It is time for my second post this week.
First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting
discussion!
Thank you for the nice posts.
More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity which has information activity. There
were
many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent agent”,
“interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent subject”,
etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of meanings
which caused many misunderstandings.
In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be
applied
to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept “robot”
is not good to be used for a human.
Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no
meaning
in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I shall
use it in my further posts.
I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise from
what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that this
approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.
***
I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
“Self-reference”!
For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on the
basis of an example.
Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and Infos.
But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.
Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a man)
shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave
himself?
This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
(x, y, f)
or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
(there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).
I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a
human.
The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where we
have
quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
information about “x” because of evidence “f”.
What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?
At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data
about the
place where the razor has to be put to shave.
Have you ever seen a Blind barber?
NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.
Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA about
his/her face, head, or back.
In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of the
nose
which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!
This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not see
where
to put the razor!
But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!
But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!
Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?
Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and this
way he shaves the man in the mirror.
The Barber paradox does not exist if we take in account that the
barber is
a human (a kind of Infos) and needs data.
So, the answer of the question “Does he shave himself?“ is NO!, he
doesn’t, he shaves the man in the mirror who do not shave himself
because
the razor is in the hand of barber and no paradox exists.
Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?
