Hi Bob (U),

Reading your (Tue Feb 2 21:18:25) note.
> minority opinion among the FIS group . . .
> believe that information possesses both epistemic and ontic features<
I find myself wondering if there is a specific reason you believe this is a
"minority opinion" rather than the exchanges reflecting people struggling
with an interesting problem from various perspectives?

Have I missed something fundamental to this group?
For me, Otto's (Tue Feb 2 13:06) note that:
> seems what is crucially needed is a theory that brings together . . .<
captures the essence of the matter, but that we (FIS?) have yet to surmount.

Loet's note (Mon Jan 18 07:58:42) in reply to my own dualistic struggles on
"Meaning versus Functional Significance" got me to scratching my head . . .
> In my opinion, such an approach is fully consistent with Shannon’s H. > S
= k(B) * H > The Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality
(Joule/Kelvin) so that S is thermodynamic
> entropy. H is a mathematical formula. It can be used to measure your
“functional significances”,
> cannot it?
And, of course he is correct in saying this . . . it is hard to think
that does not entail some manner of (entropic) functional significance. But
teasing apart the differences is something rather different. So the naive
dualistic notion I was proposing did nothing to improve things (really).

As I reflect on this (and Howard's "communications") further I think the
point Terry Deacon raised in his IS4IS talk on "levels of analysis" and the
importance of keeping divisions clear points me toward home. I recall how
Type Theory (naming levels of analysis) was used to resolve similar logical
paradoxes, akin to the dualistic debate seen here. As I said, this all
points to an interesting problem . . .
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to