Re: [Fis] The Travellers
Very sympathetic on the concept of travelers is that the basic model is that of a dynamic system, as opposed to a Newtonian one, wherein everything stays put or keeps on continuing as having been instructed to do. For the bourgeois, the travelers have a connotation of mystery. They follow paths that are not comprehensible to the philistine, find reason and meaning in their activities which are hidden to the well-behaving, and they communicate in ways incomprehensible to the traditionally learned. This is almost a revolution that FIS has arrived at concepts that differ from the classical in the points: 1) Time does not stand still 2) There is an element of incomprehension 3) Not the same rules apply to everyone 4) Groups have their own history 5) The own history makes the actions of the group reasonable for that group 6) Even if other groups find no meaning behind the actions of a different group 7) What is known in one group is not necessarily known in other groups 8) Therefore what is information depends on the history of individual groups As much as I like these (and similar) concepts, and advocate their usage in scientific thinking, they make it obvious that the terms “information” and “meaning” have roots in the learning history of the individual. (For someone, who has grown up speaking Klingonese, some noises have meaning and convey information.) Therefore, these terms are not suited to be used in a rational discourse. The denotation of a rational term cannot be dependent on individual whims or subjective learnings (as Wittgenstein has shown). InshAllah, at the workshop there will be a presentation showing how to allow for systems to learn (thus making unbreakable cryptographies, as for the communication to remain private, the two /or more/ participants need to have had a common language-learning phase together, having been exposed to the same influences and having learnt the same “words” /= symbols for denotations of occurrences/ to “mean” the same). Altogether, the concept of dynamic interactions with histories differing as per individual or group, but not unified overall, comes thankfully towards concepts known from psychology and learning theories. Karl 2014-10-27 10:59 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com: Cari tutti, secondo me, il concetto o significato dell'informazione è l'assunzione o il prendere forma di tutti e di tutto. Vi sono tanti tipi di informazione che usano unità di misure diverse e talvolta contrastanti. Ad es, l'informazione matematica si misura in bit di entropia. Nell'informazione naturale o termodinamica l'entropia coincide con la degradazione energetica o deformazione (dis-informazione). ma non v'è contraddizione:il significato è sempre lo stesso, l'unità di misura è diversa. D'altra parte perché l'informazione matematica acquisti un significato semantico è necessario un s-codice che impoverisce l'informazione matematica e rende possibile un significato semiotico-culturale e storico-sociale.Il valore dei beni (economici) è funzione della loro informazione.La moneta è il segno del valore (Marx). La forma del valore o il valore della forma è fondamentale e fondante. La triade semiotica è costituita da: significazione, informazione e comunicazione di cui si avvalgano l'esistenza e la conoscenza in generale. So di procurarvi qualche fastidio linguistico che potete evitare facendo finta di non avere ricevuto alcun messaggio. Intanto, grazie e un abbraccio per tutti. Francesco Rizzo. 2014-10-27 7:12 GMT+01:00 John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za: Folks, I agree with Pedro that the meaning issue is important. After trying to give a coherent account within established information theory for a number of years (starting with Intrinsic Information in 1990) I came to the conclusion that information theory was not enough, and admitted that at the Biosemiotics Gathering in Tartu about ten years ago. I now believe that semiotics is the way to go to understand meaning, and that information theory alone is inadequate to the task. Of course information theory could be extended, but I think the correct extension is semiotics. As Pedro said, we have not got agreement in many years. I think it is time to give it up and move into semiotics if we want to fully understand information. In direct opposition to Pedro's appeal to the Travellers metaphor, I think that history has shown that semiotics is distinct from information theory, and that information theory should restrict itself to the grounds that it has already accomplished. Oddly, Pedro seems to be saying that information theory includes meaning in exactly the opposite way to the way that gypsies do not historically include Travellers. So I don't get his argument. I believe that without an explicit theory of signs, we cannot hope to get a theory of meaning from the idea of information alone. I would not be upset if I were
Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
Karl,
I welcome the intent of your Workshop to deal with real contradictions but I
have some doubts that combinatorics by itself suffices. Earlier, you wrote:
Therefore, no methodology has evolved of appeasing, soothing,
compromise-building among equally valid logical statements that contradict each
other.
However, I would like to call your attention again to the fact that such a
logic and methodology exist, which I have designated as Logic in Reality (LIR).
LIR is non-linguistic and non-truth-functional, grounded in the physics of our
world, and can in principle do what you would like to do.
The reason I say 'in principle' is that the fact that neither standard, binary
logics nor paraconsistent logics can properly handle real phenomena does not
guarantee that one based on or describing 'sequences' or simple permutations is
capable of capturing the contradictorial characteristics of complex processes,
e.g. information. It is worth discussion but then the implications of Logic in
Reality - the logic of the included third term of Stéphane Lupasco and his
Principle of Dynamic Opposition - are also.
I think it is not so clear how to understand 'the logical contradictions that
exist' outside the linguistic or mathematical domain. It might be useful
(suggestion) to start out by discussing what the options here are.
Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Karl Javorszky
To: Bruno Marchal
Cc: fis Science
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of
Genetics,Fundamentals
The workshop goes far deeper than the excellent remarks raised by Bruno
discuss. We try to make the participants understand that the workshop deals
with contradictions, not para-consistent or inconsistent variants of logic.
The subject is elementary in such a degree, that participants run the risk of
not seeing the forest for the trees. Let me offer a very simple example:
In your class at University there are 20 students. Each student has 1 first
name and 1 family name. For official, administrative reasons, you have to work
the list down according to the family name. This is the sequence A (for
Administrative). Here, Arthur Treehouse comes after Christopher Bellini. Then
you have a list for your own use, where you remember the first name of the
students and have them in your phonebook according to their first name. This is
the sequence P (for Private). Here, John Napolitano comes before Susan Ardenne.
(Please expand the example until the problem becomes obvious. In the workshop
we shall work it out in detail, encouraging collaboration.)
Both sequences A and P have been achieved by repetitive applications of the
operator “”, well known from elementary arithmetic. The logical operators
{|=|} are a part of logic. Their application should be free of contradictions.
Here, we see that the application of the logical operator “” on sets yields
contradicting results.
The workshop will address the methodology of consolidating logical
contradictions. To this end we shall look more in detail into, how sequence
contradictions are resolved. The fact, that logical contradictions exist and
are easily demonstrable has been shown, therefore we shall not discuss it any
more.
As a preparation, one may want to ask his/her students to line up a) once
according to family name and b) once according to first name; c) each student
shall note in both cases the sequential number of his place, d) compare the two
numbers, e) if these do not agree, decide, which is his “right” place, f) if he
cannot do so, go to the alternative place, g) observe, whether the person who
is on his alternative place will exchange place with him directly, h) if not,
observe, how many students have to change places, i) compare the number of
exchanges within a closed loop.
After these exercises, one may want to discuss the concept of something
called a “quantum”, which could be interpreted as an elementary unit of being
dis-allocated (maybe [stepskilogrammdistance]).
Let me repeat, the subject the workshop invites the participants to direct
their attention to is way more fundamental than the level of “language
semantics”, “mind-body problem” or “origin of beliefs”.
Karl
2014-10-22 15:59 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 13:44, Karl Javorszky wrote:
Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in
Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main innovations
in the field of formal logic and arithmetic:
1) Consolidating contradictions:
The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to
the system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has
evolved of appeasing, soothing, compromise-building among equally valid
