Dear Dr. Zou: Most interesting.I enclose a recently submitted manuscript for your perusal. Cordial wishes,Otto E.Rossler -----
Who can program the Einstein Rocketship? Otto E. Rossler1 and YaëlKolb1,2 1Faculty of Science,University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tübingen, Germany 2University of Design (HfG), Lorenzstrasse 15, 76135Karlsruhe, Germany Abstract Acomputer-game version of the famous Einstein equivalence principle of 1907 isproposed. Surprising implications predictably follow. The idea appears worthchecking by the computer-game community as a contribution to science. (March 12, 2018) The Einstein rocketship of 1907 [1] consistsof a constantly accelerating vertical paper strip (interpreted as the interiorof a roaring rocketship) and an internal light ray that is continually emittedvertically along the strip from the bottom to the tip. Einsteinfirst solved this typical computer-game problem in his mind, to in this waypredict out of the blue sky the famous “gravitational redshift”: The ascendinglight ray on arrival at the tip is slowed in its frequency by a negativeDoppler effect (like the sound of a departing ambulance) because the point oforigin of the vertical light ray is constantly falling back from the tip duringthe time it takes the light to arrive although the distance remains unchanged.This at the time absurd prediction enables accurate car navigation to date. Thejust described “Einstein task” is only the first step (one-dimensional case).It has never been simulated even though this is of course possible and indeeddesirable. The young Einstein thereafter in the same 1907-paper looked also atthe two-dimensional case: How does a horizontal light ray that hugs the floorof the rocketship appear from the tip when made visible towards above throughsome smoke in the air? This mental image would later become the “light clock” –a laser pulse inside a glass tube with reflecting ends and a bit of glitterinside to make the ticking visible to the outside world. Programmingthis 2-D game to make it totally transparent, too, is a bit more difficult butis bound to teach something new. While the light pulse is progressinghorizontally down there, the bottom is constantly falling back from the tipwhile keeping its distance as we saw. Therefore, the horizontally advancinglight pulse downstairs necessarily does so in a locally downwards-slantedfashion relative to the tip. This is a first post-Einsteinian Einsteinianprediction (PEEP). Megaconsequences follow suit if the PEEP can be successfully programmed rather thanremaining a mere mental fantasy. For it logically follows that the light pathdownstairs is increased in its length relative to the tip owing to its beingslanted everywhere locally relative to the tip, but this without appearingshortened due to the slant. For special relativity which governs the gadgetenforces preservation of optical width inside the rocketship. Hence theslowdown visible from the tip, seen in Einstein’s mind in 1907, reflects thefact that all objects downstairs are invisibly to above enlarged in sizerelative to the tip by the gravitational redshift factor. This prediction – iftrue – entails that the speed of light downstairs is actually non-reduceddespite appearances. If theproposed computer game confirms this new prediction made whilst anticipating it,surprising consequences follow suit. One of them reads: “No Big Bang” anymore becausethe speed of light is rendered a global constant again by the computer game. Notethat mutually very distant points in the universe now can no longer recede fromeach other at super-luminal speeds as is being assumed at present. So the proposed “Einstein computer game”(ECG) is a surprisingly serious playful proposal in the realm of games. Itwould be especially great if it could get implemented right away by utilizingan already existing game portal like “gamelab” [2]. The race is on. We thankWolfgang Rindler, Susan J. Feingold and Andrei Ujica for stimulation. ForJ.O.R. References [1] A.Einstein, On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it. Jahrbuchder Radioaktivität und Elektronik 4, 411-462 (1907), in German. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/GR&Grav_2007/pdf/Einstein_1907.pdf [2] https://code.org/educate/gamelab On Monday, March 19, 2018, 7:26:52 AM GMT+1, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear colleagues The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal production of knowledge is about to come. Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 08:57:37 In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge exponentially grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends can detonate the spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in ancient times. Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 2,000-year-long knowledge production method to do spiritual product processing. The double-chessboards based on the wisdom integrated theory and cultural gene system engineering practice came into being. Its primary feature is that it is a combination of humans and machines that can instantly complete the knowledge production of any one knowledge module. The formation and promotion of popularity has gradually highlighted its unique charm. For example, any text segment imported into the word chessboard web development environment and application platform can instantly form almost all the language points, knowledge points, and original points contained in the world-wide super collaboration of the text segment. . This not only provides the convenience for the original creators or experts themselves to confirm their themes, styles, or characteristics, but also provides a common platform for teachers, students and the general public to participate in the finishing of knowledge modules. Such a large-scale production of knowledge is supported by the three major system engineering practices of language, knowledge, and software. It is a brand-new approach to education informatization. At the same time, it provides a typical example of collaborative innovation that focuses on the intelligence capabilities of human-computer dual-brain intelligence. Both men, women, and children can discover from their most interesting speech fragments. Their respective real interests, hobbies, and good at, and then used them to participate in the integration of teaching and learning of social system engineering and the combination of soft and hard language and formal system engineering double practice, so as to reflect the three basic categories of object-oriented text The generalized textual cultural genetic system project contributes meager forces and gradually discovers and finds their precise positioning in the overall system of human knowledge building construction. Data, language, information, and knowledge all have intersections. Therefore, it is often misunderstood. The text that records knowledge is a typical type of data. Obvious ambiguity allows the machine to be automatically ejected; human experts are easily ambiguous in their respective fields; the most difficult ambiguity is the category of overlapping (basic concepts). Best wish! Zou Xiaohui 发自我的iPhone ------------------ Original ------------------From: Syed Ali <doctorsyedal...@gmail.com>Date: 周二,3月 6,2018 11:20 上午To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>Cc: 闫学杉 <y...@pku.edu.cn>, fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Many thanks Zou. Syed Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:35 PM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear Colleagues and Syed： Thank you for your attention! Let me answer your question（“Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?”）: Undoubtedly,the point of view “ information is the container of meaning” is certainly wrong. For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content information. Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come from ambiguity. Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or subject of information science). These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or suggestions! Thank you! Best wish! Zou Xiaohui 发自我的iPhone ------------------ Original ------------------From: Syed Ali <doctorsyedal...@gmail.com>Date: 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>Cc: 闫学杉 <y...@pku.edu.cn>, fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Colleagues:Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?Syed 附中文： 谢谢关注！ 让我来回答你的问题： 毋庸置疑，信息是容器的观点，它肯定是错误的。 因为，首先，除了具有质量和能量的载体之外， 现象信息是无所不包的，它们可以是物质世界的任何表现， 也可以是心智的任何情形，还可以是狭义和广义的语言， 或广义文本。其中，既有形式信息，也有内容信息。 进而，再来看本体信息，它由多种形式简化之后再聚焦于同一内容， 旨在排除歧义。人们的许多认知错误与误解，都源于歧义。 最后，实际上也是最重要的就是：可用真值计算的本质信息（ 这才是信息科学根本的研究对象）。 以上是邹晓辉的观点。请各位给予评价、意见或建议！ 谢谢！ 祝 愉快！ 邹晓辉 On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear colleagues and Xueshan， The relationship between meaning and information: 1. Three levels to understand them 1.1 words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and information. 1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of information, where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use of synonymy, respectively; if both mean something different then they are two different concepts. 1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms specifically refer to. 2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about them both from an informational perspective. In principle, they should not be discussed both in linguistics and in information science. Otherwise, they will encounter the contradiction between the two. Best wishes, Xiaohui, Zou 附中文： 意义与信息的关系： - 分三个层次来理解 1.1.语言的词：意义与信息就是两个不同的词。 1.2.思想概念：意义的意义或含义，信息的含义或意义，两方面 如果所指相同，那么在此它们就是同义项的一个用法分别采用了两个 说法；两方面如果所指不同，那么在此它们就是两个不同的词。 1.3.对象世界：意义与信息这两个词的具体所指。 2.要么都从语言学的角度来看它们，要么都从信息科学角度来谈它 们。原则上不应该同时既从语言学又从信息科学两个角度来谈它们。 否则，就会遭遇两者的自相矛盾。 祝 愉快 晓辉 发自我的iPhone ------------------ Original ------------------From: 闫学杉 <y...@pku.edu.cn>Date: 周日,3月 4,2018 9:18 上午To: FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es>Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my responses as follows: Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS information." Søren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this paradox. Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference between the subjective." "‘Information’ is synonymous with ‘new’." these claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible. For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we dissolve the paradox. In general, I have not seen any effective explanation of this paradox so far. Best wishes, Xueshan From: Syed Ali [mailto:doctorsyedalimd@gmail. com] Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:10 PM To: Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> Cc: Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu>; Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn>; FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear All: If a non English speaking individual saw the newspaper headline “Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: would that be "information?" My belief is - Yes. But he or she would have no idea what it was about- the meaning would be : Possibly "something " as opposed to the meaning an English speaking individual would draw. In both situations there would be still be meaning - A for the non English speaking and B for the English speaking. Conclusion: Information is the container of meaning. Please critique. Syed Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> wrote: Hi FISers, I am not sure whether I am a Procrustes (bed) or a Peirce (triadomaniac), but I cannot help but seeing an ITR (irreducible Triadic Relation) among Text, Context and Meaning, as depicted in Figure 1. | f g Context --------> Text ---------> Meaning | ^ | | | | |_________________________| h “The meaning of a text is irreducibly dependent on its context.” “Text, context, and meaning are irreducibly triadic.” The “TCM principle” (?) | | Figure 1. The Procrustean bed, the Peircean triadomaniac, or both ? | | f = Sign production; g = Sign interpretation; h = Correlation or information flow. | According to this 'Peircean/Procrustesian' diagram, both what Terry said and what Xueshan said may be valid. Although their thinking must have been irreducibly triadic (if Peirce is right), Terry may have focused on (or prescinded) Steps f and h, while Xueshan prescinded Steps g and h, although he did indicate that his discussion was limited to the context of human information and human meaning (i.e., Step f). Or maybe there are many other interpretations possible, depending on the interpreter of the posts under discussion and the ITR diagram. There are an infinite number of examples of algebraic operations: 2+3 = 5, 3 - 1 = 2, 20 x 45 = 900, etc., etc. If I say "2 + 3 = 5", someone may say, but you missed "20 x 45 = 900". In other words, no matter what specific algebraic operation I may come up with, my opponent can always succeed in coming up with an example I missed. The only solution to such an end-less debate would be to discover the axioms of algebra, at which level, there cannot be any debate. When I took an abstract algebra course as an undergraduate at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, in 1962-5, I could not believe that underlying all the complicated algebraic calculations possible, there are only 5 axioms (https://www.quora.com/What-is -the-difference-between-the-5- basic-axioms-of-algebra). So can it be that there are the axioms (either symbolic, diagrammatic, or both) of information science waiting to be discovered, which will end all the heated debates on information, meaning, data, etc. ? All the best. Sung From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 1:13 PM To: Xueshan Yan Cc: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox It is so easy to get into a muddle mixing technical uses of a term with colloquial uses, and add a dash of philosophy and discipline-specific terminology and it becomes mental quicksand. Terms like 'information' and 'meaning" easily lead us into these sorts of confusions because they have so many context-sensitive and pardigm-specific uses. This is well exhibited in these FIS discusions, and is a common problem in many interdisciplinary discussions. I have regularly requested that contributors to FIS try to label which paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information' in these posts, but sometimes, like fish unaware that they are in water, one forgets that there can be alternative paradigms (such as the one Søren suggests). So to try and avoid overly technical usage can you be specific about what you intend to denote with these terms. E.g. for the term "information" are you referring to statisitica features intrinsic to the character string with respect to possible alternatives, or what an interpreter might infer that this English sentence refers to, or whether this reference carries use value or special significance for such an interpreter? And e.g. for the term 'meaning' are you referring to what a semantician would consider its underlying lexical structure, or whether the sentence makes any sense, or refers to anything in the world, or how it might impact some reader? Depending how you specify your uses your paradox will become irresolvable or dissolve. — Terry On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn> wrote: Dear colleagues, In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and strictly limit our discussion within the human context. Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “Earthquake Occurred in Armenia Last Night”: Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence? A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night. Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, the study of human information is called Human Informatics. Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same. Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have the following corollary: A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics. According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human Informatics, so we have another corollary: B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics. Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a subject, but how should we understand this paradox? Best wishes, Xueshan ______________________________ _________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi n/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ______________________________ _________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi n/mailman/listinfo/fis ______________________________ _________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi n/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
