolution is superseding by itself.
> The point I have ocasionally raised in this list is whether all the new
> molecular knowledge about life might teach us about a fundamental
> difference in the "way of being in the world" between life and inert
> matter (& mechanism & computation)---or not. In the recent compilation
> by Plamen and colleagues from the former INBIOSA initiative,  I have
> argued about that fundamental difference in the intertwining of
> communication/self-production, how signaling is strictly caught in the
> advancement of a life cycle  (see paper "How the living is in the
> world"). Life is based on an inusitate informational formula unknown in
> inert matter. And the very organization of life provides an original
> starting point to think anew about information --of course, not the only
> one.
> So, to conclude this "tangent", I find quite exciting the discussion we
> are starting now, say from the classical info positions onwards, in
> particularly to be compared in some future with another session (in
> preparation) with similar ambition but starting from say the
> phenomenology of the living. Struggling for a
> convergence/complementarity of outcomes would be a cavalier effort.
> All the best--Pedro
> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
>> ...The subject is one that has concerned me ever since I completed my PhD in 
>> 1992. I came away from defending my thesis, essentially on large scale 
>> parallel computation, with the strong intuition that I had disclosed much 
>> more concerning the little that we know, than I had offered either a 
>> theoretical or engineering solution. 
>> For the curious, a digital copy of this thesis can be found among the 
>> reports of CRI, MINES ParisTech, formerly ENSMP, 
>>, it is also available as a 
>> paper copy on Amazon.
>> Like many that have been involved in microprocessor and instruction 
>> set/language design, using mathematical methods, we share the physical 
>> concerns of a generation earlier, people like John Von Neumann, Alan Turing, 
>> and Claude Shannon. In other words, a close intersection between physical 
>> science and machine engineering.
>> ...I will then discuss some historical issues in particular referencing 
>> Benjamin Peirce, Albert Einstein and Alan Turing. And finally discuss the 
>> contemporary issues, as I see them, in biophysics, biology, and associated 
>> disciplines, reaching into human and other social constructions, perhaps 
>> touching on cosmology and the extended role of information theory in 
>> mathematical physics...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> -------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to