Adding a temporal dimension has often been offered as a way out of paradox
in quasi-physical terms. This is because interpreting paradoxical logical
relations or calculating their values generally produces interminably
iterating self-contradicting or self-undermining results. Writers from G.
S. Brown to Gregory Bateson (among others) have pointed out that one can
resolve this in *process* terms (rather than assuming undecidable values)
by focusing on this incessant oscillation itself (i.e. a meta-analysis that
recognizes that the process of operating on these relations cannot be
neglected).Using this meta-analysis one can take advantage of the dynamic
that calculation or intepretation entails. It is also, of course, the way
we make use of so-called imaginary values in mathematics, whose iteratively
calculated results incessantly reverse sign from negative to positive. By
simply accepting this fact as given and marking it with a distinctive token
(e.g. "*i*" ) effectively generates an additional dimension that is useful
in a wide range of applications from fourier to quantum analyses. So my
question is whether using this mirror metaphor can be seen as a variant on
this general approach. It also resonates with efforts to understand the
interpretation of information in related terms (e.g. using complex numbers).

— Terry

PS A bit of reflection (no pun intended) also suggests that it is also
relevant to our discussions about agency (which like the concept of
"information" must be understood at different levels that need to be
distinguished because they can easily be confused). My earlier point about
the normative aspect of agency (and consistent with the previously posted
URL to the paper by Barandiaran et al.) is that this implies the need for
incessant contrary work to negate perturbation away from some "preferred"
value or state. Although there can be many levels of displaced agency in
both natural and artificial agents (like cybernetic systems such as
thermostats and many biological regulative subsystems), there cannot be
interminable regress of this displacement to establish these norms. At some
point normativity requires ontological grounding where the grounded
normative relation is the preservation of the systemic physical properties
that produce the norm-preserving dynamic. This is paradoxically circular—a
"strang loop" in Hofstadter's lingo. This avoids vicious regress as well
avoiding assuming a cryptic "observer perspective." But it therefore
requires that we treat different levels and degrees of "normative
displacement" differently from one another. This both echoes Loet's point
that we should not expect a single concept of agency, but it alternatively
suggest that we may be able to construct a nested hierarchy of agency
concepts (as Stan might suggest). So I glimpse that a set of parallel and
converging views may underlie these superficially different domains of

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Krassimir Markov <> wrote:

> Dear Lou, Bruno, and FIS Colleagues,
> Thank you for nice and polite comments to my post about “Barber paradox”.
> First of all, the main idea of the post was not to solve any paradox but
> to point two very important operations of Infos:
> - Direct reflection;
> - Transitive (indirect) reflection.
> There are no other ways for Infos to collect data from environment.
> Second, the example with paradox had shown the well known creative
> approach in the modeling - adding new dimensions in the model could help
> to better understand the modeling object or process. For instance:
> If our linear model contains a “paradox” point  “X”:
> //////X//////
> by adding a new second dimension it may be explained and the paradox would
> be solved:
>       \
> /////////////
> -------------
> //////X//////
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list

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

Reply via email to