Dear Arturo, all,

First of all, thank you to Pedro for exciting the list again - I was missing it!

I have sympathy with Arturo's position, not because I am a
mathematician (I'm not), but because I get tired of the "posturing"
that qualitative positions produce among academics. I work in
education, and education theory is full of this. Chomsky had a go at
Zizek and much postmodern social theory for this very reason: He's got a point hasn't

One of the exciting aspects of quantum mechanics is that some of what
we intuitively know about social life seems to be mirrored in the
quantum world and is expressible in mathematics. That this has some
empirical foundation upon which scientists can agree presents the
prospect of a deeper rethinking of a logic which might encompass a
broader spectrum of life and lived experience. This is not a new
dream: it is very similar to aims of the early cyberneticians who met
in the Macy hotel in the late 1940s.

However, progress towards this is hampered by a number of things.
1. The splits between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, and
between quantum mechanics and relativity seem to arise from
irreconcilable originating perspectives. A colleague of mine at
Liverpool, Peter Rowlands has been hammering away at this for over 30
years (see,
establishing a coherent mathematical description which unites
classical and quantum mechanics - but of course, such attempts often
meet with incomprehension by the physics community who have
established careers on the back of existing paradigms. There is a
human problem in addressing the physics problem!

2. The nature of mathematics and number itself is a question. It's a
very ancient question - I was delighted and surprised to learn that
John Duns Scotus worked out a logic of "superposition" in the 13th
century (he called it "synchronic contingency") see
Maths is a discourse, like physics and sociology. If there wasn't
coordination between mathematicians about the symbols they use and
their meaning, there would be no maths. Curiously, neither would there
be maths if all the mathematicians in world perfectly agree on all
symbols and meaning! (there'd be nothing to talk about).

3. given point 2, to put maths before information is to invite the
challenge that maths is information (as discourse), and without
information there is no maths!

However, can we do better than "posturing". Yes, I think we can, and
this may well involve new empirical practices, but this requires a new
shared perspective. Maybe our approaching quantum computers will give
us this by making the weirdness of superposition, entanglements and
the inherent dynamic symmetry of the quantum world part of everyday

Best wishes,


On 15 September 2017 at 14:16,
<> wrote:
> Dear FISers,
> I'm sorry for bothering you,
> but I start not to agree from the very first principles.
> The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is
> mathematics.
> Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
> Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through
> entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
> And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is
> subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been
> already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that
> information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both
> relativity and quantum dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
> Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY
> physical context of matter and energy.
> Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on
> the basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes
> metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful
> possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math).
> Arturo Tozzi
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
> ----Messaggio originale----
> Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <>
> Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
> A: "fis"<>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
> As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple of
> previous comments may be in order.
> First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was motivated
> by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea of
> principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" (posthumously
> published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems to be very
> different from other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance and
> concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What could be the
> specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms
> for conceptual development, these information principles would appear as a
> sort of "portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines in
> the different organization layers, but at the same time they should try to
> be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the
> information world.
> And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too
> optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first
> glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very
> interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier,
> Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments /
> criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and
> Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival end
> to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone FIS 1994
> conference)...
> But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the
> chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the
> only customary limitation of two messages per week.
> Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro
> 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
> 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or
> flows.
> 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be  processed
> (either computationally or non-computationally).
> 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production
> processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy
> flows.
> 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie
> the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.
> 6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication
> exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social
> nature."
> 7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient
> knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by applying
> rigorous methodologies.
> 8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially
> overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies."
> 9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous
> actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and
> disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna.
> 10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information
> and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound
> consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social
> governance.
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> 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 0
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> -------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list

Dr. Mark William Johnson
Centre for Educational Development and Support
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool

Phone: 07786 064505

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to