Re: [Fis] Logarithm

[Karl Javorszky]

For establishing the upper limit of the maximal number of commutative
groups on sets, the logarithm well pictures the decreasing probabilities of
finding a new constellation of symbols, by the ever increasing number of
factors in the divisor.

Hans von Baeyer  schrieb am So., 3. Juni 2018 21:53:

> For entropy we do need the log, because the chemists already knew that it
> is additive, whereas probability and "the number of ways", are
> multiplicative.
>
> Hans Christian von Baeyer
> ___
> 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] [FIS] Is information physical?

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Arturo,


There were some reports in clinical psychology, about 30 years ago, that
relate to the question whether a machine can pretend to be a therapist.
That was the time as computers could newly be used in an interactive
fashion, and the Rogers techniques were a current discovery.
(Rogers developed a dialogue method where one does not address the contents
of what the patient says, but rather the emotional aspects of the message,
assumed to be at work in the patient.)

They then said, that in some cases it was indistinguishable, whether a
human or a machine provides the answer to a patient's elucidations.

Progress since then has surely made possible to create machines that are
indistinguishable in interaction to humans. Indeed, what is called "expert
systems ", are widely used in many fields. If the interaction is rational,
that is: formally equivalent to a logical discussion modi Wittgenstein, the
difference in: "who arrived at this answer, machinery or a human", becomes
irrelevant.

Artistry, intuition, creativity are presently seen as not possible to
translate into Wittgenstein sentences. Maybe the inner instincts are not
yet well understood. But!: there are some who are busily undermining the
current fundamentals of rational thinking. So there is hope that we shall
live to experience the ultimate disillusionment,  namely that humans are a
combinatorial tautology.

Accordingly, may I respectfully express opposing views to what you state:
that machines and humans are of incompatible builds. There are hints that
as far as rational capabilities go, the same principles apply. There is a
rest, you say, which is not of this kind. The counter argument says that
irrational processes do not take place in organisms, therefore what you
refer to belongs to the main process, maybe like waste belongs to the
organism's principle. This view draws a picture of a functional biotope, in
which the waste of one kind of organism is raw material for a different
kind.

Karl

 schrieb am Do., 10. Mai 2018 15:24:

> Dear Bruno,
> You state:
> "IF indexical digital mechanism is correct in the cognitive science,
> THEN “physical” has to be defined entirely in arithmetical term, i.e.
> “physical” becomes a mathematical notion.
> ...Indexical digital mechanism is the hypothesis that there is a level of
> description of the brain/body such that I would survive, or “not feel any
> change” if my brain/body is replaced by a digital machine emulating the
> brain/body at that level of description".
>
> The problem of your account is the following:
> You say "IF" and "indexical digital mechanism is the HYPOTHESIS".
> Therefore, you are talking of an HYPOTHESIS: it is not empirically tested
> and it is not empirically testable.  You are starting with a sort of
> postulate: I, and other people, do not agree with it.  The current
> neuroscience does not state that our brain/body is (or can be replaced by)
> a digital machine.
> In other words, your "IF" stands for something that possibly does not
> exist in our real world.  Here your entire building falls down.
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
> giovedì, 10 maggio 2018, 02:46PM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
> :
>
> (This mail has been sent previously , but without success. I resend it,
> with minor changes). Problems due to different accounts. It was my first
> comment to Mark Burgin new thread “Is information physical?”.
>
>
> Dear Mark, Dear Colleagues,
>
>
> Apology for not answering the mails in the chronological orders, as my new
> computer classifies them in some mysterious way!
> This is my first post of the week. I might answer comment, if any, at the
> end of the week.
>
>
> On 25 Apr 2018, at 03:47, Burgin, Mark  wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I would like to suggest the new topic for discussion
>
>   Is information physical?
>
>
> That is an important topic indeed, very close to what I am working on.
>
> My result here is that
>
> *IF* indexical digital mechanism is correct in the cognitive science,
>
> *THEN*  “physical” has to be defined entirely in arithmetical term, i.e.
> “physical” becomes a mathematical notion.
>
> The proof is constructive. It shows exactly how to derive physics from
> Arithmetic (the reality, not the theory. I use “reality” instead of “model"
> (logician’s term, because physicists use “model" for “theory").
>
> Indexical digital mechanism is the hypothesis that there is a level of
> description of the brain/body such that I would survive, or “not feel any
> change” if my brain/body is replaced by a digital machine emulating the
> brain/body at that level of description.
>
> Not only information is not physical, but matter, time, space, and all
> physical objects become part of the universal machine phenomenology.
> Physics is reduced to arithmetic, or, equivalently, to any Turing-complete
> machinery. Amazingly Arithmetic (even the tiny 

Re: [Fis] Are there 3 kinds of motions in physics and biology?

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Michel and Sung,



Your discussion is way above my head in the jargon and background
knowledge. Please bear with me while a non-mathematician tries to express
some observations that regard symmetry.



Two almost symmetrical spaces appear as Gestalts, expressed by numbers, if
one orders and reorders the expression *a+b=c. *One uses natural numbers –
in the range of 1..16 – to create a demo collection, which one then sorts
and re-sorts ad libitum / ad nauseam. The setup of the whole exercise does
not take longer than 1, max 2 hours. Then one can observe patterns.



The patterns here specifically referred to are two – almost – symmetrical
rectangular, orthogonal spaces. As these patterns are derived from simple
sorting operations on natural numbers, one can well argue that they
represent fundamental pictures.



The generating algorithm is 5 lines of code. Here it is.



*#d=16*





*begin outer loop, i:1,d*







*begin inner loop, j:i,d*







*append new record*

*write*

* a=i, b=j, c=a+b, k=b-2a, u=b-a, t=2b-3a,*

*q=a-2b, s=(d+1)-(a+b), w=2a-3b*



*end inner loop*



*end outer loop*







The next step is to *sequence* (sort, order) the rows. We use 2 sorting
criteria: as first, any one of {a,b,c,k,u,t,q,s,w}, and as 2nd sorting
criterium any of the remaining 8. This makes each of the 9 aspects of
*a+b=c* to be once a first, and once a second sorting key. We register the
linear sequential number of each element in a column for each of the 72
catalogued sorting orders..

Do you think the idea of symmetry is somehow connected to some very basic
truths of logic? Then maybe the small effort to create a database with 136
rows and 9+72 columns is possible.



The trick begins with the next step:

We go through the 72 sorting orders and re-sort from each of them into all
and each of the remaining 71. We register the sequential place of the
element in the order αβ while being resorted into order γδ. This gives each
element a value (a linear place, 1..136) “from” and a value “to”. The
element is given the attributes: Element: *a,b, *“Old Order”: αβ, from
place nr *i*, “New Order” γδ, to place nr. j. While doing this, one will
realise, that reorganisations happen by means of *cycles, *and will add
attributes : Cycle nr: *k, *Within cycle step nr:. *l.* This is simple
counting and using logical flags.



The cycles, that we have now arrived at, give a very useful skeleton for
any and all theories about order. You will find the two Euclid-type spaces
by filtering out those reorganisations that consist of 46 cycles, of which
45 have 3 elements in their corpus, where each of the 45 cycles has
Σa=18, Σb=33.




The two rectangular spaces – created by paths of elements during resorting
– are not quite symmetrical. As an outsider, I’d believe that there is
something to awake the natural curiosity of mathematicians.



Hoping to have caught your interest.



Karl


2018-05-07 15:06 GMT+02:00 Michel Petitjean :

> Dear Sung,
>
> The formula of the Planckian information in Table 1 is intriguing.
> The argument of the log_2 function was proposed in 1895 by Karl Pearson as
> a measure of asymmetry of a distribution (see [1], p. 370).
> In general the mean can be smaller than the mode (so the log cannot
> exist), but I assume that in your context that cannot happen.
> Also, I assume that this context excludes distributions such as a mixture
> of two well separated unit variance Gaussian laws, for which the mean is
> located at an antimode, and not at a mode.
>
> The skewness, which is also used as an asymmetry coefficient, is the
> reduced third order centered moment (may be positive or negative).
> The square of this latter quantity was also introduced by Karl Pearson as
> a measure of asymmetry of a distribution (see [1], p. 351).
>
> So, all these quantities are used as asymmetry measures.
>
> Two questions arise:
> 1. Has the Planckian information some relations with symmetry or asymmetry?
> If yes, which ones?
> That would not be shocking: Shu-Kun Lin (refs [2,3]) discussed about
> relations between information and symmetry.
> 2. The asymmetry measures above have a major drawback: a null value can be
> observed for some families of asymmetric distributions, and not only for
> symmetric distributions.
>
> In the case you indeed need to consider the log of a non negative quantity
> measuring the asymmetry of a distribution, which vanishes if and only if
> the distribution is symmetric, you may consider the chiral index \chi
> (section 2.9, ref [4]).
> \chi index takes values in [0..1] (in fact, in [0..1/2]) for univariate
> probability distributions, and it is null if and only if the distribution
> is symmetric.
> It has other properties, but that falls out of the scope of this
> discussion.
> Then, simply replace [ (\mu-mode) / \sigma ] by \chi as the argument of
> log_2.
>
> [1] Pearson, K.
> Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Evolution,-II. Skew Variation
> in 

Re: [Fis] Fw: The 'Shirasawa phenomenon' or the 'Shirasawa effect"

[Karl Javorszky]

We can integrate the foreground and the background into one common concept
of "universe",e.g. - like forest and trees, like Bohr's sets A B of the
first kind.

The background is different to the foreground by the difference in truth
values. Some sentences are true before a specific background, like light is
a particle under some measurement setups, and a wave under some different
ones. Like one says a displacement is a topographic distance, to be
measured in cm from a given position, while others say a displacement is a
deviation in the extent of substance of matter present in a given
environment, to be measured in kg. Of course the two definitions are
mutually exclusive, like Bohr's sets A B in the 2nd sense.

The good news is that some strikingly simple arithmetic tools have been
developed to be able to sort out the underlying exact meanings of the terms.

Karl
PS : Does Sunday belong to the week ending with it?


Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> schrieb am So., 6. Mai 2018 12:12:

> Hi Karl,
>
>
> Thanks for your comment.
>
>
> According to N. Bohr, there are two kinds of opposites, A and B -- (i)
> supplementarity wherein A and B adds up to make the whole (e.g.,
> the forest-tree pair), and  (ii) complementarity wherein A or B is the
> whole, depending on how the whole is observed (e.g., light as either wave
> or particle depending on how it is measured).  I can send you the reference
> if needed.
>
>
> Sung
> --
> *From:* karl javorszky <umok.vede...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 4, 2018 2:50:50 PM
> *To:* Sungchul Ji
> *Cc:* Stanley N. Salthe; fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Fw: The 'Shirasawa phenomenon' or the 'Shirasawa
> effect"
>
> Dear Sung,
>
> Very encouraging the discussion of the difficulties human perception poses
> while trying to consolidate opposites.
>
> The existence of the mental image is built on contrasts, so no wonder we
> find it hard to get a good grip on the mechanisms at work consolidating
> contradictions.
>
> To the opposites we work on :
>
> tree vs. forest,
> top vs. bottom,
> little vs. big,
>
> could we also add:
>
> background vs. foreground,
> across the flow vs. along the flow of time,
> commutative vs. sequenced?
>
> If so, there appear some encouraging hints, that a rational methodology
> has been found to consolidate opposites.
>
> Karl
>
> Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> schrieb am Do., 3. Mai 2018 18:01:
>
> Hi Stan,
>
>
> True.  Our brain seems to have many limitations, one of which is our
> inability to see the forest and the trees simultaneously.
>
>
> It is interesting to note that we cannot measure (or at least not easy to
> measure) particles and waves of quons  (or quantum objects) simultaneously
> either,  although there are occasional claims asserting otherwise. Here we
> have two entities, A and B, that are not compositionally related (i.e., A
> is not a part of B) as are trees and the forest, but "complementarily"
> related (i.e., A^B, read A or B, depending on measurement) and hence does
> not involve any hierarchy.
>
>
> All the best.
>
>
> Sung
>
> --
> *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Stanley N Salthe <
> ssal...@binghamton.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 29, 2018 9:49 AM
> *To:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Fw: The 'Shirasawa phenomenon' or the 'Shirasawa
> effect"
>
> Sung -- regarding:
>
> The reason epigenetics (defined here as the process of inheritance without
> imlplicating any changes in the nucleotide sequences of DNA)  was not
> mentioned in my previous post is because I was mainly interested in the
> bottom-up (from micro to macro) mechanism of genetics, not the top-down
> (from macro to micro) mechanism.  It is interesting to note that our brain
> seems unable to handle both bottom-up and top-down mechanisms
> simultaneously, perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that we
> have two brain hemispheres (Yin and Yang) but only one vocal cord (the
> Dao).
>
> It is interesting that I early realized the difficulty many folks have
> with visualizing at one time both the top-down AND bottom-up aspects of the
> compositional hierarchy:
> [large scale constraints -> [activity in focus <- [small
> scale affordances]]]
>
> Perhaps your suggestion is involved here as well!
>
> STAN
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Arthur and  FISers,
>
> Thank you for asking an important question. The reason epigenetics
> (defined here as the process of inheritance without imlplicating any
> changes

Re: [Fis] Fw: The 'Shirasawa phenomenon' or the 'Shirasawa effect"

[karl javorszky]

Dear Sung,

Very encouraging the discussion of the difficulties human perception poses
while trying to consolidate opposites.

The existence of the mental image is built on contrasts, so no wonder we
find it hard to get a good grip on the mechanisms at work consolidating
contradictions.

To the opposites we work on :

tree vs. forest,
top vs. bottom,
little vs. big,

could we also add:

background vs. foreground,
across the flow vs. along the flow of time,
commutative vs. sequenced?

If so, there appear some encouraging hints, that a rational methodology has
been found to consolidate opposites.

Karl

Sungchul Ji  schrieb am Do., 3. Mai 2018 18:01:

> Hi Stan,
>
>
> True.  Our brain seems to have many limitations, one of which is our
> inability to see the forest and the trees simultaneously.
>
>
> It is interesting to note that we cannot measure (or at least not easy to
> measure) particles and waves of quons  (or quantum objects) simultaneously
> either,  although there are occasional claims asserting otherwise. Here we
> have two entities, A and B, that are not compositionally related (i.e., A
> is not a part of B) as are trees and the forest, but "complementarily"
> related (i.e., A^B, read A or B, depending on measurement) and hence does
> not involve any hierarchy.
>
>
> All the best.
>
>
> Sung
>
> --
> *From:* Fis  on behalf of Stanley N Salthe <
> ssal...@binghamton.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 29, 2018 9:49 AM
> *To:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Fw: The 'Shirasawa phenomenon' or the 'Shirasawa
> effect"
>
> Sung -- regarding:
>
> The reason epigenetics (defined here as the process of inheritance without
> imlplicating any changes in the nucleotide sequences of DNA)  was not
> mentioned in my previous post is because I was mainly interested in the
> bottom-up (from micro to macro) mechanism of genetics, not the top-down
> (from macro to micro) mechanism.  It is interesting to note that our brain
> seems unable to handle both bottom-up and top-down mechanisms
> simultaneously, perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that we
> have two brain hemispheres (Yin and Yang) but only one vocal cord (the
> Dao).
>
> It is interesting that I early realized the difficulty many folks have
> with visualizing at one time both the top-down AND bottom-up aspects of the
> compositional hierarchy:
> [large scale constraints -> [activity in focus <- [small
> scale affordances]]]
>
> Perhaps your suggestion is involved here as well!
>
> STAN
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 5:17 PM, Sungchul Ji 
> wrote:
>
> Hi Arthur and  FISers,
>
> Thank you for asking an important question. The reason epigenetics
> (defined here as the process of inheritance without imlplicating any
> changes in the nucleotide sequences of DNA)  was not mentioned in my
> previous post is because I was mainly interested in the bottom-up (from
> micro to macro) mechanism of genetics, not the top-down (from macro to
> micro) mechanism.  It is interesting to note that our brain seems unable to
> handle both bottom-up and top-down mechanisms simultaneously, perhaps it
> may have something to do with the fact that we have two brain hemispheres
> (Yin and Yang) but only one vocal cord (the Dao).
>
> One way to integrate the bottom-up and top-down mechanisms underlying
> genetic phenomenon may be to invoke the principle of vibrational resonance
> -- to view both the micro-scale DNA and  the macro-scale environment of
> organisms as vibrational systems or systems of oscillators that can
> exchange information and energy through the well-known mechanisms of
> resonance (e.g., the resonance between the oscillatory motions of the swing
> and the arms of the mother; both motions must have same
> frequencies. otherwise the child will not swing).  According to the
> Fourier theorem, any oscillatory motions of DNA including very low
> frequencies can be generated by linear combinations of  very fast
> covalent bond vibrations in  DNA and  hence can be coupled to slow
> oscillatory motions of the environment, e.g., musical sounds. If this view
> is correct, music can affect, DIRECTLY (i.e., unmediated by the auditory
> system of the brain), the molecular motions of DNA in every cell in our
> body.  In other words, we can hear music not only through our ears but also
> through our whole body including blood.  Because of the patent  issue, I
> cannot reveal the experimental evidence supporting this claim, but, indue
> course, I hope to share with you the scientific evidence we obtained
> recently.
>
> In conclusion, it may be that  the yin-yang doctrine of the Daoist
> philosophy (or any other equivalent principles) applies here, since
> molecular genetics and epigenetics may constitute  the
> irreconcilable opposites:
>
> "Genetics has two complementary aspects -- molecular genetics and
> epigenetics."
>
> "Molecular genetics and 

Re: [Fis] Is information physical? 'Signs rust.'

[Karl Javorszky]

This is a literary level exposition of a view, of the category of
Confessiones. The confidence of a philosopher, like that of a poet, that
his words can be understood, even though they are of a subjective,
individual perspective, is well rewarded if indeed the worldview can be
understood.

Two aspects on which i'd like to comment :

1. If this general allmighty versatile ubiquitous something is such a
wonder thing - what distinguishes then this construct from concepts of
theology? Bruno has been advancing the idea that insofar the problems we
discuss here are of a deep nature, our forefathers will have discussed them
already, in their own respective generations, using the available concepts
of their respective times, and these were of theological lexica. Therefore,
so I understand Bruno to say, we shall not be alienated by the reappearance
of ideas theological. And here we experience a globality of potentials
ascribed to an idea, by the beutiful sonett above by Joseph, which does
come near to ancient beliefs. Welcome the approach, because we try to catch
a metamorphosing beast, which we call information.

2. No day shall pass without mentioning the cycles.  Could we interpret the
"patterns of energy flow" as some kinds of filaments, paths, levels,
densities, probabilities, predictabilities? If we un-anchor our concepts of
"how much determines where", then we have a continuous rearrangement, with
many patterns in it.

The numbers show an unequivocal, solid, rational support for what Joseph
described above as main characteristics of the idea of information.

Karl



joe.bren...@bluewin.ch  schrieb am Do., 26. Apr.
2018 16:33:

> Information refers to changes in patterns of energy flow, some slow
> (frozen), some fast, some quantitative and measurable, some qualitative and
> non-measurable, some meaningful and some meaningless, partly causally
> effective and partly inert, partly present and partly absent, all at the
> same time.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> >Message d'origine
> >De : u...@umces.edu
> >Date : 25/04/2018 - 08:14 (PDT)
> >À : mbur...@math.ucla.edu
> >Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
> >Objet : Re: [Fis] Is information physical?
> >
> >Dear Mark,
> >
> >I share your inclination, albeit from a different perspective.
> >
> >Consider the two statements:
> >
> >1. Information is impossible without a physical carrier.
> >
> >2. Information is impossible without the influence of that which does not
> exist.
> >
> >There is significant truth in both statements.
> >
> >I know that Claude Shannon is not a popular personality on FIS, but I
> >admire how he first approached the subject. He began by quantifying,
> >not information in the intuitive, positivist  sense, but rather the
> >*lack* of information, or "uncertainty", as he put it. Positivist
> >information thereby becomes a double negative -- any decrease in
> >uncertainty.
> >
> >In short, the quantification of information begins by quantifying
> >something that does not exist, but nonetheless is related to that
> >which does. Terry calls this lack the "absential", I call it the
> >"apophatic" and it is a major player in living systems!
> >
> >Karl Popper finished his last book with the exhortation that we need
> >to develop a "calculus of conditional probabilities". Well, that
> >effort was already underway in information theory. Using conditional
> >probabilities allows one to parse Shannon's formula for diversity into
> >two terms -- on being positivist information (average mutual
> >information) and the other apophasis (conditional entropy).
> >
> >
> >This duality in nature is evident but often unnoticed in the study of
> >networks. Most look at networks and immediately see the constraints
> >between nodes. And so it is. But there is also indeterminacy in almost
> >all real networks, and this often is disregarded. The proportions
> >between constraint and indeterminacy can readily be calculated.
> >
> >What is important in living systems (and I usually think of the more
> >indeterminate ecosystems, rather than organisms [but the point applies
> >there as well]) is that some degree of conditional entropy is
> >absolutely necessary for systems sustainability, as it provides the
> >flexibility required to construct new responses to novel challenges.
> >
> >While system constraint usually abets system performance, systems that
> >become too efficient do so by decreasing their (mutually exclusive)
> >flexibility and become progressively vulnerable to collapse.
> >
> >The lesson for evolutionary theory is clear. Survival is not always a
> >min/max (fitt*est*) issue. It is about a balance between adaptation
> >and adaptability. Ecosystems do not attain maximum efficiency. To do
> >so would doom them.
> > The balance also
> >puts the lie to a major maxim of economics, which is that nothing
> >should hinder the efficiency 

Re: [Fis] Is information physical?

[Karl Javorszky]

The question „Is information physical?” relates to the equivalence between
two mental/emotional contents of the brain, and can be compared to “Is A =
B ?” at first sight. In the form the question is posed, it is rendered in a
more empathic fashion in the form “Does A contain a sufficiently large
proportion of properties of B so that one may reasonably say that A is
either a subset of B or is identical with B or does A include B ?”.

That, what “physical” refers to, may be understood to be beyond individual
interpretations. Logical sentences can be constructed about observations of
the world, and agreements can be achieved about what these sentences
denote. Society has created a cultural construct, like the value π, what
the term “physical” means. The concept is detached from the varieties of
individual connotations and emotional associative links, memory embeddings
and personal involvements while having learnt to de-personalise the concept
from its individual connections within the person’s brain.

The “information” part of the equivalence to be investigated can be varied
along the connotations of “information”. One generates sentences like “Is
the background physical?”, “Is the otherwise physical?”, “Is one specific
of the remaining alternatives physical?”, “Is the increase in my knowledge
physical?”, “Is the surprise I experience physical?”, “Is the contrast
physical?”

Maybe a first step towards a satisfying answer to the question of the
equivalence of information with effects, phenomena, ideas that are within
the domain of Physics, would be to arrive at a cultural understanding of
what the term means.

Presently, in normal conversational context, “information” is equivalent to
“is news for me”. If one receives a message that contains data that are
already known, the information content of that message is Zero. This moment
links the content’s information value to the learning history of
individuals. (If one has never learnt that a cold, low quality, drinking
glass will splitter if poured hot water into, this experience will inform
him on the subject.) The individual variety of the extent/amount/diversity
of information makes that term – as used in colloquial speech – not suited
for usage in a logical discourse.

If we speak in logical style, then the information domain refers to the
collection of alternatives to that what is the case, and the content of the
information is a selection criterion for some of the alternatives. Whether
the background as such or specific elements from among the elements of the
background are physical or not, is a matter for gourmets to chew on. If *v=d/t
*is physical, so be it.


2018-04-25 14:39 GMT+02:00 Jose Javier Blanco Rivero 
:

> Dear all,
>
> Following the ideas of Mark, Lou,   Krassimir and Arturo, I think it is
> worth to insist on a proposal I made in this forum a few months ago. That
> is, the thesis of a general theory of communication media.
> (Before going on I would like to remark that the concepts used here do not
> designate essences but functions, they are thought as answers to
> how-questions and not to what-questions)
> Instead of talking about carriers or substrates of information, we should
> be talking about communication media. Because, as Krassimir remarked,
> information can only become information in the context of a medium
> -material or not.
> As a medium can operate any redundant pattern and/or self organized
> process. Being information the result of or distinctions traced by this
> self driven process in an effort to  fix its own structures according to
> the constraints set by its environment and by its own actual possibilities
> of actualizing determined states of itself. Talking about communication
> would make sense as long as there are information processing, therefore
> redundance, and selection of information. It also makes sense as long as
> way to describe the evolution of the behavior of systems that interact
> somehow becoming interdependent to some degree.  As Arturo points out,
> anthropocentrism -and I would add: a persistent philosophy of
> consciousness- is rather an obstacle. Any selfrerential  and selforganized
> system can draw distinctions, process information and communicate. But we
> should take care to distinguish the very medium that make that system
> possible (which can be the domain of the physical, that is, the domain of
> existence of the observable and mensurable) and the media that function
> more or less regularly to the purpose of communication.
> I remember I also criticized the idea of information transmission.
> Information  is not transmitted. Regular patterns are instrumentalized to
> codify a symbolic system. When this occurs a technical medium of
> communication has been developed.
> I know there would be many flaws other general setting of this proposal,
> but I also think it is a thought worth to be followed  and perfectioned.
> This would not lead astray of information 

Re: [Fis] Music : Noise = Meaning : Data

[Karl Javorszky]

 not match.
There is an inherent inexactitude, caused by our presently used rules of
counting, in the counting system. The extent of this inexacitude is
extremely small. The bias can be fixed, if one uses symbols that are
concurrently commutative and sequential. These are found when one uses
cycles.

There are cycles that can co-exist, and some that can not co-exist. Knowing
that some elements of the cycle have already been the case allows
predictions, when, where and which elements will appear next. This property
of ordered collections is used by the nervous system as the basis for
remembering and learning.



Hope that this brings you a context relating to the system of consistent
counting.

