Dear FIS Colleagues, Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about scientific and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the world around. The letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today.
The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and perceiving the data and models as well the proper attitude to the world cultural heritage is one of the main problems to be investigated. The world common data bases make possible to exchange data of any kind. Some data could not be proved easy, some are assumed as "clear". What is the proper attitude to the ocean of the data we create and perceive? In addition, now we have a new phenomenon – artificially created data. The Modern Societies -------------------- Every group of Infoses, people in particular, forms a society if there is an agreement for communication interactions. An important element of this agreement is the availability of a common data base. We should not picture the data base like a number of drives with a certain data recorded, although it is the way it has been since the beginning – it was recorded on clay plates, papyrus, paper, etc. The ability for digital storage of the data lays the beginnings of the genesis of the “modern societies”. It is obvious that, there are as many societies as many different data bases exist, and a single Infos could belong to more than one society. The difference between the beliefs and the science --------------------------------------------------- Every belief is a totality of models, which are assumed and followed. Where is the difference between the belief and the science, which is also a combination of models to be followed? The answer is in the way we perceive these models and the attitude to them. There are two approaches – a hard and an easy one. The easy one is wonderfully described by the motto of the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury, lately canonized as St. Anselm (1033-1109): "Credo, ut intelligam!" (I believe in order to understand [St.Anselm]). One has to believe in the model, to understand and follow it. This is the religious approach – every subjective notion can turn into a commonly accepted model or dogma, as long as there is someone to believe in it and follow it implicitly. The “difficult” approach is described with the phrase "Intelligo, ut credam !" (I understand in order to believe), used by the German reformer Thomas Muentzer (~1490-1525) [Muentzer]. You have to understand the model and only after then to trust it if possible. This is the scientific approach – every science builds models – hypothesizes, which are repeatedly tested before assumed to be true. The scientific approach includes a permanent revaluation and improvement of the existing models according to the permanently changing environment. In every society, building and exchanging of models are basic activities. Whether they are perceived with the “easy” or the “difficult” approach is a question only of the circumstances, executors and users. Keeping in mind the limited abilities of the human brain, we can presume that the “easy” approach would probably dominate. Just a small part of the humanity would be able to build and understand the “difficult” scientific models. The users will not have the strength to test the models for themselves so the only option left would be to “believe in order to understand”. The role and the importance of particular beliefs in a certain society are determined by the influence of the people ready to doubt the religious models, on the others who easily and “blindly” follow the dogmas. Let remark that in the scientific world the “easy approach” is everyday practice. We all believe that the scientific works represent proved facts (maybe by authors). However, who knows? We trust in authorities. Sometimes we have to doubt! That is why the background to modern science is in the wisdom of St. Augustin (354-430): "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!" [St. Agustin], i.e. it is in the harmony and dialectical unity of the scientific and beliefs’ approaches [K.Markov, 2008]. Materialism or Idealism ----------------------- Very important theme, raised from letter of Logan Streondj, is about Idealism and Materialism. Let note that both are religious approaches but not scientific. The first, Idealism, is based on belief about existence of God, Free Information without material base, Intelligent Creation of the World, Information Cube which is transferred from one body to another, and etc. The second, Materialism, is based on the opposite belief - all phenomena pointed above do not exist. But both interconnect their reasoning to these phenomena. The scientific approach is absolutely different. Scientists do not assume anything in advance and try to make reasoning based only on repeatable and controlled experiments. I hope, the FIS List is a scientific forum and all posts nave to be based on repeatable and controlled experiments! About 10 principles of Informatics ---------------------------------- Dear Pedro, I highly appreciate your proposition of principles! I have no remarks about principles 6-10. But the principles 1-5 are not clear for me. My interpretation is given below marked by letter M (M1, M2, etc.). These of Pedro are marked by letter P (P1, P2, etc.). In my practice these principles had been used many times to solve and explain practical problems. The primary concept I used is the concept of “entity” – there are many examples of real entities. Entities interact permanently and after each interaction some internal changes in the entities may appear. Such changes are called “reflections”. In Computer science the corresponded concept is “Data”. Further reasoning is given below: P1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. M1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not every reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended reflections are information. P2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows. M2. Reflections may be comprehended as structures, patterns, messages, flows, etc. P3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally). M3. Reflections can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally). P4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows. M4. Reflection flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows. P5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. M5. Communication is based on special kind of reflections created by one entity and reflected by a second one. This way, the reflections comprehended as information by the first entity may be secondary (transitively) reflected by the second one. Such exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. Friendly greetings Krassimir Bibliography [St.Anselm] http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/middleages.html , http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/hop30.htm [Muentzer] http://www.thomas-muentzer.de/, [St.Agustín] http://www.conoze.com/doc.php?doc=157 [K.Markov, 2008] K. Markov, S. Poryazov, K. Ivanova, I. Mitov, V. Markova. Culture Aspects of Inforaction. International Journal INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES & KNOWLEDGE, Volume 2, 2008, Number 4, pp. 335-342. http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis