Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate---John Collier
Message from John Collier Mensaje original Asunto: Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Fecha: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:29:17 +0200 De: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Para: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es A response to Jerry A series of responses to recent posts of James, Gavin, Steven, Stan, Pedro, zyx, Joe, and koichiro. FIS response March 14, 2011 I often disagree with Jerry, but in this case I endorse pretty much everything he says. Our disagreements have been beneficial to my own understanding, even if I have not been able to revise my views. On a different note, I draw the members of this list to http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/44680 *An inordinate fondness for bits* I have a copy of this book, and I find some of the papers quite bizarre, which is unusual for me as I am typically open to broad notions of the nature of information. There are many chapters by authors I know and greatly respect, and largely agree with, so overall I can recommend the book. But I also agree with the reviewer that there are rather extreme but interesting views in the last part. My brief exposure to Sufism is that God is Hu, the first distinction.The idea is that of a breath that separates chaos from order. As I believe that information is grounded in distinctions, I cannot reject this notion, though I would be very reluctant to call it God. Best to all, John Professor John Collier, Acting HoS and Acting Deputy HoS colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/ - ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] [Fwd: Re: Hannam's Contentious Postulate---Karl J.
Message from Karl Javorszky
Mensaje original
Asunto: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate---John Collier
Fecha: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:32:25 +0100
De: karl javorszky karl.javors...@gmail.com
Responder a:karl.javors...@gmail.com
Para: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Referencias:4d809224@aragon.es
The Common Subject: Order
Going back thru history, the participants of this discussion agree that
there is a common subject in the course of cultural evolution and the
progress of Science. Let me propose that we call this Grail of Wisdom
(Quintessence, the Philosopher's Stone, the Ultimate Truth, etc.) that
each culture has over the generations tried to find, focus on, analyse,
understand, recreate to be the concept of Order.
We try to find out, how the interdependences are ordered. Be the subject
of our interest a society, scientific interchanges, economy, the
languages, the concept of information - we invariably try to bring order
into the concepts. The order itself is a tool - as QTQ pointed out - by
which we , well, order the object underlying presently an un-understable
disorder.
Order has many connotations that cary a ballast. Discipline, plan,
expectations, correctness, answering to responsibilities are just a few
of the interfering co-excitations as we create a mental image of the
concept of order. The order as such, pure and simple, is always a
hostage of cultural consensus, the terms of which are dictated by the
ruling clique. To discuss the idea of order, alternative orders and the
ideal order is in many societies a short road towards becoming targeted
as a system destabilisator (by questioning the existing order).
Would we risk political persecution if we modified the group's name from
Foundations of Information Science into Foundations of the Science of
Order? (Not that I propose such.) That would raise eyebrows in the
ruling circles, would it not. Anarchy and disorder are in a traditional
relation in one's brain, which suits the ruling clique well. But in fact
disorder is not a sickness of the brain or of Physics but a signal for
our neurology's preferences for patterns.
The interplay between order and disorder is what underlies information.
Karl
2011/3/16 Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Message from John Collier
Mensaje original
Asunto: Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Fecha: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:29:17 +0200
De: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za
Para:Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
A response to Jerry
A series of responses to recent posts of James, Gavin, Steven,
Stan, Pedro, zyx, Joe, and koichiro.
FIS response March 14, 2011
I often disagree with Jerry, but in this case I endorse pretty
much everything he says. Our disagreements have been beneficial to
my own understanding, even if I have not been able to revise my
views.
On a different note, I draw the members of this list to
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/44680
*An inordinate fondness for bits*
I have a copy of this book, and I find some of the papers quite
bizarre, which is unusual for me as I am typically open to broad
notions of the nature of information. There are many chapters by
authors I know and greatly respect, and largely agree with, so
overall I can recommend the book. But I also agree with the
reviewer that there are rather extreme but interesting views in
the last part. My brief exposure to Sufism is that God is Hu, the
first distinction.The idea is that of a breath that separates
chaos from order. As I believe that information is grounded in
distinctions, I cannot reject this notion, though I would be very
reluctant to call it God.
Best to all,
John
Professor John Collier, Acting HoS and Acting Deputy HoS
colli...@ukzn.ac.za mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za
Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041
South Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031
http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/
-
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Hannam's Contentious Postulate---Karl J.