Karl




2018-03-23 13:57 GMT+01:00 Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>:

> Bruno -- That is an interesting, creative move!  But my point was simply
> that the observer cannot be 'objective', but always
> brings in many constraints to any observation, which might have been made
> from yet another perspective, of which we cannot
> imagine the number or qualities of.
>
> STAN
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Stan,
>>
>>
>> On 20 Mar 2018, at 20:22, Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Bruno -- In this context I like to point out the constraints on our
>> abilities of perception.  First, we are physical.
>>
>>
>> That is a strong metaphysical assumption. See my paper for showing this
>> is not compatible with the Digital Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive
>> science, which is my working hypothesis.
>>
>> Perception is a relative indexical relation between a (digital) machine
>> (number, combinators, pattern of game of life, whatever) and other
>> plausible, from its perspective, universal or not entities (infinitely many
>> below the substitution level, making both matter and consciousness not
>> Turing emulable (in the Mechanist perspective).
>>
>> There are evidences for a physical reality, but I am not sure there are
>> evidence for a primary physical reality. The use of math in physics is well
>> explained if the physical appears to be a mathematical reality seen from
>> internal creature represented, relatively incarnated or implemented in that
>> mathematical reality.
>>
>> I can prove, if you agree with very elementary arithmetic, the existence
>> of the computations and the machine running them. I cannot prove the
>> existence of a physical universe, but if Mechanism is true, the physical
>> universe appearance can and must be explained by a statistics on all
>> computations (seen in a first person way). That makes mechanism testable
>> and indeed, thanks to Quantum Mechanics (without collapse) it fits very
>> well up to now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus:
>>
>> {physical {material {biological {animal {mammal {primate {human
>> {socialized {with accumulated personal history }
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, but you will need “magical” (non Turing emulable, nor Recoverable)
>> ability in your matter to select some computation.
>>
>> You invoke the God “Matter", but if it plays a role, I am no more sure I
>> can say yes to …the doctor and survive qua computation.
>>
>> Mechanism and Materialism, which are often used together, can be shown
>> incompatible (it is basically my PhD thesis, and it is summed up in most of
>> my papers).
>>
>> So it is more like
>>
>> {arithmetical{dream-like{biological{conscious{physical{{animal {mammal
>> {primate {human {socialized {with accumulated personal history }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hence, actuality is for us non-existent.
>>
>>
>> ?
>> Is not actuality existent *for us*, phenomenologically, and non-existent
>> Ontologically, I guess you mean.  I am not sure I understand well.
>>
>>
>> We live in a constructed reality.
>>
>>
>> The whole physicalness is indeed the arithmetic seen from the internal
>> arithmetical beings, but the person attached to them are not arithmetical
>> not even analytical (not even third person describable in any way).
>>
>> I am aware that what I say contradicts 1500 years of (Aristotelian)
>> theology, but then it was enforced by 1500 years of argument per authority,
>> sometimes violent.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> STAN
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dai, Hi Carl, Hi co

Re: [Fis] Music : Noise = Meaning : Data

[Karl Javorszky]

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.


Karl

2018-03-19 16:22 GMT+01:00 Dai Griffiths <dai.griffith...@gmail.com>:

> 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 mu

[Fis] Music : Noise = Meaning : Data

[Karl Javorszky]

Music : Noise = Meaning : Data





Dear Friends,



if one likes contemporary music, one is being well cared for in Vienna,
specifically during the November festival “wien modern”. The concert cycle
“klangforum wien” also introduces creative approaches to what is the state
of the art in creating acoustic data, which some will experience as music,
while for some the performance is partly outside of the boundary of what is
music. This year’s motto “grenzwert” (“limits”) is, once more, a head-on
confrontation with rules, traditions and conventions regarding the highly
subjective delineation between writing music and finding music generated by
the interplay among physics and neurology.



There is a science in religion, like there is music in some contemporary
concertos. It may not be easy to find, and for some orthodox critics,
science is something different to the transcendent aspects that have been
raised in FIS these last few weeks; just like many orthodox critics would
deny the inclusibility of some compositions under the term “music”, while
for people familiar with the style, the goal of the composer is evident:
work on the boundaries separating unrelated instances of noise from a
coherent musical phrase. Style of Cherubini they write not, the closure of
the phrase is not an over-determined, long foretold, affaire; yet – as they
have repeatedly demonstrated – there is a difference between a composition
and a sequence of random noises.



Similarly, in our discussions here, about what is information, we can come
up with ever newer delineations between incomprehensible and predictable.
We can point out Väinämöinen, who can sing into existence a copper boat,
touching on the principle of standing waves, or the Monkey King: Sun
Wukong, who creates clones of himself by blowing on hair from his fur,
being an ancestor to Sheep Dolly.



A more conservative approach would be to restrict ourselves to that, to
which all can agree being mainstream science of information. We do not need
yet to explore the limits of what is (or: what can be
understood/experienced as) information. There is enough to learn within the
confines of classical reasoning. We are not done yet with the Harmonielehre
of how data contain information. Why don’t we pick up Joseph’s low-key
observation: (colour emphasis added)

 “ … The problem of the entire concept of "data-driven" research can be
illustrated by referring to almost any recent copy of *SCIENCE*, which I am
sure you all do from time to time. There are articles in my original field,
chemistry, which describe incredibly complex multiply-sequenced reactions
which were unimaginable when I was in university. They cannot be followed
or their products exploited without the latest concepts in data handling.
But there is a usually a little phrase "in fine print" to the effect that
the system works "provided the reactions *lend themselves to sequencing*".
As long as there is possibility of studying the chemistry of some molecular
systems, literally, as individuals, it will be hypotheses about their
reality that drive the research, not the data. … “



To me, it does not appear necessary to make a distinction between “reality”
and “data”; 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.



To summarise:



If we understand science to be something that All can talk about, then we
better keep referring to such facts, the existence of which is a common
knowledge: these facts are usually called “data”;



One can and will learn a lot from investigating relations among data. As
facts have educated us to the fact, that information transmission in the
course of genetics happens by the property of data *to be sequenced*, we
should better look into *variants of being sequenced*;



There is sufficient music and noise emanating from differing *sequences*
one and the same collection can have, so presently there appears to be no
need to involve such concepts that may or may not constitute information.
Let us stick to such arrangements of data that do contain information, like
the DNA. No need yet to ask Supranatural Beings for their help with
figuring out, how to transform the collection of pupils from being lined up
on their first name into being lined up on their last name. We can solve
this problem, taking into account the impressive academic achievements we
cumulatively possess.



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

Re: [Fis] Simple amswer: NOT!

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Krassimir,


Formalism is nice, but it can be unreasonable.

Your example of 2 naked men on a beach can be made simpler by adding a dog,
a sausage and a whistle.

Person A (the dog's owner) sounds the whistle. The dog is apparently used
to being fed and runs up, waging its tail.

Can
1) person A think:
a) the dog thinks it will be fed,
b) this other naked guy thinks I am introducing Pawlow to formal logic;

2) person B think:
a) the measure of intelligence is based on the number of repetitions of a
stimulus until the conditioned reflex is established,
b) this other naked guy apparently teaching his dog to learn to listen to
the whistle;

3) the dog think
a) food coming,
b) the connection between whistle and sausage is a secret that I have
mastered, no other dog will ever figure out the mystery,
c) we dogs live in a world in which past and future exist; these are
connected by the moment, which is the natural home  (in fact, so far, the
only home) of formal logic;
d) poor humans have no fur and can not therefore think.

Do you think you can't navigate a crossing because you are not able to
figure out what the drivers in the cars coming will think? Because they are
not naked?

It is time to start talking about what Pawlow said.  Maybe, after that we
can start discussing what Gregor Mendel said. After that, one will cry
Caramba!

Time slips by while we waste time.

Karl

Am 07.03.2018 21:10 schrieb "Krassimir Markov" :

> Dear Alberto,
>
> Let imagine that we are at the naturist beach, i.e. naked.
> OK!
> You will see all what I am and I will se the same for you.
>
> Well, will you know what I think or shall I know the same for you?
>
> Simple answer: NOT!
>
> No Data base may contain any data about my current thoughts and feelings.
> Yes, the stupid part of humanity may be controlled by big data centers.
> But all times it had been controlled. Nothing new.
>
> The pseudo scientists may analyze data and may create tons of papers.
> For such “production” there was and will exist corresponded more and more
> big cemeteries.
> I had edited more than one thousand papers.
> Only several was really very important and with great scientific value !!!
>
> Collection of data is important problem and it will be such for ever.
> But the greater problem for humanity is collection of money [image: Smile]
>
> And the last cause the former!
> And the last is many times more dangerous than former!
>
> Do not worry of Data-ism!
> Be worried of the Money-ism!
>
> I will continue next week because this is my second post  ( Thanks to
> wisdom of Pedro who had limited Writing-letter-ism in our list! ).
>
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alberto J. Schuhmacher 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2018 10:23 PM
> *To:* fis 
> *Subject:* [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven
> research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?
>
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> I very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss with all of you.
>
> My mentors and science teachers taught me that Science had a method, rules
> and procedures that should be followed and pursued rigorously and with
> perseverance. The scientific research needed to be preceded by one or
> several hypotheses that should be subjected to validation or refutation
> through experiments designed and carried out in a laboratory. The Oxford
> Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure
> that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting
> in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the
> formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". Experiments are a
> procedure designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of
> the scientific method.
>
> In our case, molecular, personalized and precision medicine aims to
> anticipate the future development of diseases in a specific individual
> through molecular markers registered in the genome, variome, metagenome,
> metabolome or in any of the multiple "omes" that make up the present
> "omics" language of current Biology.
>
> The possibilities of applying these methodologies to the prevention and
> treatment of diseases have increased exponentially with the rise of a new
> religion, *Dataism*, whose foundations are inspired by scientific
> agnosticism, a way of thinking that seems classical but applied to
> research, it hides a profound revolution.
>
> Dataism arises from the recent human desire to collect and analyze data,
> data and more data, data of everything and data for everything-from the
> most banal social issues to those that decide the rhythms of life and
> death. “Information flow” is one the “supreme values” of this religion. The
> next floods will be of data as we can see just looking at any electronic
> window.
>
> The recent development of gigantic clinical and biological databases, and
> the concomitant progress of the 

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Xueshan,



let us work thru your Armenia paradox. It says:

" 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. “



Your viewpoint focuses on the identity of the two terms “meaning” and
“information”. Another approach would be to split A’s and B’s knowledge of
the earthquake. (Maybe A had heard it already in the radio, while for B the
paper was news.)

The text may be an information for B, while it has no information value for
A. The difference between the subjective, human usage of the word
“information” and the objective, technical usage of the same word is, that
in human context, “information” is synonymous with “new”. The sentences
“This is news for me” and “This is information for me” can be used
interchangeably in social discourses and there is no risk of being
misunderstood.

In a technical understanding of the context, into which the text must fit,
there can be no new elements or ideas. This is what Wittgenstein said. All
that can ever be said, can be considered as having been said.  The sequence
of discoveries has only practical, but no theoretical importance. It is
completely and absolutely irrelevant whether which of teleportation or time
travel we discover first – please use your own examples of something that
we believe is not possible but that may still turn out to be possible -,
their possibility of being discovered is a part of their description.
Puzzles of Nature are not objective puzzles: they are subjective
shortcomings of not having kept the eyes open. The signs were always there
for a²+b²=c², the Neanderthals could also have formalised the fact, had
they had the time, inclination and education to discover it. There can be
no invention in the world of rational thinking, only discoveries.



As to the meaning part of a headline, there are ancient civilisations that
have learnt to listen carefully to the subtle nuances of when an
announcement is made, on which position and using which layout it appears
among the communications, and so forth. In Byzantium the fact of the
communication would have been set in a context, investigated under the
aspects of whether the earthquake and its public acknowledgement will
support Prince X’s machinations or rather those of Metropolit Y. That would
have been the meaning of the text, for A and B.



Information is the flip-side of a coin. Having drunk the mother-milk of
Shannon, one will not think possible that “.not. a” has variants
independently of “a”. If the repertoire is {0,1}, knowing one of them means
knowing all of them. If the repertoire is however {0,1,2,3}, the remaining
alternatives, after having established *i* is the case, carry a meaning for
the human, and carry information for the machine. Moreover, one can chain
up the non-selected alternatives, make use of their being available for a
concurrent process, build a kind of Lego construction out of the
alternatives. The community of the rejected, de-legitimised, non-accepted
has indeed sometimes reached a critical mass, in the course of history.



Information is an enumeration of the alternatives. If one knows all that
what is not the case in context Q, one may build predictions relating to
context R. For a prediction, it is irrelevant whether the data are
presented as positive or negative extents, as logical .t. or .f. values.



Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock. They cannot exist
without each other and humans like to distinguish them. If one sees the
production of a key together with the lock in an automated fine mechanical
factory, the sheets of drawing paper, or the multiple screens of a
computer, devoted to the components of the merchandise, allow management to
decide whether the key is an addendum to the lock, or the lock is a side
product of the key. Whether the hen {is more important than, contains} the
egg is an old paradox, now resurfacing as an earthquake.



Karl

PS.: In my book “Natural Orders” there are 2 chapters: Information,
subjective concept and Information, objective definition.






2018-02-26 12:26 GMT+01:00 Søren Brier :

> Dear  Xueshan
>
>
>
> The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass
> information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such
> a paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory
>  with it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:
>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a5e7/cf50ffc5edbc110ccd08279d6d8b51
> 3bfbe2.pdf
>
>
>
> Cordially yours
>
>
>
>  Søren Brier
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Fis] What is the “mental model”?

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Colleagues,



Thank you for bringing up 3 main points of the discussion:



1)“ … the most represented position among FISers, i.e., that
information is an objective, quantitative, physical measure linked to
informational entropy”

2)"Information = data + something in and by consciousness"

3)“ … my simple question is: What is the “mental model”? “



To answer these points, it is necessary to recall some results from
research into learning. Learning is based on recurring, periodically
repeated, experiences which get associated with other mental images. The
key word here is “periodic”. It has already been suggested here that
children should first learn “how frequently” before learning “how many”.
The higher functions of the brain are dependent on the physiology of the
brain as an organ. The rules of physiology are rules of changes. The whole
system is based on periodicities, be they hunger, tiredness, any urges and
needs.



The fundament of our perception is made up of closed loops of cycles within
periods, producing rhythms. Against this background have thinkers evolved
the concept of a line and of equally spaced identical units along the line.
The idea contrasts well against the experience of: always the same,
returning in variations. So, this idea can well be abstracted, commonly
experienced, therefore communicated.



In actual fact, the first abstract concept a human child learns is that of
the mammae of its mother. The distinction happens along the line of
“not-me” within the cacophony of sensuous impressions coming from the
boundary-less general “me” of the first hours and days reigning in the
brain of the newborn. All pictures of all objects are descendants of the
experience of delimitation of specific brain activities – which will be
learnt as perceptions of outside – against the background of a wholly
un-differentiated melange of proceedings within the central nervous system.



The point to make here is, that the experience of being fed *reorders
*important
physiological parameters within the infant. The suckling’s cells will be
flooded with nourishment, and thus its change into a different state of
physiological order will have become attained. The predecessor state was
“hungry”, the successor state is “well-fed”. The intermediate state is that
which the organism is in actual fact continuously in, only purists would
want to point out the exact end of being hungry. It is a periodic process
that the infant learns to look forward to, and we indeed see babies to show
great interest in preparations for being fed, if they are hungry. Pawlow’s
dogs make the point crystal clear: it is a *periodic *process, of which
there are *previous parts*, that is all that that has happened, and *parts
that are yet to come*, that is, what the children and dogs look forward to.



This is the answer to point 2: "Information = data + something in and by
consciousness" is the same as “Reflex = remembered perception + prediction
about future”. Information is in this sense the physiological changes
caused by the expectation (salivation, agitation), usually called
conditioned reflex, and has much to do with enthropy, as an allegory of the
physiological state. Data is the input by the sensory organs. The something
that connects data and prediction is the rule, and it is usually not
distinguished between conscious or not. To keep the terminology in line
with formal definitions, information are such elements of the data set that
are not yet in existence and of which the future existence is predicted.



Point 3:  The simple question: What is the “mental model”? is an invitation
to present a mental model.



We know that we have to deal with periods, cycles within periods, and
rhythms caused by the interference among cycles and periods. This because
our brain is organised to work in such way. We have been so far quite good
at describing that part of our mental contents that are children of the
distinction me – not-me. The not-me we can already talk a lot about. Now
the time has come to start talking about the me part of the brain.



We know that learning is improving the predictive power. To predict
something, that something must be in the future, as a successor to the
present. To be able to predict, some signals must have been perceived,
based on which the prediction is made. These are in the past, are
predecessors to the present. The two different states are each well-ordered
(in one state: hunger, in the other state: well-fed; both states with,
theoretically or practically, measurable differences in physiology). The
present state is an intermediate one (not yet fed, but already alerted to
soon being fed) between two ordered states, and therefore subject to
constraints implicated in the neighbouring states’ orders.



A model that exemplifies a) order, b) transition, c) prediction would be
helpful in this situation, if the task could be done in a neutral way,
transparently, in an inherently logical 

[Fis] Accounting and predictions : message and meaning

[Karl Javorszky]

Accounting is not a science



There is an old joke about the mafia boss, who needs a new accountant.
Proband 1 is asked: how much is 2+2? Answer: 4. Next candidate: How much is
2+2? Answer: anything between 3 and 5. No good. Next candidate, same
question. Answer: whatever you wish, boss. He gets hired.



More traditional approaches to accounting disqualify the art from being a
science, as there is no room for error. Accounting embodies all that
Wittgenstein stood for: true statements that rely on each other and are
invariably inherently – grammatically – correct, otherwise it would not be
accounting but spaghetti.  Science, like philosophy, deals with such, what
is presently unknown, while trying to explore, understand, qualify and
quantify it. There is room for error in philosophy and science, which room
does not exist in an ideal Wittgenstein set of sentences. Among
tautologies, nothing can turn out to be otherwise.



Theoretical genetics has forced us to leave the traditional understanding
of what a number is and where it is placed. Its place has been heretofore
inseparably fused with its value, form, appearance, properties and
associations. By repeatedly sorting, one denies the connection, naively
believed to be inherent, of a value with its place. What is a king, if he
is among beggars? Can the Captain of Koepenick be represented in a numeric
tale? Are some changes more problematic than others?



One never knows, what hidden revolutionary instincts slumber deep in the
hearth of an individual. Maybe mathematicians are not so much given to
overthrowing age-old agreements, definitions, rules and conventions.
Biologists, however, should maintain the idea of sudden, *deus ex
machina*  type
improvements, as tools of evolution by mutation and variation. It could
well be, that a rupture from its place of a number does introduce a new
species of counting.



If numbers are no more married to their place, where are they then? Here,
accounting helps. We know that they cannot simply disappear; furthermore,
we add them up and expect grand totals that match. We add them up actually
twice, once according to place occupied and once as carriers of symbols.  This
one can only do, if one switches to cycles as units of counting.



Accounting in units of cycles may sound more complicated than it is in
actual practice. Classical logic degenerates into the special case of a
plane across the number line: as the ever-present moment of “now”, which is
eternal, because it is timeless. In this cross-section of time, the rules
of Wittgenstein apply. The actual content of the “now” is one of the
varieties made possible by its neighbours, the predecessor and the
successor.



The intermediate state of actual (real, existing, true) state does have
a-priori rules in it. These are given by the fact that the predecessor and
the successor states are ordered.



If we take the table we have constructed with (a,b) and watch the process
of reordering between the two sorted states  vs. , then we see that the collection is subject to very potent
sets of restrictions, on what can be where. Knowing the end state allows
building estimates about what is missing, that is: yet to come. Cycles are
of a great help here, as they are successions, ordered in specific ways. Of
that, what has happened before, human intelligence can confer, what will
happen next. That, what we deduct, is different to that, what we observe.
The former is meta-physic to the latter’s physic, meaning to the latter’s
message. Learning is basically an ability to improve the efficacy of
predictions. To be able to imagine the continuation of partly finished
cycles, periods and rhythms is to be able to respond intelligently.



One enters a territory here, which separates accounting from predicting the
future. Classical logic will not speak about the future, because the future
is not tautologic. Seen, however, as an exercise in combinatorics, one may
be able to construct – at least, theoretically – all true sentences that
can be consistently said about up to 136 objects. In this hypothetical
case, whichever state the set is in, possible predecessors and successors
of this state can be established. Taking the most probable of among the
possible next steps, the system begins a walk. It is then possible to find
such walks that are a closed loop. If the version is included, that some
facts that relate to the sequence of arguments restrict the ways
commutative assemblies can be contemporary, and that the configuration of
symbols of commutative assemblies restricts the ways arguments can be
sequenced: in this case theoretical genetics has been made accessible to a
Wittgenstein type logical discourse, reduced to tautologies and
probabilities, that is: predictions, which are again part of the art of
accounting.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] one can learn a lot from numbering every word

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Krassimir,



Improvements are done if there is a need to do so, innovations come about
as a result of creativity, not as answers to an existing need, but as
voluntary exertions that satisfy curiosity.

Taking your example of having enumerated all signals (phonemes, letters,
words), the non-necessary innovation would be to create a parallel
enumeration of all signals (say, in Hungarian, alongside your existing
Bulgarian catalogue) and observe the priority (linear position) of the
signal in the respective repertoire. (Say: {water, air, sun, mother, eat,
…} are enumerated in (BG, HU) on positions {(3,6), (2,5), (7,7), (1,8),…}.)

These ((3,6),(2,5),…) are x,y coordinates on a plane of which the axes are:
Table: “Priorities of concepts in Bulgarian and Hungarian”, Axe x: BG, Axe
y: HU. If one would play a few minutes with his or her computer, one would
see the points of the plane.

Finding that some of the pairs are members of a cycle (that is a polygon of
which the corners are the (x,y) coordinates of those elements that change
places with each other in a general enumeration of concepts (BGHU or HUBG))
one would connect the corners of the polygons with lines, differently
coloured lines for each cycle, and maybe find pleasure in discovering the
concepts of consistent enumerations.

Seduction happens when the person to be seduced sees *no need* to do that
what the seducer wants him to do. The seducer must necessarily paint
charming pictures about the future of the seducee, if only that would do
that what the seducer invites him to do.

My sweet honey learned and respected friends, you will all be very much
entertained and gain many rewards and gratulations if you take the trouble
and think this through, and get familiar with talking in terms of logical
compromises (from tautology to instability) and discontinuities. This
because it is actually so that the arithmetic rules of reordering impose
threads and filaments in space, as simple implicit corollaries of *a+b=c*.
If a collection can be ordered in different ways, it is reasonable to speak
about the most probable intermediate state that collection is in. There is
no need to do so, but ….

Best

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

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

[Karl Javorszky]

Using the logical language to understand Nature



The discussion in this group refocuses on the meaning of the terms
“symbol”, “signal”, “marker” and so forth. This is a very welcome
development, because understanding the tools one uses is usually helpful
when creating great works.

There is sufficient professional literature on epistemology, logical
languages and the development of philosophy into specific sub-philosophies.
The following is just an unofficial opinion, maybe it helps.



Wittgenstein has created a separate branch within philosophy by
investigating the structure and the realm of true sentences. For this, he
has been mocked and ridiculed by his colleagues. Adorno, e.g. said that
Wittgenstein had misunderstood the job of a philosopher: to chisel away on
the border that separates that what can be explained and that what is
opaque; not to elaborate about how one can express truths that are anyway
self-evident and cannot be otherwise.

The Wittgenstein set of logical sentences are the rational explanation of
the world. That, which we can communicate about, we only can communicate
about, because both the words and what they mean are self-referencing. It
is true that nothing ever new, hair-raising or surprising can come out of a
logical discussion modi Wittgenstein, because every participant can only
point out truths that are factually true, and these have always been true.
There is no opportunity for discovery in rational thinking, only for an
unveiling of that what could have been previously known: like an
archaeologist can not be surprised about a finding, he can only be
surprised about himself, how he had been able to ignore the possibility of
the finding so long.

As the Wittgenstein collection uses only such concepts that are
well-defined, these concepts can be easily enumerated. In effect, his
results show, that if one uses well-formulated, clearly defined logical
words, the collection of all explanations is the solution of a
combinatorial problem. This is also the reason why he says that his
philosophy is just a tool of sharpening the brain, and contains nothing
whatsoever noteworthy in a semantic fashion.

One may summarise that the pariah state among philosophers that
Wittgenstein suffered on this his insight, is owed to the conclusion that
real philosophy has either nothing to do with the grammar of true logical
sentences or otherwise it is degenerating into a technique outside
philosophy, namely number theory. If every concept can be represented by a
number, and valid sentence are those for which the rules that govern
numbers are satisfied, then one can work with the numbers as such and
figure out later for what they stand.

This is the situation as per today. There is no change whatsoever. The only
noteworthy development is, that one can indeed teach new tricks to that old
dog, number theory. The sand that has to be swiped away is the covering
layer of attitudes that are too clever by half. By keeping the nose not too
high, one may look before one’s feet and reconsider simple operations that
one executes by routine.

We know how to sort and how to order, and we are intelligent and flexible
enough to change priorities if circumstances dictate such. We know how to
order and how to reorder. If we only had a brain like a computer, we could
memorise all the patterns that appear as we transform from priority
readiness One into priority readiness Two.

There are many opportunities for number theory to jump into action in the
field of organising and reorganising. As one intensifies one’s hobby of
reordering the contents of one’s office, one will now have arrived at the
concept of sequenced groups of elements that change place together during a
reorder. Cycles that constitute a reorder connect elements with each other.
Learning is based on the concept of associations. Being an element in the
corpus of a cycle may well be the formal explanation for a property of
being associated with.

Whether one calls the elements’ {position, amount, sequential place,
relation to potential successors, …} {symbol, signal, mass, impact,
chemical valence, predictability, energy level, information content,…} is
of secondary importance. As we look into a kaleidoscope, the first step is
to make sure *that* we all look at a kaleidoscope, and preferably the same
one. The next task is to make sure that we all perceive the *same picture*.
As the kaleidoscope produces natural numbers, this should be a challenge
that one can be expected to match. Only after it has been agreed that we
all observe the same patterns is it reasonable to start discussing how to
name the facts of perception.

The present problem is not with the inability of the logical language to
process that what we wish to discuss.  The present task is to realise that
one needs a clear idea before one enters the struggle to express it
clearly. The unveiling has been done. Now the interested public is invited
to look at the picture.

Once one has answered 

Re: [Fis] Summing up: New Year Lecture

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Arturo,



thank you for your forceful presentation of contemporary thoughts on
theoretical biology, specifically the problem of what the term “genetic
identity” in actual fact means.



Your handyman offers you tools which support that what you say. You say: “
… Here we ask: what does “matching description” mean? Has it something to
do with “identity”? Going through different formulations of the principle
of identity, we describe diverse possible meanings of the term “matching
description”. …”

A very simple solution is to enumerate each and all of the variants of
whatever can have a description. Then we switch to a different describing
system and again describe all variants of whatever can have a description.
This is like making an inventory of the contents of one’s office: once with
regard to the things’ colour, once to their size. To each description we
attach a natural number. The inventory number of the red coffee cup on the
table will be probably different in the inventory list based on things’
colour, to the inventory number of the same cup in the inventory list
according to size. The next step is to look for rules that allow matching
the two inventory numbers. Then we have “matching descriptions”.

In genetics, the combinatorial problem becomes quite evident. We enumerate
*along* time and we enumerate *across* time, too. We count the *sequential
place* of the elements of the DNA, and match this *sequence *to the
*contemporary
composition* that is the living organism. Life happens *in the moment,
across the temporal line*, while the rules of assemblage and maintenance
are registered in a *sequential form, along the temporal line. *

We overcome the difficulty by employing as symbols for a general method of
enumeration the sequential number of the element within its cycle during
reorders. These symbols are *as well sequential as well commutative.*
Symbols that are both commutative and sequential are the basis for counting
consistently.

The picture becomes rather entertaining, as one finds that Nature uses a
clever little accounting trick. If one deals with a dozen or so cycles of
about 6 elements each, one can switch between how many, when, where and
what almost at one’s wishes. The working principle of the numeric connector
between enumerating across and along a sequence is explained in
www.oeis.org/A242615. As said before, if we look at 66 elements all at the
same time (in a commutative fashion), what remains to be predicted, is
*where* specific combinations of symbols are to be expected. If we see 11
sequenced groups of 6 elements each, we can predict *when, where and what *will
be existing (contemporary).

The interaction between sequences and mixtures is a real, disruptive
game-changer. One has to re-learn all the basics of arithmetic. The
positive side is, that after having understood which basic rounding errors
one has learnt at elementary school, unlearning these and instead learning
to use a stricter concept of consistently counting, during this process of
self-education one will have found the answers to the questions you so
eloquently present.

PS.:

1) J Theor Biol 2000 Aug 21; 205(4):663-6 Interaction between sequences and
mixtures

2) The lecture series: Learn to Count in Twelve Easy Steps was given in FIS
in 2013




2018-02-01 17:54 GMT+01:00 <tozziart...@libero.it>:

> Dear Karl and Pedro,
>
> A unifying principle underlies the organization of physical and biological
> systems. It relates to a well-known topological theorem which succinctly
> states that an activity on a planar circumference projects to two
> activities with “matching description” into a sphere. Here we ask: what
> does “matching description” mean? Has it something to do with “identity”?
> Going through different formulations of the principle of identity, we
> describe diverse possible meanings of the term “matching description”. We
> demonstrate that the concepts of “sameness”, “equality”, “belonging
> together” stand for intertwined levels with mutual interactions. By showing
> that “matching” description is a very general and malleable concept, we
> provide a novel testable approach to “identity” that yields helpful
> insights into physical and biological matters. Indeed, we illustrate how a
> novel mathematical approach derived from the Borsuk-Ulam theorem, termed
> bio-BUT, might explain the astonishing biological “multiplicity from
> identity” of evolving living beings as well as their biochemical
> arrangements.
>
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610717302055
>
>
>
> Il 1 febbraio 2018 alle 17.16 Karl Javorszky <karl.javors...@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> Biodiversity and Cartography
>
>
>
> The excellent summary by Pedro of the session just past highlights several
> different areas of processes, which appear to be interrelated at least in
> some methodologica

Re: [Fis] Summing up: New Year Lecture

[Karl Javorszky]

Biodiversity and Cartography



The excellent summary by Pedro of the session just past highlights several
different areas of processes, which appear to be interrelated at least in
some methodological ways. Pedro says in effect: “… systems such as
circulatory, pulmonary, renal, brain, etc. …” appear to work in a
comparable fashion, which has probably to do with fusing of two different
spaces into one common space.



Please allow me to propose a visualisation. We see a landscape with hills
and valleys. Some local biotopes have evolved, in which specific flora and
fauna are endemic, well adapted to their respective local circumstances. We
suspect that there are common traits present in the management of the
diverse habitats, with some obviously sustainable feedback loops –
otherwise the area would be barren. In this allegory, if one investigates
the functions in circulatory systems, one would be likened to someone
investigating insect life in a rainy forest in a division of our imagined
landscape. A person looking into the workings of the renal systems could be
seen as a team investigating the life of mammals in a savanna.



Among these field workers, a land surveyor tries to find someone who would
be interested in a new way to formalise the parameters of each and all of
the habitats, and tabulate every possible variety of anything that lives in
any of the habitats. This invention is way beyond the needs of any of the
field teams investigating the adaptations the fauna had to undergo due to
the properties of the flora, or partly the other way around. The teams have
heard about trigonometry and satellite positioning, but they are not
involved with the infrastructure of science. It would take a road building
engineer to see slopes and angles everywhere, and of that profession are
the biologists not. The teams could have heard about continual change,
because they understand that change is what life is all about, but they had
never thought to be possible to actually use measurable change tools like
one uses a scalable microscope.



Trigonometry would have remained a special pastime for scientists, had not
lenses, oculars and sextants been produced to the necessary degree of
mechanical precision. For the applications of trigonometry to become
ubiquitous in our everyday life, it was necessary to have achieved progress
in fine mechanics and precision measurement tools. The technology had to
keep step with the ideas. Both the ideas were present and the tools have
become available. The innovation could become integrated into the culture.



Presently, we try to understand the concept of information. In Pedro’s
words: “… two 3D projections are fused into a 4D one. The gain in
information is evident …”. The implication of Pedro’s thought is that
sequences, generally: order, are depositories of information, which gets –
in a fashion – released or actualised in the moment of the fusion of two
spaces into a common, third, space.

This state of affairs puts the problem with technology and ideas on its
head. We do have the technology to produce any kind of imaginable order and
disorder and to find such closed loops that are self-replicating. What we
lack presently is the understanding by the prospective users that they need
such a tool, and that such a tool is a) thinkable, b) designable, c)
realisable, d) working, e) useful.



To give an example:

The two spaces Pedro refers to are well defined. They can be observed by
reordering expressions of *a+b=c *on the properties *{a+b,a;b-2a,a;a-2b,b-2a
(A), a+b,b;b-2a,a-2b;a-2b,a (B)}*. Euclid spaces *(A) *and *(B)* merge
together into Newton space *(C), *of which the axes are *a+b, b-2a, a-2b.*
The axes of space *(C)* have each *two *sub-axes: this is the reason that 1
logical linear position can have 4 planar coordinate-pairs. (This was
narrated some two years ago in this FIS chatroom also, being Step Eight of
the lecture Learn to Count in Twelve Easy Steps. Otherwise see: Natural
Orders.)



May be suggestion be allowed that it would be more precise to talk of
merging (co-resonance) of planes rather than of merging of spaces. In a
logical sense, the space is generated by a continuous turn of 3 planes and
should not be assumed to have an independent, a-priori existence.



The land surveyor presents his compliments to the officials involved in
managing progress of society and may politely suggest, that some precision
tools have been fabricated, by which the results of the endoscopy of order
and information can be unwrapped, extricated and applied to manifold uses.






2018-01-30 14:06 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear FISers,
>
> Apart from the very interesting critique by Sungchul, there is an
> intriguing comment I would like to make respect the new evolutionary views
> presented. I will risk to discuss on a topic, topology, too far from my
> usual fields. So I trust the benevolence of FIS readers.
>
> As far as we have been told, the germ 

Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Sungchul and Colleagues,



Let me join the harmonious and musical – as Francesco has put it – concert
among us, trying to understand and formalize our diverging concepts of what
is information.

Sungchul writes: “… DNA viewed as a set of linear sequences of genes …”.
This we all agree on. We will please also agree on the view “…. The living
organism is a set of commutative elements…”, as this cannot be denied (the
liver not being before or after the kidneys or the brain, but concurrently
with them). This is the small aspect I wish to draw your attention to.

The following points merit consideration:

a)   Copying to and fro: size questions

The DNA and the organism exchange information (whatever that is in detail)
with each other. The information content of sequences is copied from the
products of the testicles and follicles to the organism while expanding
(unfolding, de-packaging). The information content of the organism is
copied unto the sperm or the egg, respectively while containing
(registering, storing, packaging). Therefore, two processes of copying take
place between source and target, where once the sequence is the source and
the commutative assembly the target, and once the commutative organism is
the source and the sequence is the target.

Now, a copying process implies by its nature that the target must have at
least such capacity (enumerable distinct states) as the source, otherwise
something would get lost. As the process goes both directions, we have a
copying problem, where the two targets must be at least as differentiated
(possessing distinguishable, enumerable states) as the other. Following
example may be used: we need two of such sacks into which the other sack’s
contents plus the sack must fit. There must obviously be some slack: maybe
this slack is a candidate to be called information.

b)  Maximal efficiency, some accounting kind of solution needed

Assuming that Nature works at top efficiency and abhors vacui, one has to
find the back-door Nature uses to fit a bigger set into a smaller set, and
then back. This she does by using an interplay between the respective sizes
(capacities, number of enumerable distinguishable distinct states) of two
functions (for details, please look up OEIS/A242615).

The accounting trick is, that information lies in the eyes of the beholder.
If we see 66 objects as one commutative collection, the answering
information is related to “where are subgroups of these things?”, while
seeing the same objects as 11 sequences of 6 objects each, the answering
information is related to “what kind of thing happens /is contemporary/,
where and when?”. One may not like the numeric facts, but they are simply
there, and Nature uses them.

While being in full conformity of Sungchul’s point: “… communications …
must be mediated by messages (or signs) (i) … (ii) obeying a set of
syntactic rules…”, let me suggest that his idea of a wide range of
alternatives regarding the number of symbol-carrying tokens and
articulation pattern among the words of the logical language, that this
grammatical openness has been found to be restricted to 3 tokens in one
message and 4 varieties of tokes, in the ideal case, as dictated by the
numbers. Nature appears to follow the rules of elementary arithmetic. The 3
planes in succession, that generate a space, and the 4 possible readings of
a linear-sequential fact, on each of the planes represented in space, are
facts coming from the rules of counting. One needs 3 planes to construct a
space: this one can do, based on a sequence, but one arrives – as the cost
of the exercise – at 4 alternatives on each of 3 readings of the space.
Another candidate for the term “information”.

c)   Forever changing, always the same

The interplay between what is in store and what is actually taking place
now can well be studied if one takes the time and sits down and reorders
the content of his office (in thoughts). One will find that the task is
rather complicated and will try to avoid the eye-opening work of figuring
out what the term “order” means. Would it be possible to make your office
maximally disordered? What would be where, in that case?

Yet, one will not be able to avoid (will surely be seduced into listening
to the sweet voice of adventure and discovery as the rosy-fingered maiden
of Reason will rise in the East of his/her brain) seeing cycles and
associations everywhere.

The great change in logic FIS is approximating, cycling and circling
around, refers to a concept of the “atomos”, “object”, “element”,
“thing-as-such”, “number as such”. In the new logic, these are never alone,
always together with others, in movement, being subsystems among other
subsystems.

Belonging to cycles confers powers of prediction to elements. (The DNA is a
prediction on the sequence of components’ assembly.) If **
elements have passed, surely * *will come next, because the
process is apparently **. The observation: “*{i,j,k} *have

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Professor Torday,



thank you for your insightful analysis of the complex system which is
genetics. Your viewpoints cover from the molecular, cellular, physiological
level up to that of cosmic changes affecting the whole of the Earth. Your
work is truly a tour d’horizon of the subject.

Random mutation or natural selection: this is a relatively minor aspect of
the overall interdependence. On this subject it may be helpful to take a
look at what the numbers say. The Darwin concept of survival of the fittest
creates a linear order among the animals: fittest thru the medium down to
the least fit, which get eaten and therefore by their absence in the
genetic pool influence the future composition of the multitude. External
influences exist and they exert their influence by creating a sorted
collection. The pressure exerted by natural selection can well be modelled
by simple arithmetic of sorting.

Having at least two external influences at work at any time, one may assume
that in the multitude the laws of transition between two orders are valid.
(For the organism it may be of advantage to have more fat, to be well
prepared for the winter; having more fat may be irrelevant for the ability
to make mimicry.) Competing external influences may well bring forth
situations, where the organism has to decide whether to be prepared for
future danger type A or for future danger type B.

This is the moment where random mutation can appear. Being sorted and
ordered in aspects A and B means that there exist groups among elements
that make the change together. The element does not change its position on
its own: it is embedded in a community with other elements, forming a kind
of convoy, a string, a filament. Permutations consist of cycles.

The concept of cycles brings a temporal dimension to the proceedings. The
cycle elements *e* are in, progresses through slices of logical truth: each
such a moment which is true is true for one element *e_i*, had been true
just before for one element *e_(i-1)*, and will be true just next for one
element *e_(i+1)*. Cycles of interest being composed of more than a very
few members, such elements of the corpus, which will be true later, are a
potential subject of seduction. Assuming that there is concurrently a
reordering procedure between aspects C and D, there are great chances that
any element that is not being certified true, may change its properties
before being nailed down by truth having arrived for him, too. Lots of room
for random results.

Random mutation can well be connected to the mechanisms that govern natural
selection. The two ideas are not unreconciliable.

There are many more ideas in your expose which can be supported by the
numbers. The numbers are here, ready to serve you.



2018-01-03 16:15 GMT+01:00 JOHN TORDAY :

> Dear FIS Colleagues, I have attached my New Year Lecture at the invitation
> of Professor Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez. The content relates a novel
> perspective on the mechanism of evolution from a cellular-molecular
> vantage-point. I welcome any and all comments and criticisms in the spirit
> of sharing ideas openly and constructively. Best Wishes,
>
> John S. Torday PhD
> Professor
> Evolutionary Medicine
> UCLA
>
> ___
> 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] Informatics of DNA (Sungchul Ji)

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Professor Sungchul Ji,



Thank you for your discussion of the matter of information transmission by
means of the DNA. You point out that men and mice have differing gene
sequences. Then you work on results obtained by using microscopes and
solvents. Your chain of thought is based on empirical facts.

We have explored a different approach to the same question. The search for
a consistent explanation happens in our case less on observed facts, but
uses pencil and paper.

We assume that a sequence and a multidimensional entity interact. The main
problem appears to be that the sequence is longitudinal to a line of a
temporal nature, while the organism happens concurrently, like across the
time flow dimension. The logical symbols that describe the DNA are
sequenced consecutively, while the logical symbols that describe the
organism are commutative.

The information theoretical problem is that with capacity and
differentiation. Obviously, the information content that is contained in
the sequence is copied unto the information receptors in the set that is
contemporary. This is true in both directions, as we know that the organism
is able to replicate itself by copying its logical description unto a
sequence which stores the information content of her or his genetic
material. We have two processes of copying a content from a medium of
storage unto a different medium of storage and back again. The target of
the copy process must possess at least such a capacity of storage as the
source sends, otherwise something would get lost. We observe a dyade here,
of which both partners have to be bigger than the other: this unusual
requirement merits a closer study.

To answer this question, it was necessary to count, how many sequences can
exist at all. This would give the number of all possible creatures
generated by our idealised understanding of genetics. The next step is to
count how many multi-dimensional entities can exist in the same moment, at
the most. The answer to this is taught in the books about test theory: as
many ways are there to segment a population according to test results as
there are ways to validate a test on a population.  The idea is to count
the ways symbols can be attached to objects, and of course there are as
many ways to partition a collection from – to as there are to – from.

When looking at a collection of *n* objects, there are a number of ways to
look a *sequence *into the objects, and there are a number of ways to look
a *commutative collection *into the same objects. These two upper limits
determine, how many different sequences can point out how many organisms,
in dependence of how many objects are used to simulate the interactions.
Sometimes one set is bigger than the other, sometimes it is the other one
that is bigger. So far, the riddle of being copied and containing the copy
is solved.

The main innovation is however that we can use the fine filaments that
connect the past with the present and the present with the future. Cycles
have been found to play an extremely important role, by non-empiric
methods. There is a property to natural numbers which has not been utilised
so far. The natural numbers order themselves in filaments during changes
affecting the set, and the web these filaments weave is the stage on which
the action of exchanging information into spatial-chemical arrangements is
being performed.

The profession of number theoreticians would have died out long ago, if
there did not come up from time to time someone from that trade with a
really useful algorithm. We have developed numeric tables using which the
methods of producing differing more-dimensional commutative assemblies
quasi-bijective to changes in sequences can be easily read off. The tool
you may find practical for your further research is at your disposal,
esteemed Professor.

2017-11-29 20:15 GMT+01:00 Karl Javorszky <karl.javors...@gmail.com>:

> Dear Professor Sungchul Ji,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your discussion of the matter of information transmission by
> means of the DNA. You point out that men and mice have differing gene
> sequences. Then you work on results obtained by using microscopes and
> solvents. Your chain of thought is based on empirical facts.
>
>
> We have explored a different approach to the same question. The search for
> a consistent explanation happens in our case less on observed facts, but
> uses pencil and paper.
>
>
> We assume that a sequence and a multidimensional entity interact. The main
> problem appears to be that the sequence is longitudinal to a line of a
> temporal nature, while the organism happens concurrently, like across the
> time flow dimension. The logical symbols that describe the DNA are
> sequenced consecutively, while the logical symbols that describe the
> organism are commutative.
>
>
> The information theoretical problem is that with capacity and
> differentiation. Obvi

[Fis] Happiness is a Tautology

[Karl Javorszky]

Happiness is a Tautology



Dear friends,


1)  Introduction

There are very many aspects, levels, perspectives to a discussion that
deserves its name. We all work on understanding a system of highly complex
phenomena, which we call life. A part of it is, or it does, information, a
part of it is, or does, communication. We do not yet know, how to draw a
picture of a working mechanism that lives and contains – or does or
experiences, etc. – communication, and within this – or parallel to that? –
transmits information. The picture is not design-ready yet.

That there is an interdependent system of particular parts which produce
particular effects is maybe a formulation of the idea in a sufficiently
common way, one the partners can basically agree to.

Now here comes a proposal to establish an idea about what this system
produces. The system is in terms of sociology a Betrieb (place of
production), as described by Max Weber. The organisational idea of a
nervous system is brought close to an interested person by C. Northcote
Parkinson’s acute observations about organisations of humans.

We have a complex together of subsystems visualised before ourselves. The
goal is to find the engine which fuels the system and keeps it running,
specifically in view of the need to have a common unit for reasons of
necessary cooperation among the sub-systems. The accountant wishes also for
units of used up fuel, waste, of de-cooperation and de-communalism, but we
shall at first introduce a common currency for the travails of the
different sub-systems while running like they should. This satisfactory,
good, maybe optimal performance level is effortlessly running, in the case
of a healthy individual. We disregard at first the niceties of which kind
and how much of communication and/or information are produced, transmitted,
digested, acted on or learned from. We wish to find the organisational
equivalent of one unit of reinforcement over all kinds of differentiated
activities. The advantages the sub-system derives from doing something well
must be accessible to a reasoned abstraction. The organisational unit
receives one unit of reinforcement for having done one task well: the
reward will serve as a bonus to keep doing that what one does well.
Usually, one calls this self-gratification of the nervous system one shot
of endorphins, but here no attempt is made to speak about things of
Chemistry, here of numbers and men is the song.


2)  The Unit of Fulfilment

The satisfaction we experience if we have resolved something well: this
experience is what we propose to use as unit of consistency in systems that
mimic the central nervous system. The tension release in the moment of lust
when we realise that the task has been done, all went well, it is all
right, we got it, we got away, we got in, etc. is followed by a douche of
enzymes which are usually referred to as endorphins: the intersubjective
existence of the concept is well accessible to all of us.

It is obvious that the brain is an optimising device. Animals and small
children show that they are out to maximise the output within their system
which we refer to as endorphins. Any person in any experiment can be
assumed to optimise something in their brain which they consider in that
moment, under those circumstances the optimal solution to achieve the best
variant among the available variants. Humans evidently optimise something
by using their brain. Let us give this something the brain tries to
optimise the production of, the name Lust. The term Lebenslust corresponds
to the terms lust of life, soif de vie; Lebensfreude to joy of life, joie
de vivre.

The proposal is to define the unit of lust as one unit of expectation
fulfilment. Then, the system would try to optimise the proportion of
winning bets among all bets it closes with itself. Overdoing it would cause
problems, because either there is no check on the proportion becoming 100%:
then the system could just ossify, become vegetative and drift towards the
borders that segregate the living from the non-living. If there is a
counter-valve in existence, then it does not pay to use trivial solutions,
because the system degenerates and does not produce bets at all, therefore
within fewer bets over all, there are fewer such that could be won.
Cheating is a short-term strategy in the search for inner balance.

The interplay between Sollwert and Istwert, target value and actual value,
can be best demonstrated by the cycle of breathing. Drawing in, one
corrects an actual state towards a target state: in the actual state there
was too much CO2 and not enough O2, so the inhaling got started; at the end
of the inhaling process, there will be too much of O2 and not enough of CO2
in the lungs, therefore that what was heretofore the target state is now
the actual state and the opposite is now the target to reach. There exist
two ideal states and the system never reaches either of them, but
oscillates between opposed sets of 

[Fis] Wishful Thinking Reflected in the Sumerian Concept of Numbers

[Karl Javorszky]

Wishful Thinking Reflected in the Sumerian Concept of Numbers


1)  Introduction


To be better prepared to understand the roots of our numbering conventions,
we have proposed to re-imagine the intellectual innovations achieved by the
Sumerians, while they introduced the concept of positional notation. This
ground-breaking innovation has made, in a - much simplified - example
“a,b,c” different to “b,a,c” by the rule: “read the last as the number of
single units, the next the number of dozens and the third as the number of
grand dozens”: that is, abc translates into our notation as c + b*12 +
a*144 and bac as c + a* 12 + b * 144. (They did in fact not use a 12-based
system, but the principle they invented remains the same, whether binary,
decimal or hexadecimal.)

We have offered as a method of accessing the thinking capacity of the
ganglions that manage this rule a mental landscape which is easy and
emotionally moving. The ganglions can be seen as railroad switches (railway
turnouts / points), which are brought into a fixed position by learning.
Once one has learnt how to direct the paths of one’s thoughts, one has a
much-simplified life. The disadvantages are that one has preconceptions and
prejudices, and releasing the switch from its fixed position carries the
costs of an experience of frustration.

Yet, the regrettable state of affairs is today that we need to re-learn our
basic concepts of how things interact with each other in Nature, because
the transfer of genetic information, as observed in real life and in vitro,
has, in the eyes of many, not yet been explained rationally,
comprehensively and exhaustively, and in the eyes of few, the explanation
which is in fact rational, comprehensive and exhaustive, cannot be
understood by the many, as the ganglions of the many are fixed in their
positions as learned in elementary school, and the frustration of
re-releasing the switches is just too much for the simple-minded believers
of Teachers, who unfortunately lack the long training a psycho-analyst has
to go through until she or he loses all belief in authorities and teachings
handed down and hopefully learns to think with her or his own head.

If we succeed to drip-feed the true believers with the poison of disbelief,
which is the elixir of alternative explanations, there may arrive a
Darwinian moment, where people say: “it is not nice to un-believe many
beliefs, but it does make just too much sense to assume that we are the
great-great-great-grandchildren of monkeys”. The goal is in the current
case to bring people to the point of saying: “It is not nice to un-believe
many beliefs, but it does make just too much sense to assume that there are
many ways to arrive at the concept of a number, let alone to that of a
sequence”.

So, we return to the Sumerian nobles discussing how to build a consistent
system of notation for something which is differing to all things sensually
perceivable. To un-glue the fixed positions of the switches of the
ganglions in the brain, we use the juicy imagination that the Sumerians
have abstracted for their idea of “one object as such” from sensually
perceivable objects each of them had in a similar fashion, namely ladies of
their respective harems. To make the case simple, we imagine each of the
scientists to be the proud owner of a harem with 60 ladies each in them,
who are normal, healthy women.


2)  What they did



   1. Enumerate consecutively

Astronomers have observed the periodicity of the Earth’s orbit around the
Sun and the phases of the Moon well before using positional arithmetic. The
4*7 is connected to phases of the Moon and to some processes of
physiological nature in the objects to be abstracted from. One may assume
that the 7 days of the week root in these facts.

The resulting number line is periodic, roughly on 4*7 and again on 4*7*12.
One can deal with the in-exactitudes by means of the two solstices and
re-align the calendar if necessary.

The resulting number line can be reasonably thought to consist of identical
units which follow each other. The mother of N has been born.



   1. De-individuate the objects – individuate the places

There was no gender or transgender oriented affirmative action thousands of
years ago, and no ideas of counting in a politically correct fashion were
entertained in those long-gone days.

Being morally far inferior to us, the Sumerians created a concept of the
object which negates any individuality of the object. In fact, they simply
enumerated their women and said that one is just like the next, and the
only difference that can be seen between two women is, when they are being
put to use. The mathematical concept of a unit predates Kant by about 5
thousand years. If you have many objects-as-such, the only difference they
can have among each other is given to them by the place they stand on.

This is all very anti-feministic, so far. In a previous posting, a method
has been shown, by which the Sumerians could have 

[Fis] The good old Sumerians and how we can improve on them

[Karl Javorszky]

*Properties of Places and of Objects*



*We have seen in this chatroom that there is recognisance of the need to
come up with something dramatically new and innovative in the field of
information theory, but also, that having been educated in a specific
fashion, it is not easy to think new thoughts.*

*So, if you kindly allow, I shall wrap the new concept in such ideas and
words which are not yet filled up and reserved with abstract meanings. This
is a technique which was used by Swift, as he discussed he relationships
between rulers and ruled, and by Lewis Carroll, when discussing some
logical syllogisms, to mention but two of the classical writers. Some say
that Aesop’s and La Fontaine’s fables are also among the didactic fairy
tales.*



   1. *What are the objects we abstract from: what the Sumers did*

*We are in Sumer, listening to the discussions among the king(s), princes
and wealthy courtiers. They decide that they will invent now the positional
algorithm, meaning that where a symbol is placed has as much influence over
the meaning of the resulting logical statement as which symbol it is.
(Simplified example: if A means 1, B means 2, C means 3, the invention of
the day is that  ABA means: 121 and not: 1 furthermore 2 furthermore 1. The
example is simplified: they did not use the decimal system. Look up
Wikipedia for a more exact explanation of the principle.)*

*What are the objects that the scientists have agreed on to use as things
that can have places? Not every one of them had camels, not every one of
them had date trees, not every one of them had bushels of wheat. What each
of them had was a harem with at least – say – 60 ladies in each of the
harems.*

*Now they had a set of objects the individual properties of which could be
dismissed; what can be agreed on is then: only the number and therefore the
position of the objects: herewith delivering a solid epistemological basis
for: so many identical objects to the left (or right) of it, so many places
to count. This results in the property of the i-th lady to have the
property of lady number i. *

*It is not the job of the narrator to speculate about the experiences of
the reader with a large number of ladies, but in those long bygone days
there could have been agreement among the wealthy and speculative-minded
Sumerians, that this method saves a lot of discussions on who is the prima
donna and why. *

*The de-individuation of the individual objects comes as a side-effect of
assigning places as individuating properties to objects. Lady X is that
lady who comes the 4th night hence and that week where ladies ABACBAC
follow each other is different to that week where ladies BCAACBC offer
their charms.*

*To be able to actually use the positional assignment based counting, it is
necessary to go through 3 steps of abstraction:*

*a)  **De-individuate the objects by assigning one absolute ranking to
them across all harems (women nr. 1: women represented by symbol A, women
nr. 2: women represented by symbol B, etc.);*

*b)  **Individuate the places by enumerating them 1, 2, 3, …. This they
were able to do, because they have discovered the rules connecting the 28
nights of the moon and some particularities of women and the 12 months and
the year: that is, they were able to enumerate in a temporal sequence,
which they then transferred to a linear (geometric) sequence;*

*c)   **Individuate the permutation based on a sample with replacement,
which is the method what we use till today to arrive at a picture of a
number. (We draw any of the symbols A,B,C,… and put it on place 1, then we
draw again from the same universe, obviously having replaced the element we
had drawn before, so it is again available. This 2nd element we put on
place 2. Then again we draw an element, again doing so as if there was an
endless supply of symbols, thinking ourselves to have replaced the sample
drawn. This fallacy of our imagination will entertain us much when
discussing the genetic information stricture.)*



   1. *What we can improve on the Sumers: what they had no way of doing*

*Had the Sumers been of such gentle and wise disposition as we are, they
had done the following (also, they would have needed paper, pencil and
computers):*

   1. *We establish the maximal number of describing aspects of the objects*

*We of course know that of a limited number of different objects, only a
limited number of distinct logical sentences can be said (after a while,
one will start repeating oneself. The maximal number of distinct
descriptions of a set containing n objects  – as can be read off
OEIS/A242615 – is the number of partitions of n, raised to the power of the
logarithm of the number of partitions of n. For all practical purposes, one
will establish this upper limit by calculating n!, building ln(n!) and
creating sqr(ln(n!)). This is the number of independent describing
dimensions and agrees for n<136 quite exactly to ln(p(n)), where p(n) =
number of partitions 

[Fis] Property of garden peas: mass

[Karl Javorszky]

1. Il figaro autobarbando
The split between the role of the barber and the person of the barber can
be massaged into a split between form and substance.
Like roles are not additive, neither are forms. (A grandfather who is  a
neighbour are not 2 persons.)
Like a person can be more (important, esteemed, weighty) than a different
one,  the substance of a thing can be more than that of a different object.

2. The individuality of garden peas
We have seen that in multitudes conflicts exist a priori, because if the
multitude is made up of different objects, the rankings according to the
differentiating properties will be different. (If nothing else, one reason
for discord would be whether the odd or the even numbered objects should be
dealt with first /with humans: female & male/).
We have seen that each of the garden peas possesses individuating
properties which come from the mechanism of establishing a working
compromise regarding the above contradictions of ranking. (This is called
"cyclic permutations" and has an established literature.)
So the form of garden pea nr i will be given
1. by the garden peas j, k, l, etc. with which it shares a cycle during a
reorder from alpha into beta;
2. by the garden peas m, n, o,  etc. with which it shares a cycle during a
reorder from gamma  into delta;
3. by the garden peas p, q, r,  etc. with which it shares a cycle during a
reorder from epsilon into zeta;
4. and so forth UNTIL THE LAST NONREDUNDANT ENUMERATION

3. How many nonredundant enumerations
An observant colleague asked about the optimal size of the information
transmission multitude, to which the answer is to study the functions shown
in OEIS A242615. Their relative inexactitude grows outside all limits with
n>140, and becomes relevant with n>135. Therefore, the set translating
linear into planar should not be above n=136, and the efficiency advantage
coming from size is somewhat diminished by the inbuilt inexactitude caused
by 136>135. (Could be an approach to the subject of genetic variations and
mutations.)
We see by resolving the quadratic exponent that around 15 independent
descriptions are sufficient to completely describe a collection of 68
objects carrying commutative symbols. (We need an equal number of objects
to serve as background.)
Therefore, the most individual garden pea will not be able to be included
in more than 15 nonredundant comparisons. (This means that the property of
mass can have about 15 different categories - in an idealised, nonredundant
environment. There can APPEAR many more gradations, as the corpora will
have a wide variety of number and individuality coming from the other
elements of the corpus.)

4. The non-individual property of garden peas
The other elements in the corpus of the reorder from greek letter into
greek letter and the differences between the greek letters confer the
individuality to the garden pea.
That what is not individual is the how many part of the observation.
We have seen that there appears an enumerable entity without any qualities
which is closely linked to a+b=c.
Plausibility consideration shows that below a minimal value of 1 the mass
appears to be smeared along a wave  (cycle), and that there exist upper
limits to masses of assemblies.
Please note that the garden peas discussed here are heavily idealised,
nonredundant ones. They may be considered ideal garden peas, only to be
found in specific circumstances.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science and the Definition of Information ON THE EXAMPLE OF GARDEN PEAS

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Professor,

your rightful indignation will be even deeper when you consider that the
official important and valuable discussion among the most prominent and
recognised eminent functionaries of highly respected institutions has been
repeatedly disturbed by boring patterns of observations related to garden
peas.



Am 19.10.2017 09:52 schrieb "Xueshan Yan" :

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Since April 2017, the FIS forum has been silent for as long as 5 months.
September 15, Pedro has raised 10 Principles of Information Science with
his amazing insight. As we all know, since the December 1997, FIS forum has
run nearly 20 years, colleagues gathered here mainly focused on two
topics:1) The analysis of different information problems that they apply
the concept of information; 2) Definition of information; But this time,
Pedro opened a third FIS topic: Principle of Information Science.
Undoubtedly, it is the highest goal of FIS colleagues and all information
scientists in the world.

However, after the presentation of the 10 principles, the discussion has
not been developed in accordance with the expectations of all FIS
colleagues, including Pedro. After about 6 or so direct reviews about the
10 principles, the discussions quickly shifted to the topic of eternal
controversial on FIS: The definition of information. And then the
discussion start moving to Data, Meaning, Message, Reflection, Agent and so
on, it is a stunned. Are the 10 principles wrong? Why has the definition of
information been put on the table again? Looking back, at least one year
ago, at the FIS forum, Bateson's "Information is a difference that makes a
difference" still occupies the stage of information definition with an
overwhelming majority of leading roles. The 10 principles put forward by
Pedro are undoubtedly meaningful, but why do it secretly change the topic
into information definition again?.

*1. Pedro's 10 Principles of Information Science*

Referring to Pedro's view (Sept. 20), we can divide the 10 principle into
the following 3 groups: 1~3: The Universal Principle which is suitable for
all types of information; 4~5: The Local Principle which is only suitable
for the type of organic information; 6~10: The Local Principle which is
only suitable for the type of human information. From a macro point of
view, these 10 principles are related to Pedro's personal professional
research — Biological Information — of his lifelong field of study, and
information flow and knowledge recombination is his favorite topic in
recent years. As for human information, this is a subject that I am most
interested in and I am glad that he can put forward 4 principles from his
view.

The first principle is the exact expression of Wiener's 1948 statement
(Wiener, 1948), and it is now well known among scientists all over the
world. The other 9 principles come from Pedro himself. Unfortunately, in
the discussions during these period, in addition to about 6 colleagues
commented on these principles directly, almost no else commented.
Obviously, there must be some problems. My view is that the problem lies
mainly in the universal nature of the principle. It consists of two
aspects: 1) Scope. Since it is called principle of information science, all
principles under it should generally be applied to all information types
and disciplines rather than to some kind of them. If they are expressed as
"X principles of Biological Informatics", or "X principles of Human
Informatics", they may be more precise; 2) Correctness. Verification for
each principle requires time, this can be observed in the future
discussion, we don't have to worry. I believe that these principles will
eventually inspire the vitality they deserve.

*2. Definition of Information*

Looking back over the past 20 years of FIS discussion, almost every other
time, someone must put forward the definition debate on information, and
then produced new definition. Whether your topic is to talk about any other
type of information, at the end, someone may intentionally or
unintentionally turn the topic to the definition of information. It reminds
me of some of my own research experiences. When I proposed that we should
pay attention to information science research in 1987 to a vice-president
of Peking University (A famous Linguist), he immediately questioned me: "Is
information science not the study of information definition?" Till November
2015, at the presidential meeting of Peking University, when I gave the
account on the establishment of China Chapter of IS4SI, the current
president just only asked me one question: what is your definition of
information now? Decades later, we can see that this problem has not
changed, and this is what we have to introspect. FIS forum, including
information scientists from other places, should not always discussed in
such a simple and unrestricted way to define the definition of information.
I recall Marcin said at our FIS 10 years ago: When somebody gives me

[Fis] Properties and places of garden peas

[Karl Javorszky]

*INTRODUCTION*

Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we do
not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is the
background to that what we see by using the eyes.

Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the
information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt
and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and
context /relationships/).

The “context” component shows the equivalent alternatives to the data
object. This we find by using the commutative symbols which generate the
categories in which the data object is included. The “data” component is
then the individuating sequential symbol which points out one specific from
among the members of the communicative category.

The formal definition of the term “information” is as follows:

*“Let x = ak. This is a statement, no information contained. Let x = ak and
k **Î** {1,2,...,k,...,n}**. This statement contains the information k **Ï**
{1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}”**.*



A numeric approach uses the concept of counting in terms of consolidation
of displacements, and points out the data as a specific element of a cycle,
the information part being the communication about which cycle the element
is part of /= data about the remaining elements /. In the following
paragraphs we show the technique, by which the term “information” is to be
explained, can be established

*METHODOLOGY*

*Material we work with:* We begin by creating elements of a set. The set we
construct to demonstrate how to establish information content consists of
realisations of the logical sentence *a+b=c. *That is, if we use *d
*distinguishing
categories of elements, we shall have a set that contains the elements *{(1,1),
(1,2), (2,2), (1,3), (2,3), (3,3), (1,4), (2,4), …., (d,d)}. *These
elements we refer to as *(a,b), a <=b.*



The number *n *of the elements of the set is of course dependent of *d*, *n
= f(d). * *n = d(d+1)/2.*

While the *principle *of information management is valid over a wide range
of values of *d*, it can be shown (OEIS A242615) that for reasons of
numerical facts, the *efficiency *of information management is the highest
when using *d=16, *which yields *n=136. *Nature also appears to use the
mathematically optimal method of information transmission.

*What we look into the material 1:* properties of the elements. We use the
set of elements created such as a kind of Rorschach cards, looking aspects
into them.

We use, next to the traditional aspects *{a, b, c=a+b}* some additional
aspects of *a+b=c *also, namely *{u=b-a, k=2b-a, t=3b-2a, q=2a-b, s=(d+1) -
(a+b), w=3a-2b},* that is, altogether *9 aspects of a+b=c. *

Users are of course free and invited to introduce additional or different
aspects to categorise logical sentences with. The *number* of aspects needs
not to be higher of 8 if they are used in combination (we refer here again
to the facts discussed in OEIS A242615), and as to the *kinds* of aspects:
one is always open to improvements.

*What we look into the material 2:* properties of the set.  We impose
sequential orders on the elements of the set, using combinations of aspects.

We generate *sequencing aspects * by using always 2 of the 9 *primary
aspects, *by creating sequential orders within the set such that each of
the primary aspects is once the *first* and once the *second *ordering
aspect. That is, we sequence the set on the criteria *{ab, ac, ak, au, …,
as, aw, ba, bc, bu, …, bw, ca, cb, …, cw, ka, kb, …, …, wt, ws}. * This
brings forth 72 sequential enumerations of the elements of the set. Of
these, about 20 are actually different. (The inexactitude regarding the
number of identical sequential enumerations has to do with the *sequence*
of the primary aspects and will be of fundamental importance in the course
of the applications of the model.)

The 72 different sequences the elements – of which some are different in
name only -  of the set have been brought into are called the *catalogued
sequences. *These are by no means random  but are as closely related to
each other as aspects of *a+b=c *can be closely related to each other. Each
of the catalogued sequences is equally legitimate and each is an implicated
corollary of *a+b=c, *now having been made explicit (=realised).

*What we observe within the material 1:* logical conflicts. We will not
ignore conflicts between place and inhabitant, inhabitant and place.

It is obvious that 2 different catalogued orders unveil logical conflicts.
If in order *αβ* element *e *is to be found on place *p1* and in order *γδ*
element *e *is to be found on place *p2*, there is apparently a conflict.

The same conflict can also be stated by using the formulation: If in order
*αβ* on place *p *element *e1* is to be found and in order *γδ *on place *p
*element *e2* is to be found, there is apparently a conflict.

We observe potentially or actually conflicting assignments of a sequential
number 

[Fis] Learn to Predict the Colour of Garden Peas in Twelve Easy Steps

[Karl Javorszky]

   1. A historic parallel: a cultural handicap

We are at Mendel again. There is an unmistakable parallel between a single
person trying to drive attention of members of a learned society to general
rules and principles that are discernible on multitudes of objects in the 19
th century and a single person trying to drive attention of members of a
learned society to general rules and principles that are discernible on
multitudes of objects in the 21st century.

The difficulty is that a) the idea to be raised is new, b) it needs
thinking, c) it necessitates a change in perspectives, d) it is told by
means of boring numbers, e) it unveils a huge system of logical relations,
f) these logical relations have no established names for the concepts, yet.

The similarity is, that a) the members of the learned society are not
really stupid, b) they only want to be left alone, c) they want to keep
congratulating each other how clever and wise they are, d) they share a
cultural handicap – and this cultural handicap is the subject I wish to say
a few words about to you, my dear friends.



   1. The neurotic inhibition of intelligence – a faux pas

Some few months ago, I had the opportunity to speak in person to one of the
members of this Society, an opportunity for which I am thankful and which I
hope to be able to reciprocate. The faux pas I unintentionally committed
was by remarking – with guards lowered, because of the friendly and
nourishing conversation with a nice and clever fellow – that I see the real
difficulty in making people *want to *Learn to Count, as opposed to that
chimp-like usage of their digits what they believe to be counting, to be
based in the normal neurotic inhibition of intelligence.

Well, this really closed the door in the mind of my conversation partner.
Not enough that I state that I can count and all the people have no idea of
what counting is, above elementary school level, above all that, me having
the cheek to call him, to his face, an intellectually inhibited person,
inhibited because of being a neurotic – this was just about the call for a
very polite, polished and friendly end to the conversation.



   1. The healthy person is a mixture of all psychiatric symptoms

Bear with me, if after comparing myself to Mendel, now I recall troubles
Freud has had coming from calling excitation patterns that are spreading
(with an exponent >1.0) like a viral disease, “sexual” excitations. The
term “sexual excitation” means and has meant in the trade avalanching
patterns, also observable in hysteric rages, and in a negative – overly
flattening, inhibitory – version in induced stupor and flexibilitas cerea.
This is the name for the avalanching pattern of nervous excitation
propagating across the central nervous system. History has it that at the
time the concept was introduced, the sexual excitation pattern was the best
known and most obvious pattern to name the idea after.

In the trade, one knows that depression is too much of serenity,
schizophrenia is too much of creativity, hysteria is too much of emotional
expressivity, paranoia is too much of caution/foresight, servility is too
much of empathy, autism is too much of concentration, and so forth and so
forth. The “too much” means usually too frequently and too long and too
regularly, not only too intensely.

The way names are assigned to observations is by using the extreme grade of
the property and using it as a description of the whole range, well into
the middle, usual extents.



   1. The neurotic inhibition of intelligence – a cultural asset

The property to follow rules means that one saves a lot of senseless work.
We do not have to reinvent the wheel every generation and every individual.
Once we have learnt that a²+b²=c², we do not have to figure out complicated
methods to calculate surfaces or angles or distances.

Members of a subculture recognise each other by means of the beliefs and
values they share. If it had been that easy to leave the shared knowledge
of Aristoteles, Galileo and Copernicus had had no troubles at all. If it
had been that easy to drop the knowledge codified by Newton, Einstein would
have met much less resistance. If it had been so easy to leave aside all
that unordered, messy, belief-based convolute of empty words about what
makes garden peas green or yellow, serious work could have begun about 40
years sooner. The social stability is based on the common smell, shared by
all the chimps which reside on the same tree.



   1. Self-declaration of competence of we the people

A self-made man is a good thing. A self-declared prophet is usually a
complicated case. A self-declared innovator can hardly be otherwise. A body
of competent persons installed by higher authorities is not really a
collection of self-declared persons.  In fact, there is a natural
opposition between Pilate and the person he judges (“you had no authority,
had in not been transferred unto you from higher above” vs. “You say I am a
king, though 

Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Karl Javorszky]

ces with whom if a linear reorder
would take place from property “x” into property “y” (in this example,
there are 5*4/2=10 reorders); which cycles the individual pupils would
belong to;

3) Transmit, the how-many-eth (starting, say, from the smallest element
of the corpus) of the elements in the corpus of

4) Which cycle.



In the former method, one knows the number of bits needed to identify 1 of
n elements in a set. In the latter method, one can learn and one can adapt.



In the former method, the elements have no relationships among each other:
the method is well suited to transmit data that can be random. The latter
method uses the immanent facts of belonging-to among elements that exist
prior to human knowledge.



The formal approach to the idea of information points out, that a
communication about the facts of which elements of the cycle are those that
are *not meant *gives one knowledge about, *which cycle* is the element
meant included in. There is de facto no clean-cut distinction between the
description of “the others” as to whether “the others” are not meant,
because they are of a different category or rather they are of the same
category but just not the one that one wants to point out: this because in
biological reality the clean-cut distinction does not exist (there being no
independent concept of a background without any properties in biologic
epistemology).

















2017-10-07 20:06 GMT+02:00 Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>:

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> It is time for my second post this week.
>
> Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to all
> colleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!
>
> **
>
> Christophe Menant had written:
>  “However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information
> from data.  A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.
> But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly
> demodulated.
> I would say that:
> 1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent.
>  - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human
> voice, ant pheromone).
>  - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise).
>  - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal
> (interpretation/meaning generation).
> 2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by
> different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for
> someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).
> 3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account
> (human beings, ant-hill).
> Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your
> "reflections without meaning".
> Could you tell a bit more?“
>
> Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this week
> connected to my question about data and information. For this goal, below
> I shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week.
>
> Citations:
>
> Stanley N Salthe:
>  “The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word's
> derivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.”
>
> Y. X. Zhong:
> “It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information,
> related and also different to each other. The first one is the information
> presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's
> perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood
> by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the
> second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the
> subject from the former.
> The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the
> pattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at the
> stage.
> The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from
> the object information. So, it should have the form component of the
> object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object
> (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with
> respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage,
> the "meaning" comes out.”
>
> Karl Javorszky:
> “Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we
> do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is
> the background to that what we see by using the eyes.
> Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the
> information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt
> and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and
> context /relationships/)”.
>
>
> Dai Griffiths:
> “I'm curious about your use of the word '

Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Krassimir,

Thanks for the excellent summary of the diverse opinions.

Please add to my citation the following sentence :

A numeric approach uses the concept of counting in terms of consolidation
of displacements, and points out the data as a specific element of a cycle,
the information part being the communication about which cycle the element
is part of /= data about the remaining elements /.

Thanks
Karl

Am 07.10.2017 20:07 schrieb "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com>:

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> It is time for my second post this week.
>
> Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to all
> colleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!
>
> **
>
> Christophe Menant had written:
>  “However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information
> from data.  A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.
> But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly
> demodulated.
> I would say that:
> 1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent.
>  - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human
> voice, ant pheromone).
>  - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise).
>  - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal
> (interpretation/meaning generation).
> 2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by
> different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for
> someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).
> 3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account
> (human beings, ant-hill).
> Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your
> "reflections without meaning".
> Could you tell a bit more?“
>
> Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this week
> connected to my question about data and information. For this goal, below
> I shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week.
>
> Citations:
>
> Stanley N Salthe:
>  “The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word's
> derivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.”
>
> Y. X. Zhong:
> “It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information,
> related and also different to each other. The first one is the information
> presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's
> perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood
> by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the
> second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the
> subject from the former.
> The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the
> pattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at the
> stage.
> The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from
> the object information. So, it should have the form component of the
> object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object
> (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with
> respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage,
> the "meaning" comes out.”
>
> Karl Javorszky:
> “Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we
> do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is
> the background to that what we see by using the eyes.
> Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the
> information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt
> and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and
> context /relationships/)”.
>
>
> Dai Griffiths:
> “I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usually
> suggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpret
> your post, you are saying that information and meaning are separate
> concepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity of
> which they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started.
> So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwined
> in the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomic
> structure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so,
> does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information without
> meaning, but not meaning without information)? This makes sense to me,
> though it is not what I usually associate with the word 'dualistic'.”
>
> Guy A Hoelzer:
> “If you start by explicitly stating that you are using the semantic notion
> of information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post.
> I claim that

[Fis] Information and data

[Karl Javorszky]

Well-informed vs. Well-dated



Let me go into psychology on the distinction Krassimir raised. We have
quite different associations on “She is a well-informed person” compared to
“She is a well-dated person”.



One wonders, whether the connotations of “even” and “odd” (in German:
“gerade” and “ungerade” , ca. “straight” and “crooked”; in Hungarian
“paired” and “lacking a match”) have been created around the neutral
meanings of the numbers 2,4,6,… vs. 1,3,5,… or the other way around: once
the Sumerians, Phoenicians, Indians, Chinese, or whoever had accomplished
giving these descriptive names to the subsets of N, the emotional
insinuations of fine, ok, as-it-should-be vs. extra, loose, unfinished have
been wearing off by use post factum.



The situation may be similar today with informative and factual,
instructive and dry, descriptive and actual, information-oriented or
data-oriented. Maybe we have not yet accepted the set of connotations that
distinguish the two concepts: information and data.



Stating, as Arturo does, that not only we are not able to figure out and
give a clear definition to the meanings covered by the words “information”
and “data”, but that there is no clear idea behind the word “information”,
is a defeatist approach in my eyes. We are on a good trail by smelling the
difference, even if we might not be able to come to a consensus on the
wording of the distinguishing semantic markers. Information is something
that needs to be actionable to act on, while data has no such properties.
Whether we act on data is purely our own decision. Information can be true
or false, while data are facts, therefore beyond questioning regarding
their truthfulness.



Let me try to sell my proposal of a definition: data are the foreground,
the text, which are put into a context by the information, which is the
background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt and Zusammenhang (which I
translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and context /relationships/).



Of course, if we had accepted the proposals contained in “Learn To Count In
Twelve Easy Steps”, if we counted in terms of consolidating of
displacements, that is: in terms of cycles of cyclic permutations, the
difference would be as easy to point out as the difference between odd and
even numbers: data is the element with sequential number x and information
is in which cycle(s) this element is included in. But that may take some
while yet, until people get used to the idea that straight and crooked are
not only personality traits but also applicable to abstract entities like
numbers. So, we will keep phantasising about a beautiful maiden who is
well-dated but not well-informed and her nemesis Papageno, who is
well-informed but not well dated.



We shall return to the subject, hopes yours truly:



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

[Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Krassimir,

Data is that what we see by using the eyes.
Information is that what we do not see by using the eyes, but we see by
using the brain; because it is the background to that what we see by using
the eyes.

Reminder:

3)  Definition

>From “Natural Orders”:

8.3.3.3 Information is a description of what is not the case. [Let *x = a*
*k*. This is a statement, no information contained. Let *x = a**k* and
*k  **  **{1,2,...,k,...,n}*. This statement contains the
information *k *** *{1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}*
.]

(Sorry for the included & not-included symbols not making it thru the
simplified  text editor in use here.)

Am 03.10.2017 13:21 schrieb "Krassimir Markov" :

Dear John and FIS Colleagues,

I am Computer Science specialist and I never take data to be information.

For not specialists maybe it is normal "data to be often taken to be
information" but this is not scientific reasoning.

Simple question: if "data = information", why we need both concepts?


Friendly greetings

Krassimir


Dear list,


As Floridi points out in his Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010. A volume for the Very Short Introduction series. data is often taken
to be information. If so, then the below distinction is somewhat
arbitrary. It may be useful or not. I think that for some circumstances it
is useful, but for others it is misleading, especially if we are trying to
come to grips with what meaning is. I am not sure there is ever data
without interpretation (it seems to me that it is always assumed to be
about something). There are, however, various degrees and depths of
interpretation, and we may have data at a more abstract level that is
interpreted as meaning something less abstract, such as pointer readings
of a barometer and air pressure. The pointer readings are signs of air
pressure. Following C.S. Peirce, all signs have an interpretant. We can
ignore this (abstraction) and deal with just pointer readings of a
particular design of gauge, and take this to be the data, but even the
pointer readings have an important contextual element, being of a
particular kind of gauge, and that also determines an interpretant. Just
pointer readings alone are not data, they are merely numbers (which also,
of course, have an interpretant that is even more abstract.

So I think the data/information distinction needs to be made clear in each
case, if it is to be used.

Note that I believe that there is information that is independent of mind,
but the above points still hold once we start into issues of observation.
My belief is based on an explanatory inference that must be tested (and
also be useful in this context). I believe that the idea of mind
independent information has been tested, and is useful, but I am not going
to go into that further here.


Regards,

John

PS, please note that my university email was inadvertently wiped out, so I
am currently using the above email, also the alias coll...@ncf.ca If
anyone has wondered why their mail to me has been returned, this is why.




On 2017/09/30 11:20 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Christophe and FIS Colleagues,

I agree with idea of meaning.

The only what I would to add is the next:

There are two types of reflections:

1. Reflections without meaning called DATA;

2. Reflections with meaning called INFORMATION.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir


--
Krassimir Markov
Director
ITHEA Institute of Information Theories and Applications
Sofia, Bulgaria
presid...@ithea.org
www.ithea.org





Dear FISers,


A hot discussion indeed...
We can all agree that perspectives on information depend on the context.
Physics, mathematics, thermodynamics, biology, psychology, philosophy, AI,
...

But these many contexts have a common backbone: They are part of the
evolution of our universe and of its understanding, part of its increasing
complexity from the Big Bang to us humans.
And taking evolution as a reading grid allows to begin with the simple.
As proposed in a previous post, we care about information ONLY because it
can be meaningful.  Take away the concept of meaning, the one of
information has no reason of existing.
And our great discussions would just not exist. 
Now, Evolution + Meaning => Evolution of meaning. As already highlighted
this looks to me as important in principles of IS.
As you may remember that there is a presentation on that subject
(http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/211,
https://philpapers.org/rec/MENICA-2)
The evolution of the universe is a great subject where the big questions
are with the transitions: energy=> matter => life => self-consciousness =>
...
And I feel that one way to address these transitions is with local
constraints as sources of meaning generation.
Best

Christophe




De : Fis  de la part de
tozziart...@libero.it 
Envoyé : vendredi 29 septembre 2017 

Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear FIS,



coming back to the subject of *Mendel and garden peas*, let me present to
you some results of my research into basic rules – that appear to govern
Nature – that can be observed on experiments with abstract objects (as
pointed out in my last post, in our scientific progress we do not need
actual garden peas, but can have abstract things, called “objects”, which
are database entries to conduct experiments on).



