date:20150612

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

2015-06-12 Thread Francesco Rizzo

Cari colleghi,
distinguere, separare o, peggio, contrapporre è pericoloso e contrasta con
l'armonia meravigliosa che governa ll mondo. A PRESCINDERE CHE SI CREDA O
MENO in una in una Intelligenza trascendente la natura umana (io, ad
esempio, credo in Dio che non finisce mai di stupirci e sorprenderci). In
questo contesto epistemologico ed ermeneutico il computo o calcolo non è
altro che una singolare caso o categoria di informazione. Naturalmente,
questo è quel che penso io e rassegno al Vostro giudizio.
Un abbraccio per Tutti, nella convinzione che nessuno possegga una verità
assoluta, eterna e immutabile.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-06-12 23:18 GMT+02:00 Krassimir Markov :

>   Dear John and Stan,
> Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
> But this is believe, not science.
> Sorry, nothing personal!
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* John Collier 
> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
> *To:* Stanley N Salthe  ; fis
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
> Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:
>
>
>
>
>
> It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s
> computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree
> with this.
>
> Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most
> physiological systems.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
> N Salthe
> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
> *To:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
>
> Pedro -- Your list:
>
>
>
> physical, biological, social, and Informational
>
>
>
> is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the
> physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.
> But where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:
>
>
>
> {informational {physicochemical {biological {social
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort
> of the border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on
> the interrelationship between computation and information is an essential
> matter. In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life
> cycles are involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the
> mere info circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any
> life-cycle relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction
> between both may help to consider more clearly the relationship between the
> four great domains of sceince: physical, biological, social, and
> Informational. If we adopt a pan-computationalist stance, the information
> turn of societies, of bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces
> to applying computer technologies. I think this would be a painful error,
> repeating the big mistake of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed
> the sciences of the artificial and reduced the nascent info science to
> library science. People like Alex Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are
> again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, it was nicer talking face to face as
> we did in the past conference!
>
> best ---Pedro
>
> Ken Herold wrote:
>
> FIS:
>
> Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did
> not intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative
> way of philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of
> some bad thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is
> information and I would like to hear how you might believe the formal
> relational scheme of Rosenbloom could be helpful?
>
> Ken
>
> --
> Ken Herold
> Director, Library Information Systems
> Hamilton College
> 198 College Hill Road
> Clinton, NY 13323
> 315-859-4487
> kher...@hamilton.edu 
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

2015-06-12 Thread Krassimir Markov

Dear John and Stan,
Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
But this is believe, not science.
Sorry, nothing personal!
Friendly regards
Krassimir




From: John Collier 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe ; fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:

 



 

It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.

Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.

 

John

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

 

Pedro -- Your list:

 

physical, biological, social, and Informational

 

is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:

 

{informational {physicochemical {biological {social

 

STAN

 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan  
wrote:

Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of the 
border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

best ---Pedro

Ken Herold wrote:

FIS:

Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?

Ken

-- 
Ken Herold
Director, Library Information Systems
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton, NY 13323
315-859-4487
kher...@hamilton.edu 



-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
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
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

2015-06-12 Thread John Collier

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:

[cid:image001.png@01D0A529.DBE58A40]

It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.
Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.

John

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Pedro -- Your list:

 physical, biological, social, and Informational

is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:

{informational {physicochemical {biological {social

STAN

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of the 
border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

best ---Pedro

Ken Herold wrote:
FIS:

Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?

Ken

--
Ken Herold
Director, Library Information Systems
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton, NY 13323
315-859-4487
kher...@hamilton.edu 
>


--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
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

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

2015-06-12 Thread Stanley N Salthe

Pedro -- Your list:

 physical, biological, social, and Informational

is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.
But where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:

{informational {physicochemical {biological {social

STAN

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:

> Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort
> of the border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on
> the interrelationship between computation and information is an essential
> matter. In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life
> cycles are involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the
> mere info circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any
> life-cycle relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction
> between both may help to consider more clearly the relationship between the
> four great domains of sceince: physical, biological, social, and
> Informational. If we adopt a pan-computationalist stance, the information
> turn of societies, of bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces
> to applying computer technologies. I think this would be a painful error,
> repeating the big mistake of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed
> the sciences of the artificial and reduced the nascent info science to
> library science. People like Alex Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are
> again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, it was nicer talking face to face as
> we did in the past conference!
>
> best ---Pedro
>
> Ken Herold wrote:
>
>> FIS:
>>
>> Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did
>> not intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative
>> way of philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of
>> some bad thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is
>> information and I would like to hear how you might believe the formal
>> relational scheme of Rosenbloom could be helpful?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> --
>> Ken Herold
>> Director, Library Information Systems
>> Hamilton College
>> 198 College Hill Road
>> Clinton, NY 13323
>> 315-859-4487
>> kher...@hamilton.edu 
>>
>
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

2015-06-12 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort 
of the border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on 
the interrelationship between computation and information is an 
essential matter. In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, 
whenever life cycles are involved and meaningfully "touched", there is 
info; while the mere info circulation according to fixed rules and not 
impinging on any life-cycle relevant aspect, may be taken as 
computation. The distinction between both may help to consider more 
clearly the relationship between the four great domains of sceince: 
physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying 
computer technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating 
the big mistake of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the 
sciences of the artificial and reduced the nascent info science to 
library science. People like Alex Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) 
are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, it was nicer talking face to 
face as we did in the past conference!


best ---Pedro

Ken Herold wrote:

FIS:

Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I 
did not intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an 
alternative way of philosophy or computing.  The references I listed 
are indicative of some bad thinking as well as good ideas to reflect 
upon.  Our focus is information and I would like to hear how you might 
believe the formal relational scheme of Rosenbloom could be helpful?


Ken

--
Ken Herold
Director, Library Information Systems
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton, NY 13323
315-859-4487
kher...@hamilton.edu 



--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

5 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information