18 sep. 2017 kl. 18:25 skrev Terrence W. DEACON 

All of these claims and counter-claims are null hypotheses - hypothetical 
axioms yet to be tested, both for logical coherence and empirical usefulness. 
Place your bets. Mine are on contrary assumptions: i.e. non-Turing 
computability, fundamental incompleteness, and a deep entanglement between 
information (including reference and functional value) and its necessary 
physical substrates. Of course for this to be science all need to eventually 
yield testable hypotheses. This level of controversy over basic issues 
indicates to me that the science of information is still at an early stage and 
could be potentially held back by the hubris of certainty.
I fundamentally agree with Terry; the discussion is about concepts and their 
use, not about real things. In order to move on to testable empirical 
consequences one need to tell how to measure a proposed quantity. And if we 
disagree about how to measure e.g. information, we talk about different 
quantities while using the same word. The only way to establish that 
information as measured in two different ways really is the same quantity is to 
prove that these measurements without exception will yield the same output.

— Terry

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal 
<marc...@ulb.ac.be<mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
Dear Jose,

On 15 Sep 2017, at 16:37, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero wrote:

Dear Arturo,

Math is indeed a language that CAN describe scientific issues, but it is not 
the only one. And its ability to cuantify scientific issues do not necesarily 
make it superior.
Math and natural language face the same formal and logical problems: they 
cannot make staments about themselves without falling into contradictions or 
paradoxes (as can be inferred from Gödel).

You seem to be too much quick on this. On the contrary, I would say, Gödel 
showed that when we translate the paradoxes of self-reference in arithmetic, we 
get fundamental limitation theorems, not contradictions. In fact Gödel has led, 
with the work of Löb and Solovay, to a complete axiomatization of the logic of 
machine self-reference (complete at the propositional level), and that logic 
re-introduce the nuances discovered by Plato and exploited by the 
Neopythagoreans and the Neoplatonicians theologians. Those "theologies" are 
"theories of everything": they contain physics, and so are testable, and the 
physics of the machine can be shown to be necessary quantum-like already.


And your statement is certainly self-contradictory: if it is true then it is 
contradicted by the form of its performance (semantics).

Best regards,

El sep 15, 2017 10:17 AM, "tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>" 
<tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>> escribió:
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 
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"<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>

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 

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 

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<tel:+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& 6818)

Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list


Fis mailing list

Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley
Fis mailing list

Lars-Göran Johansson

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to