As the quest in this pleasing society is about information, specifically
genetic information, and as we know that *genetic information is contained
in a sequence*, which is named DNA, we discuss the sequence of garden peas.
The task before me now is not easy, as tradition holds that the sequence of
logical objects is of no importance (the commutativity rule is equivalent
to saying that it is of no relevance, which garden pea is closer to the
window and which is farther away in the shade.)



*Example:*



Let us take 5 garden peas and order them according to any of their main
properties:



Case Nr. 1:

Garden pea nr.

First name

Second name

Place

Main subject

 1

Arturo

Tozzi

Italy

Physics

2

Joe

Brenner

Zurich

Logic

3

Karl

Javorszky

Vienna

Numbers

4

Krassimir

Markow

Sofia

Networks

5

Pedro

Marijuan

Zaragoza

Physiology

Here, we have ordered the garden peas on their property called “First name”



Case Nr. 2:

Garden pea nr.

First name

Second name

Place

Main subject

1

Joe

Brenner

Zurich

Logic

2

Karl

Javorszky

Vienna

Numbers

3

Pedro

Marijuan

Zaragoza

Physiology

4

Krassimir

Markow

Sofia

Networks

5

Arturo

Tozzi

Italy

Physics

Here, we have ordered the garden peas on their property called “Second name”





Case Nr. 3:

Garden pea nr.

First name

Second name

Place

Main subject

1

Arturo

Tozzi

Italy

Physics

2

Krassimir

Markow

Sofia

Networks

3

Karl

Javorszky

Vienna

Numbers

4

Pedro

Marijuan

Zaragoza

Physiology

5

Joe

Brenner

Zurich

Logic

Here, we have ordered the garden peas on their property called “Place”



Case Nr. 4:

Garden pea nr.

First name

Second name

Place

Main subject

1

Joe

Brenner

Zurich

Logic

2

Krassimir

Markow

Sofia

Networks

3

Karl

Javorszky

Vienna

Numbers

4

Arturo

Tozzi

Italy

Physics

5

Pedro

Marijuan

Zaragoza

Physiology

Here, we have ordered the garden peas on their property called “Main
subject”



I hope that you can see that these properties of our garden peas are
comparable to properties like “color”, “height”, “stem thickness”, “number
of leaves”.



We now discuss the questions:

*Which of the properties is the most important? Which property will be
decisive for a prominent place in the sun? Which place is the correct place
for any individual garden pea? *



The Shannon answer to these questions is:

1) *Because it makes too much trouble, we do not look into the position
of an element in a sequence* and assume that each element is in the average
middle place (commutativity rule);

2) In Case 1: “First name” is valued “1”, the others are valued “0”; In
Case 2: “Second name” is valued “1”, the others are valued “0”; In Case 3:
“Place” is valued “1”, the others are valued “0”; In Case 4: “Main subject”
is valued “1”, the others are valued “0”; *and with properties valued “0”
we have nothing to do, as these properties do not exist.*



The novelty approach comes from conducting many experiments with garden
peas and observing their positions:

1) By using computers, the burden of having to consider very many
variations can be overcome, and *general rules can be established*
regarding the positions of garden peas;

2) Those properties which are valued “0” are the *background to the
property valued “1”*; these properties *can be assigned numeric values* for
the extent in which they differ from “1” (are not the case);

3) It is generally a good idea to assume that *logical compromises*
take place in the background; the place to be assumed for an element to be
in is not the average middle place but a *series of temporal-spatial steps
between the correct places; *(this is called “cyclic permutations”);

4) There appears a *web of possible places* for each element in each
moment; this web is in fact a *unified field theory*; the agglomerations
that come about naturally, as consequences of natural numbers being such as
they are, within this web, come in *distinct types*; these types are
called *logical
archetypes* and represent the *chemical elements*; how they link to each
other can explain quite many of the observations of Chemistry;

5) The *position of specific elements in a linear sequence* can – in
ideal circumstances – be logically equivalent to properties of specific
multi-dimensional agglomerations in specific places; this *logical
tautology* has the formal properties of coming in *triplets of logical
tokens that are 1-of-4.*



One hopes that experimenting with garden peas and observing the rules of
how their properties interact

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Friends,



It is always a refreshing experience to read the FIS discussion. Please
allow me to contribute a thread which may turn out to be useful. First, I’d
like to draw a parallel between FIS and the contemporaries of Mendel, then
discuss similarities between the concepts of “information” and “genetics”,
as viewed thru the mirror of Mendel’s work, and close by a constructive
proposal with regard to the subject-matter of information.



   1. Mendel and the concepts of his contemporaries

There was a drastic climb-down from elegant, important, high-level,
complicated, exclusive concepts as the scientific community had to accept
that hereditary traits are passed down the generations according to the
rules of combinatorics. There is much less glamour in 1:2:1 and 9:3:3:1
than in “divine will”, “mysteries of Nature”, “preordained destiny” etc.

Mendel was offering his contemporaries a simple, household, non-glamorous
explanation, based on elementary, everyday rules, based on proportions of
natural numbers. He had used garden peas to demonstrate his ideas on, not
dragons to be slain, unicorns to be ridden, angels to be observed dancing
on the tip of needles or any other fancy stuff. Just plain numbers.

Does anyone remember today the shmocks ignoring Mendel? Mendel’s motto was:
“My time shall certainly come.”



   1. Concepts hidden behind words

While his contemporaries had been industriously producing hot air, Mendel
did his experiments. Today, we do not need garden peas because we can
simulate garden peas by entries in databases. Mendel observed relations
coming from contrasting one kind of properties of garden peas with other
kinds of properties of garden peas. We do away with actual garden peas and
contrast properties of one kind of database entries with other kinds of
properties of database entries. Believe it or not, the system functions
without actual garden peas, too. There appear specific patterns if one
contrasts differing properties of elements of one and the same set of
objects.

Having learnt quite a lot since the times of Mendel, we can these days use
abstract concepts, like “objects” as symbols for actual things like “garden
peas”.

His contemporaries could not understand Mendel, because they were enchanted
by glitzy, fascinating, fashionable words and could not believe that ideas
of such unexciting greyness as proportions among natural numbers could
express the relations dominating in Nature much better than their ideas of
phlogiston and destiny. Mendel could not make himself understood by his
contemporaries, because he had lacked the words for the concepts for
“sequence”, “chromosome”, “haploid”, “triplet”, etc.

The principle discovered by Mendel is that Nature can be depicted by using
natural numbers. Once a few generations have wasted their time trying to
ignore natural numbers, their grandchildren have gained the insight to look
for something that agrees to the principles laid down by the rules of
arithmetic.

Today, the attention of FIS is drawn to relations between natural numbers.
It remains to be seen, how many generations have yet to pass until future
scientists will say: “Well, let us look into what is not happening if we
cause something to happen.”



   1. What is information and how do we detect it

 In psychology, information is usually understood to mean the difference
between expectation and observation. To be more general and understandable,
one may call it the contrast between the foreground and the background. For
those who have grown up on the teachings of Shannon, this makes not much
sense, as of a universe of {0,1}, that what is not the case is the
background to that what is the case. Once one has a universe of, say,
{0,1,2,3}, the background is /if, say, “1” is the case: {0,2,3,}/ the
others. The difference to the Shannon concept is that the background is not
uniformly the background, but rather: the background does have properties
which one can (not: perceive, but) theoretize about. The differences within
the background are our garden peas.



There are many, very interesting, quite educative relations among the
elements of the background. FIS is invited to climb down from discussing
phlogiston and destiny, and spend time usefully by looking into relations
among natural numbers. The time will certainly come when people will
understand that science is not glamour. Hollywood is glamour. Science is
numbers.



Thanks to MDPI, a simple google entry “mdpi karl javorszky” will bring you
to the relevant literature.



Karl











2017-09-20 2:00 GMT+02:00 Koichiro Matsuno <cxq02...@nifty.com>:

> On 19 Sept 2017 at 1:26 AM Terrence W. DEACON wrote:
>
>
>
> the science of information is still at an early stage and could be
> potentially held back by the hubris of certainty.
>
>
>
>Although I do not want to muddy the waters further, the distinction
> between information (to whom; or only to the statistician?) and physic

Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

[Karl Javorszky]

1) Let me second to the point Alex raises:
machines, computers, do exchange information. It would be against cultural
conventions to say that the notification that the refrigerator sends to
your phone's app "to-do-list" of the content "milk only 0.5 liter
available" is not an information.

The signals my car's pressure sensor sends to my dashboard, saying "tire
pressure front right wheel is critically low" is a clear case of
information, whether I read it or not.

2) Let me add to the point Alex states, namely that the "form of
information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only
scientifically based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have
personally seen in the scientific literature", (Alex, will you please
restate in the present context, for the present discussion, your
formulation) the following:

I have given in my work "Natural orders - de ordinibus naturalibus" (ISBN
9783990571378) the following definition of the term "information":
8.3.3.3 Information is a description of what is not the case.
[Let *x = a**k*. This is a statement, no information contained. Let *x = a*
*k* and *k ** {1,2,...,k,...,n}*. This statement
contains the information *k ***
*{1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}*.]
(Sorry for the included & not-included symbols not making it thru the
simplified  text editor in use here.)

Karl


2017-03-24 18:51 GMT+01:00 Alex Hankey :

> BUT, in common parlance, computers and mobile phones 'exchange
> information' (in the abstract, digital sense) all the time. Including this
> email.
>
> If you wish to cleanly restrict yourself to semantic content, the the form
> of information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only
> scientifically based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have
> personally seen in the scientific literature.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alex Hankey
>
>
> On 24 March 2017 at 15:25, Krassimir Markov  wrote:
>
>> Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
>> Let me remember that:
>> The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could “exchange
>> information” leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological
>> faults.
>> For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections !
>> *Sorry for this n-th my remark ... *
>> Friendly greetings
>> Krassimir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tozziart...@libero.it
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
>> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
>> *Subject:* [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear  Lars-Göran,
>> I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last
>> FIS mail for the next days.
>>
>> First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a
>> material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other
>> objects.
>> In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a
>> set of objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of an observer is
>> not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing
>> events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects
>> and events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity
>> occur whether or not there is a "material object that can recieve and store
>> incoming energy from other objects" within the inertial reference frame to
>> witness them.
>>
>> Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a
>> cosmic zone close to the sun.  The photon "detects" (and therefore can
>> interact with) a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we
>> humans on the Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun
>> surface.
>> Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the
>> humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same
>> sun, but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange
>> with the sun a different information content.
>> If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite,
>> fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more
>> information with the sun than we humans can.
>>
>> In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity,
>> rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the
>> time of the "observer".
>>
>>
>>
>> *Arturo Tozzi*
>>
>> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>>
>> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>>
>> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>>
>> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>>
>>
>> Messaggio originale
>> Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" 
>> Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
>> A: "tozziart...@libero.it"
>> Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?
>>
>>
>> 24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it:
>>
>> Dear Fisers,
>> a big doubt...
>>
>> We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D
>> horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations.
>>
>> However, an 

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Unpleasant answer ? From Bruno Marchal Request for Aid in Translation

[Karl Javorszky]

Google says
Thank you, I will reply to your e-mail as soon as possible!

Am 18.03.2017 18:40 schrieb "Jerry LR Chandler" :

> FISers:
>
> In response to the message posted below, I received the following response
> :
>
> liugang-...@cass.org.cn
>
> 谢谢，我将尽快答复你的电子邮件！
>
> In order to facilitate communication of information, a translation of the
> message would be helpful.
>
> Cheers
>
> jerry
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler 
> wrote:
>
>
> List, Bruno:
>
> (My response to theMarch 13 message are interwoven in a red font.)
>
>  While I appreciate the flow of concepts emerging from Bruno’s “poetry”,
> its guidance appears to exclude chemistry and biology.
>
> We have something like:
>
> Number(with + and *) => Number's dreams statistics => Physics => human
> biology
>
>
> Thus, Bruno’s  associations are not so clear to me.
>
> This provides evidence you have a sane mind :)
>
> So, I will be a “spoil sport” and look toward a more “life-friendly” flow
> of both symbols and numbers with only a tad of poetry.
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> The tensions between the computational natures of discrete and the
> “continuous” numbers haunts  any attempt to make mathematical sense out of
> scientific hypotheses. I am uncertain as to the logical implication of the
> “computationalist’s hypothesis" in this context.
>
>
> If you are aware of the notion of first person indeterminacy, it is not so
> difficult to understand how the appearance of the continuum can be
> explained to be unavoidable in the digital-mechanist frame. The physical
> reality will emerge from a statistics on infinities of computations
> (including many with Oracles). Amazingly, in the digitalist frame, it is
> the digital which remains hard to understand a priori, but the mathematics
> of self-reference gives important clue.
>
> In my view, this is philosophy not related to the logic of the physics of
> the atomic numbers.
> Each atomic number has an identity.
> That identity infers both mass and electricity and the corresponding set
> of predicates that respect the attributes of the individual form of matter.
> The computational logic of the chemical sciences is based on the coherence
> of the relations that couple these physical attributes into the metrology
> of chemical sciences.
> The success of chemical computations on the atomic numbers is based on
> compositions of atomic numbers (generating functions) and the metrology of
> the emergence molecules, cells, organisms, human individuals.
>
> Bruno: How do you relate your methods of calculations to your identity?
> Can you construct a clear narrative that states the necessary premisses?
> propositions? consequences?  Causal pathways?
>
>
>
>
> Is the reference grounded in Curry’s combinatorial logic or otherwise?
>
> It does not. The reasoning is independent of any basic universal theory
> chosen.
>
> Both chemistry and biology are based on the chemical table of elements and
> the combinatorial compositions.
>
>
> Provably so if we assume mechanism. Contrarily to a widely spread opinion:
> mechanism is not compatible with even quite weak form of materialism, or
> physicalism.
>
> The connotations of the term “mechanism” varies widely from discipline to
> discipline.
> The sense of “mechanism” in chemistry infers an electrical path among the
> discrete paths of  illations that “glue” the parts into a whole.  By
> sublation, this same sense is used in molecular biology and the biomedical
> sciences.
>
>
> Bruno, could you expand on your usage in this context?
>
>
> Mechanism, as I use it, is the hypothesis that a level of digital
> substitution exist…
>
> The events and processes of the chemical sciences are based on the atomic
> numbers.
> The “digits” of the atomic numbers are NOT substitutable for one another.
>
>
>
>
> How do the senses of “computationism" and “mechanism” refer to the
> material world, if at all?
>
>
> The notion of computation is born in pure mathematics,
>
> Historically, it was just the opposite - computations gave rise to
> (im)pure mathematics?
>
>  The "universal dovetailer argument" ---that you can found here for
> example:
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>
> explains how the appearance of the material world has to emerge from all
> relative computations.
>
> This explanation is not extensible to chemistry and biology because of the
> perplexity of Coulomb’s Law.
>
>
> God created the natural numbers, and saw that it was good.
>
> Would it be more accurate to that “"God" created the internal creativity
> of the atomic numbers."
>
>
> I was just saying, albeit poetically indeed,  that  the "theory of
> everything", (still in the frame of the digital mechanist
> hypothesis), can't assume more than classical logic + the following axioms:
>
> 0 ≠ (x + 1)
> ((x + 1) = (y + 1))  -> x = y
> x = 0 v Ey(x = y + 1)
>

[Fis] [FIS] Fis Digest, Vol 33, Issue 41: On the relation between information and meaning

[Karl Javorszky]

Gestalt



Alex asks to contribute to his writing on Gestalt, based on Vedic teachings
relating to how we memorise texts. Not knowing anything about the Vedic
part of it, let me summarise what used to be accepted wisdom on Gestalt in
psychology: this without any claim to completeness or correctness or other
virtues.



Gestalt is “what makes a whole /to be worth, to have a value/ more than the
sum of its parts” (Ehrenfels), we have been taught, and to my knowledge
there is no better approach accepted yet. In this respect, Gestalt
resembles life, because there is a difference between a dead body and that
same organism as a living one, and between a random pattern of pixels black
on a screen and the picture of a face, made up by the same number of pixels
black. We had learnt that only a living organism can perceive a Gestalt,
because it is the active collaboration of constituents that join them
together into something recognisable, and this activity comes not from the
objects on the scene but is performed by the spectator. So much the
teachings of old times. Now with all kinds of recognising software, this
approach no more stands. Artificial intelligence machines project, match
and detect patterns among pixels or other data points, be they
fingerprints, voice recordings or contact habits. They perform the
pattern-detection part of peripheral ganglia, including the recognition of
Gestalts. Ehrenfels has introduced a logic with some disregard to accepted
rules of additivity, causing a deep alienation between psychology and
mathematics, the consequences of which we may hopefully help to clean up
here in this FIS.



The ability to look a Gestalt into objects has transformed into the ability
of inanimate objects to constitute a Gestalt, which we can or cannot
perceive. Are these animistic concepts of the world, where the objects have
properties, not we look their properties into them? If the objects, e.g.
pixels on a screen, are a Gestalt, constitute momentarily a constellation
among them into that what is a Gestalt, then the objects have an immanent
property of relations among each other, which is transportable across
individuals and species. (The definition of objectivity is that the
stimulus causes comparable reactions across individuals and across
cultures.) Children and animals react differently to pictures of a circle
and of two dots, if these represent the archetype of a face. There appears
to exist an immanent property of pixels that the nervous system utilises.
In other words: it is a property of a set that it is ordered. There exists
the logical category of possible orders, among which some can be realised
concurrently. Some of the combinations of the possible orders will be so
much more probable than others that they will create a density in a
probability space. Coordinates for pixels in forms that resemble a Gestalt
of a face with two eyes will exist as a delineated class of possible
realisations. The coordinates are the result of superior probabilities of
combinations of orders to appear, relative to the other orders that also
produce coordinates for pixels, but not so frequently, consistently and
reliably.



Not only must the nervous system be prepared to recognise a state of the
world (something is looking at me) in the circle with two dots in it, but
the biological reality must also produce this pattern in abundance. The
recognition of the smiley is done by the central nervous system, which
operates by means of impulses of -70 mV; these are uniform but place-bound
and sequenced in time. As such they resemble N. The production of the head
and the eyes is done while the butterfly is still fluid, so the same
principle is present also in the humeral fluids of the body. The same
Gestalt is produced in two different environments. Producing a smiley in a
biochemical factory and perceiving it as an electric pattern means that the
idea of a smiley exists, irrespective of how we express it in terms of
relations of symbols among each other. We can express the idea of a smiley
by means of elements that can be of many kinds and be anywhere; and we can
express the same idea also by means of uniform units that have fixed
topological positions by being sequenced among each other. The idea of this
Gestalt transcends the languages in which it can be said. In linguistic
parlance, the idea is a deep structure which exists in differing cultures,
each of which give it a differing superficial structure, like the French
say chaise to chair. We are again with the classical problem of having an n
of N that is to be identified consistently across describing languages,
here seen as enumerating systems.



The archetype apparently indeed does exist, and it must be of a simple,
every-day, almost axiomatic truth. The algorithms that produce the
coordinates of a Gestalt are of course some specific of the tautologies
that make up the naming system. The necessary tautology can be of no other
form but the result of very simple, 

Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 33, Issue 41: On the relation between information and meaning

[Karl Javorszky]

Information and Wittgenstein



We should keep the self-evident in focus and refrain from descending into a
philosophical nihilism. We are, after all, reasonable people, who are able
to use our intelligence while communicating, and usually we understand each
other quite well. The idea, that information is just a mental creation,
evades the point: conceding that information is only a mental image, then
what is that which determines, which amino acid comes to which place and is
apparently contained in the sequence of the DNA triplets? If information is
just an erroneous concept, then what is that what we receive as we ask at
the airport, which gate to go for boarding?

No, information does exist and we do use it day by day. Shannon has
developed a method of repeatedly bifurcating a portion of N until finding
that n of N that corresponds to the same n of which the sender encoded the
search pattern for the receiver. The task lies not in negating the
existence of the phaenomenon, but in proposing a more elegant and for
biology useful explanation of the phaenomenon. The object of the game is
still the same: identifying an n of N.

The same situation is here with gravitation. We have a name for it, can
measure it and integrate the concept - more or less seamlessly – into a
general explanation. We just do not know, in an epistemological sense, what
gravitation is. We have to take the normative power of the factual
seriously and admit that we may have problems in the naming of an observed
fact. This does not absolve us from the task of philosophers, that is, to
try to understand and find good explanations for the facts that we perceive
and to our thoughts about the perceptions and the facts.

Adorno summarised the critique on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, by saying, that
W. apparently had not read the job description of a philosopher carefully
enough: the task is not to investigate that what can be said exactly about
a subject that is well known to all, but the task is to chisel away the
border separating that what can be only felt and that what can be expressed
understandably. This is the envy speaking of someone who suffered an
Oedipus tragedy. Socrates said that the perpetrator of a crime suffers more
than the victim, and post-war German philosophy understandably had no time
to be interested in rules of exact speech. The grammar of the logical
language, as a subject for serious study, was swept aside by historical
cataclysms, although Wittgenstein begot Frege and Carnap who begot von
Neumann and Boole who begot Shannon and Chomsky. That he in his later life
put aside his epoch-generating work is completely in the consequence of
what he had said. It is not disowning the ladder one has built to climb up
a level of abstraction while doing a cartography of what exact talking
really means, but a wise and truthful modesty of an artist who had
fabricated a tool for a specific project. No self-respecting artist would
want to be remembered for a practical tool he had assembled for a specific
task. Roughly citing, he says so much: those who have understood what is
written here, may throw [this book] away, like one has no need for a ladder
after one has climbed a level. Having found out how the technical people
speak (or should speak), he withdraws from that field, having clarified the
rules of exact thinking, closing the subject in a conclusive fashion for
about 4 generations, and acts in later life as if precognisant of Adorno’s
words.

Information is a connection of a symbol with a different symbol, if this
state of the world can have a background and alternatives. If something can
be otherwise, then the information is contained in the enumeration of the
cases of being otherwise.

By the use of computers, we can now create a whole topography and
dramaturgy of exact speech. Had we the creativity of the Greeks, we would
write a comedy, performed in public, by actors and narrators. The title
could be: “All acting dutifully, striving their right place, catharsia are
inevitable”. The best youth of Sparta, Athens etc. would compete for
prominent places in diverse disciplines, but the results are not
satisfactory, as the debate emerges, which of the disciplines are above the
others. The wise people of Attica have come up with a perpetual compromise,
its main points repeatedly summarised by the chorus, ruling that being
constantly underway between both correct positions: p1 in discipline d1 and
position p2 in discipline d2, is the divine sign of a noble character. If
every athlete follows the same rule, imagine the traffic jams on the stage
of the amphitheatre! The Greeks would have built an elaborate system of
philosophy about the predictable collisions among actors representing
athletes who have attended many of the concourses. They could have come up
with specific names for typical results and would have named the
agglomerations “elements” and “isotopes” that differ among each other on
how many of the actors are glued together 

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? (Jerry Chandler)

[Karl Javorszky]

Explanations



Thank you, Jerry, for pointing out the excellent treatise by Hempel &
Oppenheim on the Logic of Explanation. As I understand their viewpoint, the
ultimate explanation refers to a system of facts that are known to all who
use that system in which the explanation is placed. The explanation
pictures reality, but the reality is outside of the explanation. The
principle, expressed by Pythagoras, of “a²+b²=c²” is the deepest possible
explanation of how measurement instruments, like theodolites, work; but
note that the explanation makes no mention of sides of triangles, it is a
simple algebraic statement, into the terms of which we project, think,
look, visualise unto their application as a tool to calculate distances.
The validity of the explanation is rooted in the facts that the numbers
deliver. The ultimate explanation shows a relation among numbers – let me
hope that I have interpreted the Hampel-Oppenheimer work correctly (by
restating the results of Wittgenstein).

Now we have a discovery – made possible by the availability of computers –
of basic numeric relations that are as fundamental as “a²+b²=c²”. The
present task is to alert the fellows in the applied fields that here is an
explanation, and this could well be that explanation which you have been
looking for. The task before the customer of the invention is again that of
looking ideas into numbers, with the difference that we now look not sides
of triangles but strings of matter-cum-energy-cum-information into the
numbers. We see in reality the patterns this numeric explanation delivers
by the magnetic field lines, by the eruptions of strings from the Sun, by
the patterns of radiation as stars collapse, and as they explode … there
are very many fields where the relevance of the explanation is visible to
the eye; wherever filaments appear, a reorder is at work. The “where” has
many variations, here it can be visualised as a string connecting the
possible “wheres” during a reorder. The “what” can be anything that numbers
can represent: dense or very dense predictability loads are this layman’s
associations. The force lines are visible as lines in an Excel
illustration, if one makes the trouble to set up one’s own resorting and
track-following machine.

The numbers support a different set of their interpretation, too. The
resorting can be seen as the infusion of an ingredient into a cell. After
the flooding of the cell with ingredient A has been completed, a reorder
into A has taken place. Now a different biochemical constituent is to be
supplied into the cell. Enter flooding by ingredient B. Can anyone tell,
how this – concurrent or almost concurrent flooding with A and B - will
affect the state, positions, availability of the elements of the cell? Yes,
the satisfied customer of the string-thickness-measuring toposcopic
tautomat can deliver. He has spent up to 10 hours of programming “
*sort(a,b)*” in many variations, but now he is very content, because he can
see the force lines, generated by organising natural numbers.

The bees also utilise this kind of built in hardwired numeric table.
Likewise do we all, including children and animals. The ability to be
oriented in space is delivered by ganglions that are organised in a
phylogenetically more archaic way than those of the cortex. The regions and
functionalities of the brain are of course highly interconnected, far more
than the layers of an onion. That bees, besides knowing how to be oriented
in space, also can count up to four, and communicate about it, has nothing
to do with the statement that the knowledge of spatial orientation is a
more archaic capacity of the brain than that of abstracting of perceptions
and enumerating the abstracted ideas. If the bees can count abstract ideas
up to four, that would indeed be an argument.

The algorithms proposed here allow a conceptualisation of a feed-back loop
that condenses information. Let us imagine cell X to be flooded by
ingredients A and B and that this leads to a discontinuity, as too many
elements that are to be flooded by B are not available because they are
presently flooded with A, therefore the system breaks down. The resulting
discontinuity could well have the form of an electric discharge, which then
causes some concurrent flooding to stop. Then the frequency of how often an
electric discharge happens would signal and determine the biochemical
logistics of the cell by ingredients: voilá a ganglion, connecting hormonal
states with patterns of bursts.

Clever use of the discontinuities (of the firings of our ganglions while we
think), means that there exist regularities about the genesis of
discontinuities (which a less clever setup does not make use of). A numeric
tool that keeps producing non-realisable predictions, ending in predictable
breakdowns, by being in itself, on design, potentially self-contradictory:
such a tool will not be first on the list for well-educated humans to take
fancy to. The pity is that Nature is not 

[Fis] [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[Karl Javorszky]

Toposcopy

Thank you for the excellent discussion on a central issue of epistemology.
The assertion that topology is a primitive ancestor to mathematics needs to
be clarified.

The assertion maintains, that animals possess an ability of spatial
orientation which they use intelligently. This ability is shown also by
human children, e.g. as they play hide-and-seek. The child hiding considers
the perspective from which the seeker will be seeing him, and hides behind
something that obstructs the view from that angle. This shows that the
child has a well-functioning set of algorithms which point out in a mental
map his position and the path of the seeker. The child has a knowledge of
places, in Greek "topos" and "logos", for "space" and "study".

As a parallel usage of the established word "topology" appears
inconvenient, one may speak of "toposcopy" when watching the places of
things. The child has a toposcopic knowledge of the world as it finds home
from a discovery around the garden. This ability predates its ability to
count.

The ability to be oriented in space predates the ability to build abstract
concepts. Animals remain at a level of intellectual capacity that allows
them to navigate their surroundings and match place and quality attributes,
that is: animals know how to match what and where. Children acquire during
maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the perception
of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that represent
alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the fingers of the
hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start there.

What children and animals have and use before they learn to abstract into
enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no small complexity. They
create an inner map, in which they know their position. They also know the
position of an attractor, be it food, entertaintment or partner. The
toposcopic level of brain functions determines the configuration of a
spatial map and furnishes it with objects, movables and stables, and the
position of the own perspective (the ego).

This archaic, instinctive, pre-mathematical level of thinking must have its
rules, otherwise it would not function. These rules must be simple,
self-evident and applicable in all fields of Physics and Chemistry, where
life is possible.  The rules are detectable, because they root in logic and
reason. The rules may be hard to detect, because, as Wittgenstein puts it:
one cannot see the eye one looks with, fish do not see the water. We
function by these rules and are such in an uneasy position questioning our
fundamental axioms, investigating the self-evident.

The rules have to do with places and objects in places. Now we imagine a
lot of things and let them occupy places. It is immediately obvious that
this is a complicated task if one orders more than a few objects according
to several, different aspects.

We introduce the terms: collection, ordered collection, well-ordered and
extremely well ordered. As a collection we take the natural numbers, in
their form of a+b=c. This set is ordered, as its elements can be compared
to each other and a sequence among the elements can be established. We call
the collection well-ordered, if every aspect that can create a sequence
among the elements is in usage, determining the places of elements in
sequences. A well-ordered collection can not be globally and locally stable
at the same time. In most parts and at most times, it is in a quasi-stable
state. The instabilities coming from contradictions among the implications
of differing orders regarding the position of elements will appear in many
forms of discontinuities. We call the collection extremely well-ordered, if
the discontinuities, which appear as consequence of praemisses which are no
more compatible to each other, in their turn cause such alterations in the
positions of the elements that henceforth the praemisses are again
compatible to each other. The extremely well-ordered collection maintains a
loop of consequences becoming causes while changes in spatial
configurations take place. In the well-ordered collection there is a
continuous conflict, out of which loops that maintain stability can evolve.

The mechanism is easy to recreate on one's own computer. Nothing more than
a few hours of programming is required to understand and to be able to use
the toposcope. Its main ideas are known under "cyclic permutations". It is
important to visualise that elements change places during a reorder. The
movement between "previously correct, now behind me", "presently here, not
yet all stable" and "correct in future, not yet there" has many gradations
and many places. Patterns evolve by themselves, as properties of natural
numbers.

There is a simple set of numeric facts that build the backbone of spatial
orientation. The archaic knowledge shared by animals and children is based
on a simple set of algorithms. These algorithms predetermine the connection
between 

Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[Karl Javorszky]

n is based
on a simple set of algorithms. These algorithms predetermine the connection
between where and what. The toposcopic brain utilises the numeric facts,
like the liver utilises the chemical facts.

The layer of interpretations of the world that is a pre-human, animal,
instinctive knowledge about spatial orientation needs no learning, because
it is based on facts. The facts are not, where it will condense and what it
will look like, but rather the facts are that there will be a region where
it will condense and it will have a specific property to it. The patterns
of movements of elements during changes in order in a well-ordered
collection create a basic sceleton of thinking. To see the patterns here
referred to, it is necessary to order a collection and then order it some
more until it becomes well-ordered, and watch the conflicts that are
immanent to order, namely its alternatives and its background.  This is
simple, archaic and instructive.

2016-11-30 8:46 GMT+01:00 Karl Javorszky <karl.javors...@gmail.com>:

> Topology
>
> The session so far has raised the points: meta-communication,
> subject-matter, order, spaces.
>
> a.) Meta-communication
>
> Gordana’s summary explicates the need to have a system of references that
> FIS can use to discuss whatever it wishes to discuss, be it the equivalence
> between energy and information or the concept of space in the human brain.
> Whatever the personal background, interests or intellectual creations of
> the members of FIS, we each have been taught addition, multiplication,
> division and the like. We also know how to read a map and remember well
> where we had put a thing as we are going to retrieve it. When discussing
> the intricate, philosophical points which are common to all formulations of
> this session, it may be helpful to use such words and procedures that are
> well-known to each one of us, while describing what we do while we use
> topology.
>
> b.)Subject-matter
>
> Topology is managed by much older structures of the central nervous system
> than those that manage speech, counting, abstract ideas. Animals and small
> children remember their way to food and other attractions. Children
> discover and use topology far before they can count. Topology is a
> primitive ancestor to mathematics; its ideas and methods are archaic and
> may appear as lacking in refinement and intelligence.
>
> c.) Order
>
> There is no need to discuss whether Nature is well-ordered or not. Our
> brain is surely extremely well ordered, otherwise we had seizures, tics,
> disintegrative features. In discussing topology we can make use of the
> condition that everything we investigate is extremely well ordered. We may
> not be able to understand Nature, but we may get an idea about how our
> brain functions, in its capacity as an extremely well ordered system. We
> can make a half-step towards modelling artificial intelligence by
> understanding at first, how artificial instincts, and their conflicts, can
> be modelled. Animals apparently utilise a different layer of reality of the
> world while building up their orientation in it to that which humans
> perceive as important. The path of understanding how primitive instincts
> work begins with a half-step of dumbing down. It is no more interesting,
> how many they are, now we only look at where it is relative to how it
> appears, compared with the others.
>
> d.)Spaces
>
> Out of sequences, planes naturally evolve. Whether out of the planes
> spaces can be constructed, depends on the kinds of planes and of common
> axes. Now the natural numbers come in handy, as we can demonstrate to each
> other on natural numbers, how in a well-ordered collection the actual
> mechanism of place changes creates by itself two rectangular, Euclidean,
> spaces. These can be merged into one common space, but in that, there are
> four variants of every certainty coming from the position within the
> sequence. Furthermore, all these spaces are transcended by two planes. The
> discussion about an oriented entity in a space of n dimensions can be given
> a frame, placed into a context that is neutral and shared as a common
> knowledge by all members of FIS.
>
> 2016. nov. 29. 15:15 ezt írta ("Karl Javorszky" <karl.javors...@gmail.com
> >):
>
>> Topology
>>
>> The session so far has raised the points: meta-communication,
>> subject-matter, order, spaces.
>>
>> a.) Meta-communication
>>
>> Gordana’s summary explicates the need to have a system of references that
>> FIS can use to discuss whatever it wishes to discuss, be it the equivalence
>> between energy and information or the concept of space in the human brain.
>> Whatever the personal background, interests 

Re: [Fis] Fw: Is quantum information the basis of spacetime? Some New Theories

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear FIS,



The noble conquest of choosing the right method of understanding
information divides this learned society. Some argue that pre-Platonic
approaches towards understanding Nature are pre-scientific and therefore
can be dismissed out of hand.


Let us imagine that the Neanderthals have maintained a hidden existence (or
reappear in the form of visiting aliens). They have not followed the Sumer
ideas of abstracting *similar* properties of *different* things, and
thereby arriving at the concept of “one that is like the other”, and then
inventing two and three, etc.; no, the Neanderthal-aliens have organised
their perceptions on the idea of *different* properties of *similar*
things. It is a pre-conception, dictated by our neurology, that we use the
similarity properties of things as the commonly accepted right way to look
at things.


The aliens make patterns and observe the differences among the patterns
that can be made. They have built a completely different basic approach to
mathematical logic. To understand how they calculate much more exactly than
us mainstream Sumer disciples, it is necessary that one be ready to accept
as an ordering principle a detail that one was taught to disregard. This is
no small matter, because the realignment of fundamental principles of
logic, of deeply habituated patterns of cognition, is a long process and
the rewards come in variable portions.


Do tell, do you see a difference between a+b=c and b+a=c? If one says that
it makes no difference, then one negates the advances in management of
trade flows, of logistics as a science. The First In First Out principle
cannot be evaluated over the First In Last Out principle, in pure
mathematics, because the sequence of the summands has no relevance to the
result of the additive operation. We see that applied science calmly
disregards the doctrinal ban on distinguishing on sequence among summands,
so people do use and know how to use the sequential properties of abstract
entities. One may also ask, what kind of mathematics will evolve if the
sequences allow for results of other operations than addition. Order of
summands is not relevant for operation of addition. Order of summands is
relevant for which operation?


In all respect, the present-day way of dealing with a small detail of
a+b=c, the basis of all logic, is not very scientific. Why is it necessary
to define that a+b is the same as b+a? There are some little doubts,
against which explicitly rules this an ex-cathedra declaration, doubts that
could be addressed, if only one had the simple-minded attitudes of a
pre-scientific, instinctive, biological animal. Let us be less
ethno-centric: who says that it is of a moral superiority to heap things
together and weigh them as a sum of alike objects, than the other way of
making, by un-heaping and ordering, sequential, planar and spatial
arrangements based on subtle differences among individual objects? The
former method knows the quantities; the latter knows the places. In case
there are anthropologists among the FIS, please organise a field trip to a
forgotten tribe of natives, who count by comparing the differences among
patterns. The Establishment will be surprised to learn the practicability
of some of the inventions these savages have found in their pre-scientific
fixation on some details of logical operations.


Pre-historic or culturally alien approaches need not be inferior.


Karl



2016-11-14 9:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner :

> Dear All,
>
> It is fascinating to watch the evolution of ideas about information as a
> function of some new theories which beg for critique:
>
> 1. Andrei gives a correct explanation of the origin of Irreducible Quantum
> Randomness. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to assume that
> randomness at the quantum level has the properties of APPARENT randomness
> at the cognitive level, that is, apparent free will. Any cognitive
> equivalent of non-locality is a cognitive projection.
>
> 2. Karl returns to a Platonic world of numbers which are causally
> effective. I think the appropriate term for this approach is pre-scientific.
>
> 3. Alex sees the same form of causal effectiveness in Fisher information,
> as interpreted by Frieden. A critique exists of Frieden's inventions which
> seems correct to me. The new concepts (e.g. "bound information") and gaps
> in Frieden's theory are exactly those which can be filled with the real
> dynamic properties of energy/information. The discussion of these is far
> from exhausted.
>
> As an inhabitant of space-time, I am glad that it does not seem to require
> any of the entities of theories 2. and 3. as its BASIS. If it did, I might
> not exist.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> - Original Message - From: "Andrei Khrennikov" <
> andrei.khrenni...@lnu.se>
> To: "'FIS Webinar'" 
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
>

[Fis] FIS text testing spam filter

[Karl Javorszky]

Sorry for disturbing you with this test text.

A lengthy response to Josph's statements in the discussion about
Commutativity has not made it thru the spam filter.

Maybe, next week it can be persuaded to obey its human masters.

Nice weekend to you (if you read this)

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

Re: [Fis] Commutativity

[Karl Javorszky]

oted that /both/ commutativity and distributivity should not be required
> in descriptions of real systems:
>
>
> In LIR, since no individual term is an identity, that is, unconnected to
> other terms, one has the same relation as that between a term and the
> context that perturbs it. Both the commutative law of standard logic, (a
> + b) + c  =  a + (b + c) and the distributive law between conjunction and
> disjunction
> do not hold. Any applicable formalism is, accordingly, non-Abelian and
> non-Boolean respectively, and the resulting probability distributions are
> non-Kolmogorovian. The detailed mathematics remain to be worked out for the
> LIR description of reality values as ‘probability-like’[1].
>
> [1] These values are like objective probabilities which do not indicate
> limits of knowledge, but are about the properties that things objectively
> have.
>
> I feel that no notion of real use can be clear and concise. The elements
> of logic are not 'tokens', a term that conveys something inert, lacking its
> own dynamics (ability to change). There are, as I hope we could agree,
> details of reality also lost in the use of your 'sequencing' tool.
>
> You could help to resolve the issue with one simple comment: to what
> complex processes does your approach NOT apply?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Karl Javorszky <karl.javors...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>
> *Cc:* Terrence Deacon <dea...@berkeley.edu> ; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> ; John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> ; Gyorgy Darvas <darv...@iif.hu> ; Bob
> Logan <lo...@physics.utoronto.ca> ; Andrei Khrennikov
> <andrei.khrenni...@lnu.se> ; raf...@capurro.de
> *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 9:43 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
> Well, Joseph, you don't have to go far to get the desired definition of
> information as an operator (produced quantity).
>
> The only prerequisite is to be ready to discard the practice, ideas,
> philosophy and ideology of the definitions relating to commutativity.
>
> This is heresy, I understand. On the other hand, time may now have come to
> face up the truth. We see that (a,b)->c is different to (b,a)->c. We have
> learnt that this obvious difference is to be disregarded. We wish the
> clearly visible difference away so we get a picture of the world which is
> easier to work with. Of course, if I say that it makes no difference
> whether a or b has a positional advantage /pace opinion research
> questionnaries/, I don't have to worry about the endless complications
> arising from the question, which was first, a or b.
>
> The system simplified as it is in use presently is not versatile, detailed
> and nuanced enough to allow for the introduction of words that describe the
> ideas.
>
> One cannot explain trigonometry as long as the definition is in power that
> all triangles are to be seen in their unified variant and the proportion of
> the sides to each other is by definition irrelevant.
>
> Come the day you want to find a clear, concise, operator based tool to
> measure information content (based on properties of natural numbers),
> please look up my book Natürliche Ordnungen, available thru morawa or
> amazon etc.
>
> It is a completely new world out there if one stops thinking in a world
> made up by wishing away important details. There is power in them there
> sequences. No wonder Nature uses them in perpetuating life. Let us no more
> pretend commutativity is without alternatives. We have computers. We can
> keep track of the problems arising from actually observing and using
> sequential properties of logical tokens. That one can explain what the term
> "information" amounts to is just one of the discoveries one makes while
> using the tool of sequencing.
>
> Do look it up. It has been made for your use.
>
> Respectfully
> Karl
>
> On 4 Nov 2016 18:06, "Joseph Brenner" <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I agree with the consensus I see emerging. Andrei shows the problem of
>> trying to pin down a complex process with a single term - information. And
>> I agree with Rafael that information must have a valence. On the other
>> hand, as such, information cannot be completely defined mathematically, *pace
>> *Karl, any more than anything living can be.
>>
>> It is discouraging to see how reductionist theories like 'It-from-Bit'
>> get reproduced and disseminated by *Scientific American*, which used to
>> be a good journal. One cannot simply ignore the reactionary sub-text of
>> such 'science',

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

[Karl Javorszky]

Well, Joseph, you don't have to go far to get the desired definition of
information as an operator (produced quantity).

The only prerequisite is to be ready to discard the practice, ideas,
philosophy and ideology of the definitions relating to commutativity.

This is heresy, I understand. On the other hand, time may now have come to
face up the truth. We see that (a,b)->c is different to (b,a)->c. We have
learnt that this obvious difference is to be disregarded. We wish the
clearly visible difference away so we get a picture of the world which is
easier to work with. Of course, if I say that it makes no difference
whether a or b has a positional advantage /pace opinion research
questionnaries/, I don't have to worry about the endless complications
arising from the question, which was first, a or b.

The system simplified as it is in use presently is not versatile, detailed
and nuanced enough to allow for the introduction of words that describe the
ideas.

One cannot explain trigonometry as long as the definition is in power that
all triangles are to be seen in their unified variant and the proportion of
the sides to each other is by definition irrelevant.

Come the day you want to find a clear, concise, operator based tool to
measure information content (based on properties of natural numbers),
please look up my book Natürliche Ordnungen, available thru morawa or
amazon etc.

It is a completely new world out there if one stops thinking in a world
made up by wishing away important details. There is power in them there
sequences. No wonder Nature uses them in perpetuating life. Let us no more
pretend commutativity is without alternatives. We have computers. We can
keep track of the problems arising from actually observing and using
sequential properties of logical tokens. That one can explain what the term
"information" amounts to is just one of the discoveries one makes while
using the tool of sequencing.

Do look it up. It has been made for your use.

Respectfully
Karl

On 4 Nov 2016 18:06, "Joseph Brenner"  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I agree with the consensus I see emerging. Andrei shows the problem of
> trying to pin down a complex process with a single term - information. And
> I agree with Rafael that information must have a valence. On the other
> hand, as such, information cannot be completely defined mathematically, *pace
> *Karl, any more than anything living can be.
>
> It is discouraging to see how reductionist theories like 'It-from-Bit' get
> reproduced and disseminated by *Scientific American*, which used to be a
> good journal. One cannot simply ignore the reactionary sub-text of such
> 'science', even if a product of the "Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
> Physics".
>
> One could say rather that *quanta*, not quantum information, are the
> basis for spacetime. At the sub-quantum level, I think we have already said
> that whatever the way in which energy is exchanged, nothing is gained by
> calling it information. (We may make an exception for the case of
> non-locality defined by Bell inequalities.)
>
> The only nuance I would add is that although we can speak of biotic and
> Shannon information (better, today, Shannon-Boltzmann-Darwin as in Terry's
> explication), the properties of information_as_process have not been
> completely described. I would like to see the concept of information as an
> operator, causally effective because of its being energy, explored further.
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Rafael Capurro 
> *To:* Bob Logan  ; Andrei Khrennikov
>  ; Gyorgy Darvas  ; John Collier
>  ; fis 
> *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 3:47 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?
>
> Andrei, maybe the concept of message as already used by Shannon and Weaver
> in specific engineering contexts (this must not be always the case) is more
> appropriate and also able to speak about 'information' as what is 'in' a
> message 'for' a receiver. Best. Rafael
>
> Hello Andrei - I am with you - sharing you sentiment. Information only
> pertains to living organisms and entails some signals that help them make a
> choice. A black hole makes no choices - it is ruled by the laws of physics.
> Abiotic systems have no information. A book is a set of signals that a
> reader can convert into information if they know the language which the
> book is written. A book written in Urdu contains no information for me
> other than this appears to be a set of signals that contains information
> for a reader in the language in which this book was written. Who reads a
> black hole. How does it contain information that makes a difference. When
> we launch a satellite to orbit the earth we do not say that the sun is
> informing the satellite how to behave. The satellite is just 

Re: [Fis] Fw: "Mechanical Information" in DNA

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear FIS,

now there is a voice discussing the concepts and methods of counting. This
is highly encouraging.

Taking together with the overall theme of "Mechanical Information in DNA"
of the discussion, it seems that - at least some of - members of FIS begin
to address the quastions of HOW the transfer of information from a sequence
(the DNA) into an organism (a non-sequenced, commutative multitude) can
take place/does take place.

Some of FIS, who are longer than a few months with this chat group, will
have noticed, that I insist that there exists a very nice and neat
algorithm to connect unidimensional descriptions (like the DNA) with
pluridimensional assemblies (like the organism).

I have made an explanation which includes drawings with red and blue arrows
and makes it impossible not to understand how the transfer of genetic
information takles place.

The treatise has 55 pages and is easy to understand. You can have it thru
the publisher (Morawa, Wien), but it has come out just this week, so I
dispose presently only of the proof copies. These I can send to interested
persons.

Please contact me for details. If you are interested in Information Theory,
this is the work that simplifies the question(s) into interpretations of
a+b=c.

The first 100 buyers of the work will get a personally hand-signed copy.
There is a money-back guarantee: if the treatise you buy is not a
state-of-art exercise in the philosophy of the logical language, opening up
algorithms that connect descriptions of linear sequences with descriptions
of pluridimensional assemblies, with easy examples and easy-to-follow
deictic definitioons, you will be refunded on sending back the copy.

Let me express once again the hope that there are some among the
subscribers to the FIS list, who are interested in how information
processing in biology takes actually place.

Karl





2016-06-09 16:31 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson :

> Dear all,
>
> Is this a question about counting? I'm thinking that Ashby noted that
> Shannon information is basically counting. What do we do when we count
> something?
>
> Analogy is fundamental - how things are seen to be the same may be more
> important than how they are seen to be different.
>
> It seems that this example of DNA is a case where knowledge advances
> because what was once thought to be the same (for example, perceived
> empirical regularities in genetic analysis) is later identified to be
> different in identifiable ways.
>
> Science has tended to assume that by observing regularities, causes can be
> discursively constructed. But maybe another way of looking at it is to say
> what is discursively constructed are the countable analogies between
> events. Determining analogies constrains perception of what is countable,
> and by extension what we can say about nature; new knowledge changes that
> perception.
>
> Information theory (Shannon) demands that analogies are made explicit -
> the indices have to be agreed. What do we count? Why x? Why not y?
> otherwise the measurements make no sense. I think this is an insight that
> Ashby had and why he championed Information Theory as analogous to his Law
> of Requisite Variety (incidentally, Keynes's Treatise on Probability
> contains a similar idea about analogy and knowledge). Is there any reason
> why the "relations of production" in a mechanism shouldn't be counted?
> determining the analogies is the key thing isn't it?
>
> One further point is that determining analogies in theory is different
> from measuring them in practice. Ashby's concept of cybernetics-as-method
> was: "the cyberneticist observes what might have happened but did not".
> There is a point where idealised analogies cannot map onto experience. Then
> we learn something new.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
> --
> From: Loet Leydesdorff 
> Sent: ‎09/‎06/‎2016 12:52
> To: 'John Collier' ; 'Joseph Brenner'
> ; 'fis' 
>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw:  "Mechanical Information" in DNA
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> It seems to me that a definition of information should be compatible with
> the possibility to measure information in bits of information. Bits of
> information are dimensionless and “yet meaningless.” The meaning can be
> provided by the substantive system that is thus measured. For example,
> semantics can be measured using a semantic map; changes in the map can be
> measured as changes in the distributions, for example, of words. One can,
> for example, study whether change in one semantic domain is larger and/or
> faster than in another. The results (expressed in bits, dits or nits of
> information) can be provided with meaning by the substantive theorizing
> about the domain(s) under study. One may wish to call this “meaningful
> information”.
>
>
>
> I am aware that several authors have defined information as a difference
> that makes a difference (McKay, 

[Fis] Towards a 3φ integrative medicine

[Karl Javorszky]

Just a small detail on the information density of food (air, water, sensory
input, etc.) in medicine:

The DNA has a high informational value for the organism. Can it be said
that poison has also an informational value?

Can the de-constructive effect of a substance quantified based on the same
semiotic system of references as the constructive effect of a substance can
be referred to in that same system of references?
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] _ Interlude: emotional shock

[Karl Javorszky]

In the present Interlude after the session chaired by Lou on Symmetry and
before the coming one, allow me to enlarge on something Bruno raised.



Bruno wrote:





*Then this confirms the "computationalist theory of everything", which is
given by any formalism, like Robinson Arithmetic (the rest is given by the
internal machine's phenomenology, like the one deducible from
incompleteness). Indeed, in that theory, the stable (predictible)
observable have to be given by a statistics on all computation going
through our actual state. This (retro-)predicts that the physical obeys to
some quantum logic, and it can be derived from some intensional nuance on
the Gödel self-referential provability predicate (like beweisbar('p') &
consistent('t')).*



*In quantum mechanics without collapse of the wave during observation, the
axiom 3 is phenomenological, and with computationalism in the cognitive
science (the assumption that there is a level of description of the brain
such that my consciousness would proceed through any such emulation of my
brain or body at that level or below) the whole "physical" is
phenomenological. *

*Physics becomes a statistics on our consistent sharable first person
(plural) experiences. With "our" referring to us = the universal numbers
knowing that they are universal (Peano Arithmetic, Zermelo Fraenkel Set
Theory, viewed as machine, are such numbers).*



*An actuality is a possibility seen from inside, somehow, in this context
or theory (QM without collapse, or Computationalism). *



*Personally, it seems that quantum mechanics, when we agree on the internal
phenomenological of actuality in the possibilities, confirms the most
startling, perhaps shocking, consequence of computationalism (digital
mechanism). Note that it does not make the physical itself computable a
priori.*



Of these thoughts, let us focus on the following:

“…. when we agree on the internal phenomenological of actuality in the
possibilities, confirms the *most startling, perhaps shocking*, consequence
of computationalism (digital mechanism). …”



Now how does “shocking” enter a discourse on quantum concepts and the idea
that there is knowledge and wisdom in them there natural numbers?


Obviously, and let us thank Bruno for having pointed it out, there is an
element of reticence, unwillingness, resistance and protracted, unpleasant
surprise in the thought that Life, and the world in general may be much
more mechanistic and trivial than thought before.


The person pre-shock believes in something, the person post-shock knows
that he has been robbed a dream. It is like a child has to realise that
Santa Claus is not a real person, and that little babies do come about the
way they come about.

Many ideas have to be laid to rest during the process of familiarising
oneself to the idea that the glue that holds the world together – and
within it, our ideas about the world – is best described by the well-known
form of *a+b=c* as known from good old elementary school.


Discussing what forms and appearances the order can produce which rules
Nature, and within Nature, us and our thoughts, is unfortunately equivalent
to discussing, what kinds of order we can look into and discover within
*a+b=c*,  as this old, well-chewed bone is the backbone of rational
concepts.


The disillusionment will be individually instrumented for each of us, as
Tolstoy had said about the unhappiness of families, each in their own way.
The resulting – remaining – denotation, after having lost its connotations,
will be made up of the simple grey, standard, industrial units of
abstraction, order as a running fight among, and a compromise between *b-a,
a-2b, a+b, 2b-3a, *and the like.


Please accept my apologies for the shock the insight may cause that we are
indeed just an experiment in combinatorics, and probably the elves,
fairies, trolls and unicorns do not exist neither.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Lou,



we agree that the word quantum refers to a minimal unit. Applied science
may use the word according to its own definitions. It has not yet been used
in the context of a minimal unit of information. The term information has
been defined by deictic methods, using the tautomat (a kind of a
multiplication-cum-truth table, in the form of large databases, which
detail on which places the arguments *(a,b) * of the logical sentence *a+b=c
*can be under the prevalence of which aspects of *a+b=c *over which other
aspects of *a+b=c*)
*. *


In this construct, we do need a term for a minimal unit. If you object to
using the term quantum for the concept of a minimal unit of change in
certitude of where is what and where will be what and where can not be
what, then I have to respectfully withdraw this suggestion.


This discussion running about Symmetry anyway, let me use the opportunity
of this dialog about quantum to advertise another of the advantages of the
tautomat:


The two Euclid spaces that are generated by rectangular axes relating to
readings *(a+b, a) * (b-2a,a) * (a-2b, b-2a) *in case of the *left *space
and *(a+b,b) * (b-2a,a-2b) * (a-2b,a) *in case of the *right *space are in
one sense the epitome of symmetry, in another sense they are not exactly
symmetric. Their central elements are on different coordinates. Importing
the addresses of the points in the Euclid spaces into a common Newton space
leaves one with *two *centres of agglomeration.  The usage of the words
neutron and proton seems to be not that far-fetched to describe concepts
relating to basic tendency of material to become agglomerated if there is
order among the manifold aspects of *a+b=c.*


So it is for the benefit of the FIS audience if we continue the exchange
about which terms are understood to mean what, in their dichotomy, once as
applied to concepts substantiated by observations of Nature, and once as
concepts that come from observations of natural numbers. They should by no
means contradict each other.


Karl

2016-03-28 6:04 GMT+02:00 Louis H Kauffman <kauff...@uic.edu>:

> Dear Karl,
> Thank you for your letter. I will think about the model that you present
> there.
> I submit that quantum theory does not go beyond the bounds of language. It
> is the metaphors that we use for objects that come into question.
> As you can see from my “Nutshell”, there are specific observations that
> can be described and labeled as |e1>,|e2>,… corresponding to events that
> scientists can agree upon in ordinary language.
> The quantum state is a formal sum with complex coefficients of these |ek>
> as POSSIBILITIES. What evolves in time without observation is the structure
> of this collection/superposition of possibilities.
> It does not confuse possibility with actuality then the model has clarity.
> Of course it is a mystery why this model works as well as it does!
> Best,
> Lou K.
>
> On Mar 26, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Karl Javorszky <karl.javors...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Lou,
>
>
> Thanks for the invitation to elaborate on the concept of quantum and how
> it connects to Wittgenstein’s taboo words and information.
>
> We may have problems understanding the concept of a quantum because the
> idea appears to be non-expressible by rational, logical speech. The grammar
> of logical sentences creates constraints on what can be said intelligibly
> (as Wittgenstein has pointed out). We can discuss the present King of
> France (even if there is no such thing there, in Russell’s example) because
> the grammar allows us to speak of places and things. The essence of
> rational speech is that it is consistent. We cannot speak exactly of things
> that may or may not be there, that may or not may have properties.
> Specifically, we cannot speak of *unique, individual *concepts, which we
> cannot contrast to such other concepts which we know.
>
> Let me show you what the natural numbers offer as a possible definition of
> such a concept that is transcending some logical categories.
>
> a)  Preparation
>
> We do an accounting exercise on some numbers. (For some numerical reasons,
> it is best to speak of a collection that has 16 distinguishing categories
> on two kinds of objects: that is, we have *(a,b) *appearing as tuplets *(1,1),
> (1,2), (2,2), (1,3), (2,3), (3,3), (1,4), (2,4), …, (16,16),* that is
> altogether 136 elements of a set.) These we sort on some aspects. Then we
> re-sort them into a different sorting order, based on some different
> aspects of *(a,b). * What we register is the properties of the cycle each
> element in included in during a reorder.
>
> b) Action
>
> We pick 1,2,3,… of the elements and discuss if, and if yes, in which and
> how many altogether, cycles these elements can be included while
> contemporaneous. Conte

Re: [Fis] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Lou,


Thanks for the invitation to elaborate on the concept of quantum and how it
connects to Wittgenstein’s taboo words and information.

We may have problems understanding the concept of a quantum because the
idea appears to be non-expressible by rational, logical speech. The grammar
of logical sentences creates constraints on what can be said intelligibly
(as Wittgenstein has pointed out). We can discuss the present King of
France (even if there is no such thing there, in Russell’s example) because
the grammar allows us to speak of places and things. The essence of
rational speech is that it is consistent. We cannot speak exactly of things
that may or may not be there, that may or not may have properties.
Specifically, we cannot speak of *unique, individual *concepts, which we
cannot contrast to such other concepts which we know.

Let me show you what the natural numbers offer as a possible definition of
such a concept that is transcending some logical categories.

a)  Preparation

We do an accounting exercise on some numbers. (For some numerical reasons,
it is best to speak of a collection that has 16 distinguishing categories
on two kinds of objects: that is, we have *(a,b) *appearing as tuplets *(1,1),
(1,2), (2,2), (1,3), (2,3), (3,3), (1,4), (2,4), …, (16,16),* that is
altogether 136 elements of a set.) These we sort on some aspects. Then we
re-sort them into a different sorting order, based on some different
aspects of *(a,b). * What we register is the properties of the cycle each
element in included in during a reorder.

b) Action

We pick 1,2,3,… of the elements and discuss if, and if yes, in which and
how many altogether, cycles these elements can be included while
contemporaneous. Contemporaneous means “free of logical contradictions, is
the case, consistent, assigning a place to an element” in spoken language,
in the deictic language of numbers and tables it means that there is an
empty cell in a White or True Table we can write this element into.

We also mark in a separate Dark, Black or Negative Table (like a Bad Bank
or a No-Fly List) all those cycles that are presently not playable, because
of the element(s) being included in a cycle that cannot run concurrently
with those that are in the Black Table.

For the sake of accounting completeness, we also create a Grey Table, our
Basic Table of Ignorance, wherein are initially included all cycles,
wherefrom we move cycles either to the Possible or to the Not Possible
Tables.

As we pick an element, we assign it a place. At first, it is irrelevant,
which order we assume to be the case. As we progress, the presence of
elements will have generated a series of facts and/or assumptions which
restrict the ways of either how we can place the element or how we can
choose the order we wish to maintain. One may be reminded of variants of
Go, Sudoku or the like.

c)  Evaluation

We can formulate our observations in an assertive, but as well also in a
negating way of describing the same state of the word. We can observe that
the element *e *is on place *p *in order *o*, but as well we can observe
that this deviates from order *not-o*, where either element e would be on
place *not-p*, or on place *p* would be an element *not-e*. As at least
elements *e* and *not-e* are numerically comparable (we know the extent of
difference between *(3,4)* and *(5,7)*), so there is hope that this and the
linear distance differences between places *p* and *not-p* allow
constructing a measure for the distance between orders *o* and *not-o*.

The contents of the Grey and Dark Tables are as descriptive of what we have
done as the contents of our Positive Registry of Actions. We not only do
talk about what Wittgenstein has said one should better leave alone, but we
split the background to that what we talk about, that what is the case,
into one part that is definitely false and one part, that which is simply
unknown. That what Wittgenstein has delineated as the background to
rational speech is now – thanks to computers – accessible. We propose to
use the name “information” for a logical statement which details facts that
are not the case, belong to the background in Wittgenstein’s sense.
Information is a description of the background to that what is the case.

d) Unit of what

Now we arrive at what an accountant would term the minimal accounting unit.
The concept may well be called a quantum by people outside the accounting
world. In the tables, one may point to an increased degree of exactitude
which one arrives at having picked the *i-th *element. What this minimal
degree of increased exactitude refers to exactly, appears not that easy to
put in spoken words of a rational language. We do not restrict its meaning
to what is the case, but also may refer to something that is now more not
the case than before, and specifically we cannot say whether this increased
exactitude refers to a linear, spatial or material or temporal (mis-)
match. The general idea 

Re: [Fis] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

1.  Are the facts complicated or is our interpretation of the facts
complicated?

again, the discussion centres on interpretations of Nature. How do we
picture some processes of Nature – like, specifically, the workings of
genetics and biology generally -, and which explanational tools do we use
to consolidate our views of Nature.

We assume that Nature is describable by our tools, which tools agree to our
concepts of consistent, logical, useful, true. We agree that basic working
principles of Nature must be simple, easy to understand and quite logical,
in fact self-evident, once one has understood them.

We agree that what we want to observe are relations among appearances, and
that geometry, specifically topology will play a fundamental part in the
explanations which we seek.

Now the next step is to reflect on what makes our current perceptions and
ideas about Nature so far off the right track, that we experience Nature to
be hard to understand, complicated and beyond our present capacity to
explain in a simple fashion.

We cannot state that basic rules and laws Nature appears to obey are
circumstantial and complicated. We can only conclude that we, humans, are
making an interpretation complicated, although Nature by axiom works in the
most simple and logical fashion.

2.  Back to basics

The rule we want to understand is very simple and basic. It is only our
being used to not paying attention to small details which makes us believe
that the rule is complicated. Had we not insisted that generating *c=a+b*
from *(a,b)* is the most important way of dealing with *(a,b)* we could use
other aspects of *(a,b)* too.

The addition makes use of the similarity property of object. Similarity
(and within it, the special case of symmetry) is such an important tool in
survival and reproduction that our neurology forces us to see it far more
important than dissimilarity. Culture reinforces this common sense approach
to *(a,b)*.

Nature herself, however, is not in a Darwinian competition, therefore she
does make use of other aspects of *(a,b)*, next to *a+b=c*. Just for
illustration, let me mention *b-a, b-2a, 2b-3a, a-2b, 2a-3b* and more of
this kind. These are as valid properties of *(a,b)* as their sum, but have
had much less of stage time and employment so far.

If we want to learn something new, why don’t we start with *a+b=c*, the
mother of all observations. Let us give it a try and believe it to be
possible that one can learn something new and clever and that it will be
useful.

3.  Order

We cannot dispute the fact that there is a quite exact and well-regulated
order behind genetics. So it is natural that we look deeper into the
concept of order.

Order means that an element with known properties is in a place with known
properties that match the same order, which established the match. Order
assigns a place to an element and an element to a place.

Doing an exercise with some standard specimen of *a+b=c*, we see that we
can order the collection in differing ways, according to the order aspect
we use to establish a sequence among the elements. (If we sort our library
on title, we arrive at a different linear enumeration of the books compared
to one we arrive at if we sort the library on author.)

The differing aspects of *a+b=c* impose differing orders on the collection
of statements *a+b=c*. These may well be contradictory among each other.

The realm we enter here may appear unusual and complicated, because we had
not been getting used to deal with logical statements that are false,
irrelevant or contradictory.

Nature herself, however, has not been listening to Wittgenstein, and keeps
on doing things about which we should not be talking, as our rules of
logical grammar do not present themselves easily to discussing false,
irrelevant or contradictory states of the world. And, since we have had
some progress in processing of data since the time of Wittgenstein, we are
now able, with the help of computers, to visualise the creation and the
consolidation of logical conflicts. By using computers, we may start to
talk about that, what is not the case. We may observe typical patterns of
conflict resolution, of logical compromises that allow contradictions to
exist, up to a point.

4.  Cycles

Here comes the solution: Nature does not act illogically, but, rather
elegantly, pushes off logical contradictions either into the future or into
the non-space. The mechanism is strikingly simple and self-evident. One
only has to generate a sequence and sort and resort it to observe the
existence of cycles. The concept is known in mathematics under the title of
“cyclic permutations”. We can use each element *(a,b)* as a data
depository, wherein we place symbols that are concurrently commutative and
sequential. The membership in a cycle is a symbol that is commutative for
each of the members of the cycle, but confers also a sequential attribute
relating to the sequence of place changes 

[Fis] Numbers and information

[Karl Javorszky]

Gyuri Darvas' Symmetry Festival is a perfect place to exchange ideas about
how the many aspects treated in FIS can be understood in a neutral and
interpersonally portable manner.
Pedro's department could give a second try modeling biological processes by
observing groups that can be built on natural numbers.
10-15 years later we know more of the actual mechanism. At that time, only
the fact that a translation between sequential and commutative is possible
was available. OEIS242615
Now we use cycles. One adds to the subject of cyclic permutations by
creating aspects of a+b=c and sorting a specimen collection and then
resorting it. The patterns that evolve draw a fantastic picture.
That institution which maintains the professional tautomat (the database of
where can be what under the prevalence of which aspects of a+b=c over which
other aspects of a+b=c) will have a valuable resource.
Thanks for being remembered here. I had fallen silent bec the
inconceivability of a nice tool makes it hard to sell. The tool is here and
practical. It waits for the user to want to use it. For that, the user has
to be prepared to see a possible solution. Of course the principles of
Nature's accounting are simple and easy to understand. They just run
contrary to our habits, formed by neurology and tradition. So there is a
decision to be made to be ready to unlearn selected patterns of perception
and thinking and to want to learn a new method of thinking.

Looking forward the Symmetry session.

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

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Dr. Isiegas,

let me offer some proposals as to the underlying concepts that
differentiate treatment of information in the technical and in the biologic
understanding.

The neuronal process is both sequential and commutative: commutative in the
sense that chemical reactions take place concurrently (not one after the
other), sequential in the sense that the burst is uniform and comes after a
number of ticks (minimal steps of a temporal nature), like a 1 coming after
x 0s, and then follow y ticks of 0 again before the next 1.

The interplay between sequenced and non-sequenced is fascinating. It
appears to this person, that there must exist a threshold after which a
qualitatively different process takes place that breaks the space-matter
continuum. I think of the same disruptive transformation as observed or
interpreted with explosions, supernovae or collapses. We see that there is
a gradual process which reaches a limit, after which the process cannot
exist, and even the implications of the process become logically impossible.

This MIGHT (maybe, just suggesting) be related to the information content
in an expression reaching Zero, that is, the redundancy having been
eliminated. In this approach information and redundancy are two sides
of the same coin. The coin can be visualised by agreeing that the
denotation of a logical fact cannot carry any information, as it is by
definition a part of a tautological system. (If we figure out once and for
all, e.g., how the Sun digests and spits and pulls and does its manifold
effects, this naked relation among logical objects will be no news, as it
will be a part of the great tautology of a complicated multiplication
table: it will become self-evident and we shall say: of course, this cannot
function otherwise.) The scientific process, the step-by-step way until we
unclothe and discover the quintessential fact, that is information - and
this is also a redundancy. Which steps we have gone thru, which cul-de-sacs
we have visited, that is information. This we realise after we recognise
that these digressions are not that what we have been looking for.

Presently, we embellish our ideas about, say, e.g. the Sun,  and it is
information that previously, people have thought the Sun to be a God or
even the main god.

Recognising the quintessence, the skeleton of interdependences is peeling
off connotations, until that remains which is pure logic - and that cannot
be of any informational value above Zero (as it cannot be otherwise), as
Kant has pointed out.

As to the methods of how to cause a logical explosion, please contemplate
that sequences and assemblies of a contemporary nature (mixtures) have
massive logical contradictions (see www.OEIS.org A242615) which result in
the system of additions not being correct in some cases, as there appear
either too much material or too much distance among material entities, so
there has to be a disruption. This will take place only if the succession
is in its mathematically pure form, that is, without any redundancies. This
means that within a set no duplicates are allowed.

So, the proposal of this person is to look into the process of uniquify-ing
the constituents of the assembly, because if the collection is in its ideal
state, it will blow up.

Squeezing out redundancy can only be driven up to a point, where there is
no more redundancy to be eliminated. In this moment, basic contradictions
appear and result in a breakdown of the continuity. That Nature has managed
to restart after a mini-catastrophe, even to make use of this planned
breakdown as a signal is what is for me the information in our search for
the mechanism that is neuro-information. The usage of a lightning that is
being provoced by chemical processes.

Hope that this can be helpful.

Karl

2014-12-03 13:46 GMT+01:00 Carolina Isiegas cisie...@gmail.com:

 Dear list,

 I have been reading during the last year all these interesting
 exchanges. Some of them terrific discussions! Given my scientific backgound
 (Molecular Neuroscience), I would like to hear your point of view on the
 topic of neuroinformation, how information exists within the Central
 Nervous Systems. My task was experimental; I was interested in
 investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and memory,
 specifically, the role of the cAMP-PKA-CREB signaling pathway in such brain
 functions (In Ted Abel´s Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, where I
 spent 7 years). I generated several genetically modified mice in which I
 could regulate the expression of this pathway in specific brain regions and
 in which I studied the effects of upregulation or downregulation at the
 synaptic and behavioral levels. However, I am conscious that the
 information flow within the mouse Nervous System is far more complex that
 in the simple pathway that I was studying...so, my concrete question for
 you Fishers or Fisers, how should we contemplate the micro and macro
 structures of information within 

Re: [Fis] About weekly posting frequency.

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Friends,



the goal of our interactions is to

a)  Learn from each other,

b)  Instruct each other,

c)   Move forward the cause of science,

d)  Move forward the cause of one’s own,

e)  Feel good.

Each of us is an individual, so there will be individual weights to the
factors enumerated above; other persons may classify or formulate the
motivations (of one’s own, of others’) differently.

This being a *grupo bio-informatico*, as opposed to a *grupo
socio-importantico*, we should maybe keep in focus the fundamentals of
information theory/science in our communications.

To me, quite a percentage of the contributions appear to be deflecting
attention from the suspicion, that the person contributing has no idea
about how in hell information management in biology can or could be
conceptualized. These follow the general structure of praising their own
contributions to what Abraham said to Bebraham about Cebraham’s work on
Debraham’s views regarding Ebraham and so forth. These contributions are –
as I understand Wolfgang’s intentions – part of the sociology of scientific
discourse, specifically the stabilizing effects on hierarchies of mantras
and catechisms.

Opposed to this, there is the much less rewarding approach of trials to
consolidate information theory as understood in the humanities as opposed
to the concept’s usage in the technical sciences. It would be refreshing to
discuss ideas on why mnemotechnics shows that we remember *better *if the
content is embedded in a *lot of irrelevant* packaging. Alternatively, how
a model would look like which consolidates electric bursts with biochemical
properties.

In my opinion, until we accept that it is our good selves that have to come
up with some new ideas, there will only be huffing and puffing and clearing
of throats. Also something to be discussed in Wolfgang’s works: the natural
reluctance of established knowledge to jump to revolutionary opinions. But
there is no escape: either we sum up the courage to think something new, or
no one will.

We can discuss in Vienna in June (an extremely well chosen time of the
year: Vienna is beautiful at the maximum end May, beginning of June) both
sides of this coin: the complications and hardships of thinking radically
new thoughts if one is a part of the establishment (cf. Friedell: Cultural
History), and some could also maybe give it a try to immerse one toe into
the uncharted waters of conflicting order concepts, sets that are in a
compromise state between being well-ordered in one fashion and being
well-ordered in a different fashion. These are subjects that are
traditionally part of the Great Taboo, but, hélas!, commercial interests
may force us to acknowledge that genetics is rational and that it is based
on triplets, of which each takes one of 4 varieties and that this can be
shown to appear once one plays with order and conflicting concepts of
order. If FIS does not take the jump, it will come into a situation, where
de facto expeditions circumnavigate the Earth and bring treasures from
Zipangu while the Council of the Wise remains of the orthodox view that the
Earth is a disc, uphold by four turtles.



There is an intuitive timidity and modesty among the members of the group,
and this shows that we are intelligent and socially competent people: we
know that if we have nothing to say, then saying it twice a week is
sufficient.

Do come to Wolfgang’s conference: there will be great occasions of
self-reflexion on Ovid’s “bene vixit bene qui latuit”, social importance
and what differentiates Hollywood from a group of scientists brooding over
the Fundamentals of Information Science, specifically in a biologic context.


Karl

2014-11-03 22:05 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch:

 Dear All,

 I agree with Krassimir's suggestions. Implementing them would relieve a
 certain frustration one experiences. On the other hand, the discipline of
 not posting more than two substantive messages a week, which should contain
 something really new, is essential.

 Joseph

 - Original Message - From: Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es
 Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:16 PM
 Subject: [Fis] About weekly posting frequency.



 Dear Pedro, Jerry, and FIS Colleagues,

 Several times I have not finished my discussions because of very long time
 I
 needed to wait for next (third or fourth) letter.

 Practically no serious discussion could be provided - only messages on the
 moment and, of course - invited starting and finishing explanations.

 In the same time, I see that the active part of FIS colleagues who really
 write letters is not so great.

 And this part is separated in other two parts - colleagues who are
 permanently on line and those who respond only if it is in their short
 interest area.

 Because of this I propose to add two new rules:

 - to permit posting more than two or three letters if and only if they
 contain questions for clarifying the 

Re: [Fis] The Travellers

[Karl Javorszky]

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] next fis conference

[Karl Javorszky]

dear Wolfgang,

as indicated here in the list some 2-3 months ago, I 'd like to organise a
workshop.
Its title would be:
Explaining the Combinatorics behind the Translation of the Information
Content of the DNA by using Advanced Arithmetic

Would you please make it possible for participants to indicate if they are
interested in this workshop.

thanks
Karl
 Am 06.10.2014 15:40 schrieb Wolfgang Hofkirchner 
wolfgang.hofkirch...@tuwien.ac.at:

 dear fisers,

 the website for the upcoming conference is online and you can follow the
 progress we are making in organising the event.

 we are still in the phase of shaping the event. it is now up to you to
 contribute and make proposals for what you would like to see at the event,
 for what you would like to organise at the event (from poster sessions to
 paper sessions to installations to panels and else). send that proposal to
 sum...@is4is.org well before 17th of november.

 for deliberation look at summit.is4is.org/calls/call-for-participation.

 if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask me.

 looking forward to your suggestions,

 wolfgang


 ___
 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] Fwd: Re: next fis conference

[Karl Javorszky]

-- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --
Von: Wolfgang Hofkirchner wolfgang.hofkirch...@tuwien.ac.at
Datum: 06.10.2014 16:37
Betreff: Re: [Fis] next fis conference
An: karl.javors...@gmail.com
Cc:

of course, i saw that mail.

i will keep your proposal in mind. we will decide only after 17 november
and then phase 2 is reserved for calls for papers and else.

you might write a call for papers.

ciao

wolfgang

Am 06.10.2014 um 16:20 schrieb Karl Javorszky karl.javors...@gmail.com:

dear Wolfgang,

as indicated here in the list some 2-3 months ago, I 'd like to organise a
workshop.
Its title would be:
Explaining the Combinatorics behind the Translation of the Information
Content of the DNA by using Advanced Arithmetic

Would you please make it possible for participants to indicate if they are
interested in this workshop.

thanks
Karl
 Am 06.10.2014 15:40 schrieb Wolfgang Hofkirchner 
wolfgang.hofkirch...@tuwien.ac.at:

 dear fisers,

 the website for the upcoming conference is online and you can follow the
 progress we are making in organising the event.

 we are still in the phase of shaping the event. it is now up to you to
 contribute and make proposals for what you would like to see at the event,
 for what you would like to organise at the event (from poster sessions to
 paper sessions to installations to panels and else). send that proposal to
 sum...@is4is.org well before 17th of november.

 for deliberation look at summit.is4is.org/calls/call-for-participation.

 if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask me.

 looking forward to your suggestions,

 wolfgang


 ___
 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] Informational Bookkeeping

[Karl Javorszky]

The bookkeeping exactitude refers to the number and kind of logical
alternatives.
If the DNA is such-and-such, the cell cannot be outside the logical limits
that are the accounting equivalents of such-and-such.
If the cell is such-and-such, the DNA cannot be otherwise than in a form
that is the logical-accounting of such-and-such.

Accounting in the logical understanding is the application of rules of
tautology. Like in business accounting there is equivalence between the
grand totals, in genetics can neither appear anything out of thin air.

No so-called information can appear or disappear in the translation
between linear and multidimensional ways of putting the same
interdependence, like no gain or loss can be created by (correct)
accounting.
 Am 08.09.2014 14:11 schrieb Raquel del Moral rdelmoral.i...@aragon.es:

 Dear Pedro,

 The concept of bookkeeping looks very interesting for biology, however, I
 can't see clearly how to apply it below the level of nervous systems.
 Counting maybe found in most biomolecules, but really registering in a
 book keeping manner is possible in the lower levels? e.g. unicellulars. Do
 you think that they modify their behaviour after checking their own
 bookkeeping registers?

 Just this brief comment!

 Best,
 Raquel


 El 05/09/2014 14:14, Pedro Marijuan escribió:

 Dear FIS colleagues,

 A very interesting comment by Bob about energy as a bookkeeping device
 in the other discussion track motivates these rough reflections.

 Actually, within the culture of mechanics (following Frank Wilczek)
 energy appears as the more reliable concept, beyond its cousins force
 and mass. Mechanics, like most scientific theories, finally is but a
 method to count upon variable aspects of simplified phenomena and
 provide inter-subjective objectivity(?). Numbers are due to our mental
 counting operations; and concepts, formulas and theories become
 bookkeeping devices to obtain more complex counting that dovetail with
 more complex phenomena. That our mental counting dovetails with nature's
 pretended counting is what the experimental side of science tries to
 establish. It becomes of great merit that energy constructs such as
 those mentioned by Bob do their bookkeeping accurately, in spite of
 their intrinsic limitations.

 My concern with the views expressed in the other track is that
 informational bookkeeping appears to be rather different from the
 mechanical physical bookkeeping or counting. There are new aspects not
 covered by the extensive and inflexible mechanical-dynamic counting,
 and which are essential to the new informational organizations we are
 discovering --and practicing around-- and to the new worldview that
 presumably we should search and promote. Is there bookkeeping in life?
 Do molecules count? Do bacteria or unicellulars bookkeep--and organisms?
 And complex brains? And individuals? And social groups? And companies
 and markets? And cities, regions and countries?

 Admittedly it is a potpourri; but yes, there are some clear instances
 where quite explicit a bookkeeping is maintained. It may be about
 signaling flows, about self production stuff flows, or about their
 inextricable mixing--involving whatever aspects. But these bookkeepings
 are made with attentional flexibility and different closure
 procedures that allow for new forms of compositional hierarchy
 (informational) not found in the mechanical. They are adaptive, they
 recognize, they are productively engaged in life cycles where the
 meaning is generated, they co-create new existential realms... In our
 own societies, the  exaggerated importance of new informational devices
 (historically: numbers, alphabets, books, calculi, computers, etc.)
 derives from their facilitation and acceleration of all the enormous
 bookkeeping activities that subtend the social complexity around.

 Who knows, focusing on varieties of bookkeeping might be quite productive!

 best ---Pedro

 
 *Pedro C. Marijuán Fernández*
 Dirección de Investigación

 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS)
 Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón (IIS Aragón)
 Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
 Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 1
 50009 Zaragoza
 Tfno. +34 976 71 4857
 email. dirinvestigacion.i...@aragon.es
 mailto:dirinvestigacion.i...@aragon.es
 www.iacs.aragon.es

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



 --
 -
 Raquel del Moral
 Grupo de Bioinformacion / Bioinformation Group

 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. San Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza
 Tfno. +34 976 71 44 76
 E-mail. rdelmoral.i...@aragon.es
 -

 ___
 Fis mailing list
 Fis@listas.unizar.es
 

Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Colleagues,



 good that FIS is up again after this computer glitch.

