Dear Krassimir,

On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote:

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
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].

Very nice, although in my approach, I identify "science" and belief, in a first axiomatic approximation. later, new axioms can be added to introduce the nuances, when needed (and such nuances does exist, and eventually are imposed by the working hypothesis (mechanism).

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.

I agree. But if we decide to do metaphysics or theology with the scientific method, we can put the metaphysics in the hypothesis, and search for criteria of verification.

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!

I agree with this partially. Metaphysics/theology *can* be done with the scientific method. When we do that, the evidence are for Mechanism and against Materialism. Is it idealism? Well, all there is are numbers, and it is not a problem to consider them as idea or programs, as this happens by itself through the additive and multiplicative relations between the numbers. This explains also where the information comes from, in the form of first person histories-selection. There are no evidence for Aristotle primary matter, which seems to have been a fertile simplifying assumption only. But there are evidences for the many histories in arithmetic (indeed those evidences are theorems), and for the predicted statistics on those histories (the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics without reduction).

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

But here you seem to assume primary material entities? I agree that human's information relies heavily on material entities. Just to communicate with you, I am using a physical computer. But physicalness is an internal phenomelogical view, relying on the statistics on all computations already emulated in the "block-mindscape" constituted by arithmetic. Matter exists in the digital machine or number's phenomenology (as a consequence of the Mechanist theory, which is my field of expertise: I do not claim it to be true, I claim it to be testable, and plausible given what we know today).

The universal numbers (the universal machine run in arithmetic) reflect each others already.

P2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or

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).

Yes. OK. In fact machine's reflection is only very partially capable of being measured, and machines' reflexion is only partially justfiable. For example, we recover consciousness by the proposition of the type "true, not doubtable, not rationally justifiable, not expressible, yet individually knowable". That gives an equation with a non empty set of solutions for a large class of universal machine (those with enough rich introspection abilities).

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.

Same in arithmetic, when you plunge "meta-arithmetic" in arithmetic, following the method of Gödel.

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

OK. I think we agree on many things, except your curious invocation of matter which is slightly ambiguous on its primary-or-not character.

I would not equate information with reflection though, but there are important relationship between meaningful (true or possibly true) information and reflection.

Material or physical information exists, but is of a very different nature than mental and number-theoretical, or logical information. The first one arises from limits defined from the machine's perspective, when emulated by infinitely many computations in arithmetic. It is that material aspect of machines handling of information which makes the Digital Mechanist (alias computationalism) testable in the empirical domain.

Of course we get closer to Plato and Neoplatonism (the monist Plato of the Parmenides; not so much the one of the Timeaeus) than to Aristotle's materialism. Eventually the physical science are reduced to elementary arithmetic, but here I mean "intensional arithmetic", where a number can be a code for a digital machine. Note that intensional arithmetic is isomorphic to a part of extensional arithmetic. Each universal number can be used to construct the isomorphism, like Gödel already did in 1931.

Kind regards,



[St.Anselm] ,
[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.

Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to