Ø Would we risk political persecution if we modified the group's name from Foundations of Information Science into Foundations of the Science of Order? (Not that I propose such.) I would no longer participate. But that can be considered as an advantage! The interplay between order and disorder is what underlies information. What worries me about these rather philosophical discussions is the confusion. In my opinion, order and disorder can be analyzed in terms of information (entropical) processes. One can formulate the cybernetic mechanisms that may lead from uncertainty (entropy) to organization and self-organization. I would formulate this as follows: the uncertainty contained in a probability distribution contains an expected information content. This can also be considered as a variation. From another perspective, this same variation (probability distribution) can be considered as a selection, namely, as the case which was deselected from the possible distributions. In other words, a variation provides observation material with reference to an expectation. The observable variation remains in the res extensa, but the selection on the basis of expectations is res cogitans. Unlike variation, selection is deterministic. Thus, order can be generated by selections operating upon selections. Some selections can be selected for stabilization, and some stabilization can be selected for globalization (meta-stabilization). Thus, one can remain firmly on the Shannon-base of information theory for explaining order and disorder. The in-between step is evolutionary theorizing about variation and selection. When one reverses the reasoning and wishes to explain uncertainty from order, one needs a lot of philosophy in order to obscure the confusion. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html Beijing; Honorary Fellow, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ University of Sussex ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] replies to Steven, Gary, and Jerry
As my first posting for this week -- Replying to Steven -- On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@semeiosis.org wrote: On Mar 12, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote: ... On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@semeiosis.org wrote: ... I agree with that there is no knowledge outside the knower. However, that does not avoid the fact that the universe is profoundly uniform and it is that uniformity upon which we rely. Well, if by 'uniformity' you mean that the results of our activities have some predictability, I would say that what this actually refers to is that our conceptual tools (laws, expectations, etc.) are usually successful in aiding our projects. That is a great intellectual achievement. But as to a supposed actual uniformity (?statistical) of the universe, that is a product of, and exists in, our discourses. No, this is not what I am trying to convey. My assertion is an existential one not an epistemological one. The universe, independent of any conception, is profoundly uniform and it is this uniformity that is the basis of perceived universals. Our conceptions can have no intrinsic uniformity unless they are founded upon this profound feature of the world. Nor am I referring to statistical uniformity. Again, I make an existential statement, not an epistemological one. I refer only to uniformity that underlies the laws and principles of our observations; it is the scientific assertion that the determinant features of the world, apprehended as laws and principles, are everywhere the same. This, of course, is the position of most scientists. It makes sense of their activities. I know of only one corroboration of this position outside of the scientific community -- the technological / industrial /business community -- which pays for the research. But this really makes up only a single intellectual community. Then, to Steven again: I still do not understand the appeal to postmodernism. There does not seem to me to be anything postmodern about no knowledge outside the knower. Indeed, it is a modern idea developed by logicians of the modern era. I think this view, given the obtuse attitudes of most academic scientists, requires a label, preferably one that shocks. Yes, this view was prefigured by logicians, and as well, most forcefully in my view, by Jacob von Uexküll's 'Theoretical Biology'. In any case, most generally, the postmodern view is anti-modern in that it eschews any supposedly universal understanding, which modern science implicitly pretends to. Within science, the famous incongruity between general relativity and quantum mechanics might have engendered a kind of postmodernism. Instead, it has sent many brilliant minds upon the evidently thankless task of trying to ‘square the circle’! I doubt your view warrants the term postmodernism for the reasons I have already stated. Your claim that modern science implicitly pretends to a supposedly universal understanding misses the point made in the above comments. If there is an unspoken dependence then this is it. A view that eschews any supposed universal understanding, simply cannot be scientific. It is the view of disenchanted sociologists, philosophers or diplomats, perhaps. And their kinds of knowledge are to be eschewed as ... what? ... unuseful? To what projects? Incorrect? Judged from what vantage point? The profound existential uniformity that I refer to is the necessary basis of scientific knowledge, without it all bets are off. It is certainly a conjecture, both verifiable and fallible, but without it there can be no science. I think this raises the issue of what science is for. I will suggest that it is for the purpose of furthering technology. That pragmatic role has not, I think, much value in the search for 'truth'! As to the famous incongruity between GR and QM, each focus upon distinct aspects of nature. Our failure, so far, to have a unified view of these evident aspects of the world is simply an indicator that there is work to do. If it has engendered anything it is a literal mindedness that has closed minds to the revisions necessary and thus we have stalled. To the man with a hammer, everything is a nail. I take it to be a warning that we must be more rigorous, not less. Supposing the incongruity to lie in discourse rather than in the World, then it seems there is warrant to question the validity of these ideas. Are they really any better than those of disenchanted sociologists, philosophers or diplomats? The world of the 'small' is a mechanical (experimental) construction, while the world of the large is a mathematical construction. It is true that their discourses both ride upon mathematics, and how can it be, then, that they cannot be made to come into agreement? Perhaps Goedel has told us? Incidentally, I elaborate on my earlier Science Abandons Absolute Truth posting on my blog:
