Dear Dai,

thank you for your thoughtful comments on diversity, particularities and
generalities. In my case, setting “reality” equivalent to “data” is one
more little effort on my part to make all things appear enumerable. As you
graciously concede, this is an acceptable perspective.

For the musician, it is irrelevant, whether he sees the note *a* on a score
or hears it: it is the same data element in the inventory of his mental
contents. Similarly, for the chess champion it is irrelevant, whether he
has gained knowledge of the problem position by seeing it on the table,
reading it from a protocol or having heard it narrated to him. The main
point is, that the *modality *of the perception is of no relevance for the
idealised content – the denotation – of the idea. Me always talking about
the identifiable element, of course I prefer to say that the genesis – the
connotations – of an element are relevant only to that extent as they do
not hinder the communality of the object.

We discuss the pen-ultimate steps of Kant peeling away the particularities
of the object, where you warn, that too much of standardisation annihilates
important properties of the mental objects. How interesting then, that
common consensus reigns, that the world is best depicted by *one *kind of
basic element, that faceless *i *of N, that does not even have its own
place, and much less fights for it.

The model being persistently presented to you deals with positions of 136
individuals. These get constantly reorganised, and are almost always under
way to positions that appear to be more towards optimal, or towards which
circumstances force the individual to migrate. In this theatre, there are
sufficient role conflicts that entertain the participants: what kind of
pileup comes up again, how can one annihilate the maximum number of
alternatives, which position is the most restrictive for its successors,
and so forth. What I am involved with is an exercise in accounting. No
sounds, no chess, no reality, only data.

We investigate the properties of data. How much reality is behind the
results, will remain to be seen. How much reality has been behind the rows
of green peas of Padre Mendel, behind his tables and behind the information
theory of genetics? Have Mendel’s Laws existed while Mendel tried to
explain them to his contemporaries? No, they were Mendel’s Obsession,
Mendel’s Brainbug, anything but Mendel’s Laws.

The counting system that hopefully, peu a peu, evolves in your mind is made
up of a few dozen individual elements, the basic shape of which has around
a dozen different variants.  External influences cause that the inner order
of the collection is in a continuous, dynamic process. There are rules to
these inner processes. These rules are demonstrated in the tables relating
to *a+b=c *being subjected to sorting and ordering.

Our comprehension works by assigning the correct denotation to the
perceived connotation. Then, it is an informational theoretical process,
and a data processing challenge, namely: indexing, searching, filtering,
classifying, categorising and identifying data elements. There are rules of
doing so. The rules are given by how the natural numbers actually are. If
in the context of whatever complex question we discuss, *a+b=c *holds, then
the constituents of the picture of the denotation of the question will
agree to the numeric facts that are registered in the tables regarding the
behaviour of elements during reorganisations.

Thank you for the opportunity of offering you my viewpoints.


2018-03-19 16:22 GMT+01:00 Dai Griffiths <>:

> On 15/03/18 10:11, Karl Javorszky wrote:
> >To me, it does not appear necessary to make a distinction between
> “reality” and “data”
> That's a defensible position, but it does constrain 'reality' to 'that
> which we can perceive'. Which would rule out the reality of things that we
> cannot perceive, e.g. explanatory mechanisms, or the insides of black holes.
> > just like there is no necessity for musicians to distinguish between the
> note printed on the partiture,
> > and the acoustic sound, or for Chess champions to distinguish between
> the description of the position
> > in the protocol of the game and the actual pieces one can hold in his
> hands.
> I do not think that these are the same case.
> The description of the configuration of a chess game is lossless. I could
> note down the distribution of the pieces, take them off the board, mix them
> up and put them back again, and the game would not be changed for the
> players. The physical chess set and the physical context are also largely
> irrelevant. Players could leave one room, have a relaxed coffee or aquavit,
> go back into another room with a duplicate of the game with different
> pieces on another board, and continue with little disturbance.
> But sheet music is not a lossless representation of a performance. From
> the starting point of the sheet music, the performer has to decide on
> volumes, intonation and timing, and in some cases also ornament and
> variations. These issues arouse deep passions and ferocious debate! Nor
> would we be happy to buy a recording of a symphony in which different
> orchestras played different movements in different concert halls (although
> it might be interesting to hear).
> Dai
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to