It is encouraging, that since the resurrection the focus of FIS appears to
be sharpened. Let me quote Pridi: “… brainstorming session that would
include pure researchers and application oriented guys … … business people
may find it more than worthwhile to attend such meetings! …”



 FIS does have a solid background in mathematics and formal logic. In 1995,
that is 19 years ago!, Pedro encouraged me to summarise my research in
sequences and contemporary assemblies into a book: “Zaragoza Lectures on
Granularity Algebra”. Since then, there was hardly one year that I have not
contributed to FIS and its friendly organisations an input relating to the
formal logic underlying Nature’s machinations, with specific regard to
genetics, the archetype of interactions between a sequence and a
non-sequenced entity.



 During the years, what was at first cumbersome and complicated to
understand and to explain, has morphed into something that is easy to
explain but requires flexibility to understand. The explanation, how the
interaction between the DNA and the cell works – as an information
deciphering exercise – is of course of the “no-na” category, as Nature
cannot and will not use illogical or questionable methods. It is us who
have built the fundaments of our thinking in such a fashion that our
perception and cognition filter out the relevant details. One has to go
down to pre-school, or kindergarten level to point out what is to be looked
at so that this detail can then be used like any other tool of arithmetic.



 Presently, I work on a pre-school level teaching material that should help
soften the ingrained inhibitions of perception. There appear to be extreme
difficulties among well-educated people to believe it possible that it is
useful to re-learn what we have learnt at elementary school about
arithmetic. The dès-illusionnement appears to be comparable to that
experienced by our forefathers learning that the Earth is round or that
evolution means that we are sharing genetics with apes. The paradigm
changes come after circumstances have changed, and in this case, they have:
computers allow us to look at numbers in bulk, until we find patterns. This
method was not accessible to researchers of previous generations.



 Be as it may, the fact is, that to understand a process, we need to be
able to model it by using numbers. This is where scientific, serious,
industrial accounting comes into play. This discipline has to agree both to
the laws of logic and arithmetic, and also be useful and focusable on
specific tasks. There is no nonsense in accounting: if the sequence is a
different one, there has to be an identifiable conglomerate of non-linear
consequences that are re-traceable to the change in the sequence. This task
has now been solved, in such a fashion that the results and the mechanism
is communicable and understandable. One wonders about Mendel, whose rules
of genetics he himself knew and understood way before his death, which
preceded by 17 years the general acknowledgement that he indeed has had
outlined and explained Mendel’s laws.



 There will be a FIS symposium in Vienna, the city I live in, next year.
Please let me organize a sub-workshop on Modeling Genetic Information
Transfer By Using Extensions To Arithmetic. Maybe, no one will turn up, but
then not much is lost.



 In www.oeis.org there are two sequences registered that define the central
concepts quite well (A235647, A242615). There is an article in ITHEA
*http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol21/ijita-fv21.htm
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol21/ijita-fv21.htm* called Essay on Order.
The accounting mechanism is outlined in *www.tautomat.com
http://www.tautomat.com/*. There, one will also find the contributions to
FIS of last year, called Learn to Count in Twelve Easy Steps.



 Showing the nuts and bolts of how the translation linear-spatial-linear
actually works is not a sexy subject. Accountants, watch-makers,
hair-splitters and sudoku-lovers may find it hilarious, albeit maybe a bit
risqué. There are some unusual approaches to additions presented there,
many taboos are broken, and many hearts will be broken, but absolutely no
laws of logic or data processing.



 But then, again, this is what pure research does for a living. If number
theorists could not deliver a good punch every once a while, the profession
would have died out. Let me hope that the commercial and application guys
are willing to shop. There is, indeed, something on offer coming from pure
science, from basic research into the formal properties of logical
sentences. The invention is extremely practical, and – once one has
familiarized the usage of the amount-place accounting assignment mechanism
– not more complicated than trigonometry, e.g. Its usage includes
information packaging and decompressing, as many ways of en- and decryption
as there can exist natural languages, and lots of exact definitions for

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 577, Issue 10; Joseph Reply to Jerry

[Karl Javorszky]

Individuality
The abstract and the concrete fight, because the abstract cannot presently
picture the concrete flexibly and exactly enough.
Connecting to the main thema of this session, individuality can be used to
clarify the tension. A person, belonging to many subgroups in his universe,
is not easy to model in the present understanding of logic, as units and
elements there are conceptually alike. Logic needs a more sophisticated
approach to the idea of distinguishing between One as one-of-many and One
with specific group attributes. The group attributes are axiomatic in
nature, in abstract life we are at the beginning of handling them.

Jerry is right, there is definitely a way of describing nature in an
abstract fashion. The tension comes from trying to do it in a more elegant
fashion. The effort is making the logical language more sensitive to rules
we add to its codified grammar. We wish it to become more nuanced.

One of the added rules may do some hair splitting on commutativity. The
individuality of the logical elements is a value in itself, and leads one
to questions like how many individuality makes one separate individual,
and is this an additional, second one?

This forum is, helas, where people with the most diverse backgrounds try to
figure out how to think about what we experience and how to speak about
what we think. Formalizing and codifying the result will be a second step:
first we draw up a wish list of ideas and concepts which need words in the
abstract language. The tension is a motivation.
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] FIS News

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear FIS,

welcome new colleagues. Pedro has over the years built a scientific
community that is a pleasant and awakening environment for the
participants.

There has always been a tension between the empirical and the abstract in
FIS. The name of the setup is Foundations of Information Science. It is
not easy to speak about foundations in a concrete, specific way. The
fundament is the integral of all that are constructed based on these
fundamental insights and rules. One has to abstract from each of the
applications and find that what is common to all of them to speak about
fundamental truths that are valid in each of the particular ancounters with
reality, the applied research.

Basic science is necessarily abstract. There is a strong
mathematical-logical current also in FIS. The rules of speaking clearly in
a rational dialogue were set up and codified by Wittgenstein in his
Tractatus logico-philosophicus. To transmit an idea with clarity, one
should use such words that have a meaning commonly agreed on, and while
speaking obey the grammatical rules of the logical language. (By using this
technique for contrasting, we can recognise empty blah-blah, manipulative
advertisement, PR sermons etc., as these are grammatically correct but lack
the common agreement on the content. Then again, we can enjoy opera, drama
and maintain social empathy, if the common understanding is there, even
when formal correctness of a logical language is missing, like in
exclamations or laughter.)

By using natural numbers as tokens for words, and performing tricks on
them, we can discuss possible logical sentences. The grammar of the
sentences will be by all means correct, because we use simple rules like
{=,+,,}, but the common understanding is not present yet in the necessary
extent.

Understanding how societies, economies, the ecosystem, human thinking,
strategies of collaboration work: these are noble goals. On these fields,
we can conduct experiments, observe facts, enjoy empirics. Sadly, we cannot
communicate our findings among each other in the necessary clarity, because
we do not share a common language to discuss the phenomena in. Previously,
we had the concept of God (or gods or nature, etc.) as an active instance
that creates and manages order, the discovery of which is what we call
information. This generation is too much multicultural to agree on a
central cause that is the principle (G. Bruno: Of Cause, Principle and
Unity).

There is order in nature, societies, in human thinking, climate changes and
genetics. We can talk about the central order concept and find explanations
(other that God's work) for its realisations, but this talk will have to
be conducted in a fashion that merits the goals expressed in the name of
this group. It is too much complicated listening first to a sociologist
explaining that subgroups marginalise and/or radicalise and can or can not
integrate after x generations, and then, say, to a forestry professional
that fires have also a self-clearing function, and then a biologist talking
about prophase, metaphase and anaphase. They all talk about continuity,
form and order as expressed by diversity within the whole.

Let me maintain the hope that FIS is a place where translations into each
other's languages are welcome and encouraged.
Karl


2013/11/4 Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

  Dear FIS colleages,

 Some new people from the Xian conference have joined our list --welcome to
 all of them. Before coming back to the ongoing discussion, let me briefly
 refer to ongoing changes in FIS organization. The *scientific committee*will 
 be enlarged to incorporate new trends, a *steering
 committee* will be established to provide stable management, the
 *Secretariat* will be finally in working order, and the *fis web 
 pages*reformed. The compromise is to implement these changes during coming
 months. Information Science is definitely entering a new time, and at FIS
 we need a little bit more of organization if we want to keep playing our
 role of scientific mentorship, also including matters of research,
 publishing, conferences, summer school, etc. Another related news, quite
 recent one, refers to the creation of the *Chinese Chapter of 
 ISIS*organization (
 FIS). It will be integrated by the parties in Beijing, Wuhan, Xi'an, and
 other regions. At the time being it will be coordinated by Xueshan Yan and
 Liu Chang. It will be more amply disclosed during coming weeks.

 About the ongoing discussion, why an essentially empirical work is
 reinterpreted exclusively towards the most theoretical-abstract? It is not
 quite useful. There are very cool aspects of Raquel's work that would
 benefit of comments more having the feet on the ground. Then, from those
 further applied aspects we could connect with the abstract-theoretical, but
 with more fertility than now.  I am thinking particularly on Jared
 Diamond's work on the environmental and cultural conditions for the
 development of 

Re: [Fis] Praxotype

[Karl Javorszky]

Cointinuing Bob's discourse on language and words, the next step was done
by Wittgenstein, who said that as tokens, words can be represented by
numbers. This is a resurrecting of Pythagoras' statement, that Nature is
representable by natural numbers and their harmonies.
It is important to keep in mind that numbers have as many
interrelationships among each other as words - if not more. And, by the use
of computers, we can make their harmonies among each other visible to the
human. The inner poetry of words that is behind the words themselves, can
be found in the relations among the natural numbers.
Karl


2013/10/15 Bob Logan lo...@physics.utoronto.ca

 Thanks John for alerting us to the terms praxotype and cognotyppe. I have
 a simpler formula which I made use of in my book the Extended Mind: The
 Emergence of Language, the Human Mind and Culture. Words are simply
 concepts and hence thinking tools. Before verbal language hominids
 communicated by mimesis, i.e. hand signals, facial gestures, body language
 and prosody (non-verbal vocalization) like grunts. As the complexity of
 hominid existence increased mimesis did not have the requisite variety for
 everyday life. Conceptualization was needed. Verbal language emerged in
 which our words were our first concepts. The word water, for example, was a
 concept that united all our percepts of the water we drank, washed with,
 cooked with, fell as rain, or was found in rivers, lakes or the sea. With
 language the brain which before was a percept engine bifurcated into the
 human mind capable of conceptualization and hence planning and large scale
 coordination. Verbal language allowed us to deal with matters not
 immediately available in space and time. I claim that the emergence of
 verbal language represented three simultaneous bifurcations: from mimetic
 communication to verbal langauge; from the brain as a percept engine to the
 mind capable of conceptualization and from hominids to fully human Homo
 Sapiens.

 for more details visit

 http://www.academia.edu/783502/The_extended_mind_understanding_language_and_thought_in_terms_of_complexity_and_chaos_theory

 or


 http://www.academia.edu/783504/The_extended_mind_The_emergence_of_language_the_human_mind_and_culture

 cheers - Bob Logan

 On 2013-10-15, at 2:54 AM, John Collier wrote:

 This term might be useful in the context of the present discussion,
 especially in the contest of coordinated practice(s). Cognotype might also
 be useful. I think these might lead to a more fine-grained analysis of the
 more integrative sociotype.
 ** **

 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/09/27/words-are-thinking-tools-praxotype/
 
 ** **
 ___
 fis mailing list
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


 __

 Robert K. Logan
 Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
 Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
 http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
 www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan







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


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

Re: [Fis] [ITHEA ISS] Computer Science Open Educational Resources Portal

[Karl Javorszky]

 before anyone interacts with it.

 Before we observe the world, it is untouched in its original state. We
 change the world through interactions.

 Quantum mechanics and chaotic systems are good examples how observation
 causes changes.


 Physically, nuomenon exists and it is not without properties but with
 properties which we cannot know directly through our senses.

 We only imagine that the color we see is property of the world. It is the
 property of our interaction with the world.

 We found many ways around the problem of learning about properties of the
 world, not only via our senses but through extended cognition -

 instruments and theories. However we can never be sure how much more there
 is to uncover.


 By our increasingly more complex relationships with the nuomenon we
 capture completely new phenomena

 that without our interaction would newer be uncovered. We co-produce
 phenomena through the interaction with nuomenon.

 Physical nuomenon (unlike the concept of nuomenon) can be seen as an
 inexhaustible source of possible phenomena.

 What do you think?


 Best regards,

 Gordana




 From: Karl Javorszky karl.javors...@gmail.com
 Reply-To: karl.javors...@gmail.com karl.javors...@gmail.com
 Date: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:26 AM
 To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, Krassimir Kostadinov
 Markov i...@foibg.com, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za, Joseph
 Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
 gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se, Michel Petitjean 
 ptitj...@itodys.jussieu.fr, fis fis@listas.unizar.es, Gara Péter 
 g...@eik.bme.hu, Gyorgy Darvas darv...@iif.hu
 Subject: Re: [ITHEA ISS] Computer Science Open Educational Resources
 Portal

 Dear Colleagues,

 maybe there is a European institutoion, or a collection of European
 individuals, whoi can manage and cooperate in a projecdt of science? If
 not, the development of this approach to - among other concepts - dark
 matter, dark energy, unified field theory, genetic information transfer,
 atc. will be offered to those who have a tradition of seeing advantages in
 action.

 I'm prepared to contribute to a workshop on how to use tha accounting
 machine in Madrid.

 Hoping that there is a spirit of entrepreneurship also in Europe, I look
 forward your suggestions.

 Karl


 Letter to Darina (not yet sent)

 Dear Darina,

 Thank you for the informative link to your institution. I'd like to ask
 you a question re your resources and willingness to participate inb a
 development project.

 Your post has reached me as I am a member of ITHEA. Into ITHEA I got
 included by reason of being a founding member of FIS (Foundations of
 Information Science). This is a  chat room dedicating itself to - well -
 information science.

 There is a new algorithm that appears to be rather useful. (Being its
 inventor, I'm of course less than exactly impartial in judging its possible
 and potential uses.) The basic idea is combining the use of the logical
 operators {|=|} and {+} on the same data set. (This is the idea that got
 discouraged at Elementary School, as we were instructed to disregard the
 differences between additions as long as their result is the same.)

 There is a literature to this idea and also some tables, computer graphics
 and so on. The project is presently at the nerd-working-in-garage-level, as
 its novelty has prevented mainstream institutions from dedicating resources
 to it. (Some may also hint at human nature being such as it is, not really
 flexible in some respects.)

 Now the time appears to become ripe for actually contemplating something
 different to the methods used so far; a Conference titled Natural
 Information Technologies being called for end September in Madrid. My
 Essay was accepted for presentation at this Conference.

 Although I'd prefer to have as partners in development a European setup,
 for many reasons, there is no denying that entrepreneurship and
 open-mindedness is a more general strait in the US than in the EU.

 So, I'd like to make you the offer to participate in the development of
 the idea. I'll enclose the Essay; in there you will find a link to a series
 of e-lectures I had given to FIS last semester titled Learn to Count in
 Twelve Easy Steps, and the site where the data tables and  the amateurish
 graphics are accessible.

 I hope that the subject attracts your interest and you see a way for your
 institution to be engaged.

 Best regards:

 Karl Javorszky


 Am 29.08.2013 17:09 schrieb Dicheva, Darina diche...@wssu.edu:

 Dear Colleagues,

 We are happy to announce that the Computer Science Open Educational
 Resources Portal (CS OER Portal)  (http://iiscs.wssu.edu/drupal/csoer )
 is now open to the public. The Portal hosts a rich collection of links to
 open teaching/learning materials targeted specifically the area of Computer
 Science. It provides multiple ways for locating resources.  Users can
 filter the search results by CS categories, by material type, media format
 level

[Fis] FIS Information and the Eye of the Beholder

[Karl Javorszky]

As Krassimir has pointed out, the term information is inseparable from
the human utilising (communicating, sending/receiving/evaluating) the
information.
To say Information is that difference that makes a difference is like
saying Cookies are what produce an excellent sensation in the mouth  or
Music is what enchants by fascinating.
The anthropomorphic thinking is characteristic of the so-called
magical-mythical way of thinking that children learn at the age of about
4-5 years. No abstract entity can make or generate or produce
anything, least of all differences.
The differences are either there or not. They are definitely not made or
produced by a wizard or sorcerer or aliens or green mutant informators.
For someone who is too dumb, nothing ever makes a difference; for
hysterics, everything is incessantly over-the-top, incomparable, unique,
never-heard-of, significant, a signal of a conspiracy.
The proposal was made in Step 12 of Learn to Count in Twelve Easy Steps to
use the term information like the terms beauty, satisfaction,
desire etc. Being informed is a property of the spectator, not of the
spectaculum.
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Step Eleven of Twelve Easy Steps

[Karl Javorszky]

Step Eleven of* Learn to Count in Twelve Easy Steps*

What has happened previously (pls. see http://32o2m99e.utawebhost.at)

*Step Ten*

The circumstances under which Genetics can take place are regulated by
order rules that govern both places to [kinds of] amounts and [kinds of]
amounts to places. There being a three-way nonlinear relation between
[distinct] i. number of objects, ii. number of amounts-related logical
relations and iii. number of places-related logical relations, Nature makes
use of some accounting equivalences that allow translating order, place and
amount into each other.

*Step Eleven*

*Aesthetics of Nature*

The human nervous system processes neurological impulses according to a
hard-wired grammar of natural logic. Art succeeds in making us see, feel,
hear the aesthetics that govern our perception. The biologic order that
organizes our brain is the fundamental tautology on which our epistemology
is based. It is not easy to speak in a logical fashion about the
background, against which we observe that what appears to us rational,
rectangular, stable and predictable.

Looking at some of the strings - connecting additions that are iso-located
with respect to a reorder from alphabeta into gammadelta -, as lines
connecting points on a plane, one cannot escape a feeling of aesthetics. A
biologic curvature is made visible in the graphs, reminding one of small
appendixes containing the essence of the whole; the origin of the world,
according to Courbet; of helix-form relations. (Pls. see 11.g.1)

*Aha-effect* (pls. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_effect)

In Step One of these Twelve Easy Steps we have started off with the logical
sentence *a+b=c*. We had received, at the quite impressionable age of 6
years, the traditional wisdom that it is quite irrelevant, whether the two
summands, *a* and *b*, are distinct to each other, and if so, by how much.
We had been trained to concentrate on the composite, that results of
joining the two summands. We had learnt not to worry about the identity or
otherwise of the summands. By doing so, we had become trained to disregard
the properties of the *cuts* that we wish away while conducting an
addition. In *a+b=c* we see two kinds of cuts: i. those of unit type that
distinguish the units “1” in “1+1+..+1” that makes up the inside of a, b
and c; and ii. those of summand type that distinguish *a+b* from *c*. In *
a+b* we can imagine a cut after the end of the last unit in *a, *just
before the first unit of *b*: this is the cut we wish away and see not
being there - demoted into a unit-type cut - as we regard *c*, which is
1+1+...+1 with no summand-type cuts between the 1s. Reality teaches us that
things that one wishes away usually come back to haunt one, because wishing
things away creates an illusion which is deceptive. The moment of awakening
does come and that is the moment where some cry out *Aha!*

Following the fate of the summand-type cut,-  which is: *i*. present in a+b
and no more there in c; and *ii.* on a specific place between 1 and c-1,
wherefrom we had wished it away -, we see that both its existence and its
placement do have consequences which we had not calculated to be of any
relevance. Conducting the additions with the enhanced attention to details
spelled out in the Twelve Easy Steps, one will recognize that the cuts
which had traditionally been wished away, do influence our perceptions of
what is a cavalier attitude to rounding errors and what is rational. The
cuts specifically are delimiting between what can and what can not be the
case (“constraint”) and allow predicting what is where and when.

Specifically, the* history* of how things have become such as they are now,
is explainable by means of the sequence of the evolvement of order, that
is, the sequence of re-orderings. In dependence of which order had
prevailed previously, the elements that are in a tie with respect to the
current order, may or may not appear to be pre-ordered with respect to a
future order. (Pls. see Step 10)

*Self-Organization and Random Effects*

How naturally does a Natural Order evolve, just by itself? Reader is
invited to find his own opinion on this point, e.g. by generating random
permutations of 136 additions and calculating the deviation of the random
order to any and each of the 72 orders discussed here. There will always be
one of the 72 orders catalogued here that is the closest to the random
permutation. The  intuitive prediction is that the random permutation is
less deviating than an order that is maximally deviating to that one which
is most close to the random permutation. (That is: any random permutation
could go thru as a transient state between two of the 72 catalogued
orders.) This idea is supported by the findings of neurology, according to
which the human nervous system perceives patterns in multitudes,
independent of the patterns being there or not. Genetics being quite the
opposite to stochastics, we shall look now and in the 

[Fis] Step Seven

[Karl Javorszky]

Step Seven of *Essay On Order* (formerly: Learn to Count in *Twelve Easy
Steps*)

What has happened previously:

Step Six:

During a reordering, elements change place.  In most reorderings, the
procedure involves more than one or two elements; these stay resp. exchange
places directly. Usually, the mechanics of the reordering creates convoys
of 3 and more elements that have to move together.  The idea is that of a
chain or of goods in transit. This is the Zusammenhang as predicted by
Wittgenstein.

*Step Seven*

*Running Battle*

Whichever alphabeta we declare to be relevant – that is, to define what is
the case; to be included in the subscripts alfa,beta of sentences - , there
is a contrast-background to it, what is not the case.  Relative to one
specific sequencing of the elements, there will be 19 other sequencings
that are in deviation to this specific one, which is relevant in the
moment. The concept of an overall quasi-constant of system stability
describing the total amount of displacement resp. disallocation may be
helpful. In all cases of having selected a sorting order, an overall
coefficient of misplacement is calculable. There is a quite stable
proportion of what is the case to what is not the case.

*Political Solution*

The compromise solution between the requirements of alphabeta “On p1, a1
should stay” and of gammadelta “On p1, a2 should stay” (and of their pairs:
”a1’s place is p1” etc.) is accessible to the human brain by its ability to
look into the future and predict what will happen. Human culture is based
on our ability to learn: that is to have a memory and to have inner
pictures predicting what will happen. The cultural inventions of the past
and of the future are well established in our thinking. One may then point
to a piece of logic and say: this I call Future. There is a cultural
solution to dealing with contradicting claims regarding places and amounts:
a diplomatic compromise by pushing unresolved issues off into the future.
Maybe they will cease to be relevant; the conflict may somehow solve
itself, and anyway, maybe that kind of future [where this contradiction
will become critical for the stability of the system] will not happen at
all, so what worry.

*Multitude of Arrival Times*

The Table as it stands (in 4.num) is a frozen moment in time. The spectator
moves as he chooses any alphabeta and says: this is now relevant; it is
relative to this that I calculate the deviations; this is the case now.
Using the chains we can say in how many steps of how many strings the
reordering into gammadelta will be achieved.  The chains having differing
lengths, one has to ascribe the elements that already have arrived at their
correct destination a quietistic attitude, staying put; or assume that the
shorter chains run slower, maybe more often;  or one waits for the smallest
common product, e.g..

*Standardising*

During the transmission of the genetic information, Nature works by using
triplets-based units. It is the sequence of the triplets that translates a
one-dimensional realization of the order (the sequence of the triplets of
the DNA) into a 3 and more dimensional object (that is the living
organism). Table T contains variants of reorderings where the series of
place changes happen in three elements changing place (see 7.num).

The standard chain connects 3 amounts with 3 places within a standard
reorder; the standard reorder consists of 45 standard chains, the remaining
logical statement is *6+11=17, *this being the, unique, central element,
also the average of every standard chain.

*Grammatical Rules*

We expand the scope of the investigations of the Tractatus by allowing
sentences of the form “*Z* can be the case” and “*Y* will be the case” to
be valid. We propose to call that place of a standard chain which is
closest to the central element its x-corner, the second closest to be
called the y-corner and the farthest the z-corner of a triangle drawn on a
plane of which the axes are S_alfabeta and S_gammadelta, the prefix S_
meaning that the orders come from among the standard reorders.

In other words: we allow for the past and the future to be in such a way
connected with the present within the moment as are the places among the
elements of a standard chain connected. We know what can be the case
because we have encountered it before – or have imagined it up by using
rules that have been proven to be valid rules of grammar, that is, relying
on experience. Of that what can be the case we do not know whether it will
be the case again; presently, we know it to be different to that what will
be the case. Common to the past and the future is that they are not the
case; they are distinct by our ability to describe the difference between
what we are sure about and what we know.

The grammar of the logical language thus allows compromises among
statements relating to where is what. Against the gain of flexibility stand
some local costs within the tautology of the language: roughly 

Re: [Fis] FW: The Information Flow

[Karl Javorszky]

Step Two of *Learn to Count in Twelve Easy Steps*

*What happened previously:*

Step 1.:

We have introduced additional describing aspects of the logical sentence
a+b=c. Next to a,b,c, we also make use of u=b-a, k=b-2a, t=2b-3a, q=a-2b,
s=17-(a+b|c), w=2a-3b. For a graphical presentation, see:
http://32o2m99e.utawebhost.at/index.php?option=com_contentview=articleid=130:01engraphcatid=9:angollang=en

Discussion of Step 1:

Joe from Switzerland writes : [this approach]...  potentially quite
dangerous. Alfred Korzybski (*Science and *Society) had an easy theory of
the mind that a high-school student could learn, and it led to
scientology.

Answer:

Leaving the orthodox way can well end in sectarian extremism. The approach
of the Twelve Easy Steps is insofar subversive that it disobeys Teacher’s
instruction: “Thou shalt not look into (a1-b1)-(a2-b2) if a1+b1=c=a2+b2 and
a1#a2”. Where this might end is indeed unpredictable.

*Step 2:*

Today we introduce the set of additions we shall use. We generate the 136
smallest pairs of a,b and their aspects {a,b,c,k,u,t,q,s,w}.

Reason why:

We demonstrate properties of the individual before the background of the
multitude. To be able to do so, we need a multitude. This is the reason for
which we create the multitude.

Why not less:

We see that Nature uses two sets of information carriers that come both in
triplets of four units. Therefore, we need 4 basic units. We see that the
basis of counting is related to the expression 2*i**2, and this gives
2*4**2=32.

Why not more:

We shall introduce the terms “sequential” and “contemporary” in Step 6. We
shall see in Step 10 that congruence between sequenced and contemporaneous
states will become inexact above n=136.

Data set:

The data set we use can be downloaded from:
http://32o2m99e.utawebhost.at/index.php?option=com_atrendezview=table1lang=en

Remark: The column “Permutáció” (permutation) shows the sequence of the
arguments used at the creation of the table. Its necessity will be
discussed in Step 10. Presently: disregard.


2012/11/19 Robert Ulanowicz u...@umces.edu

 Quoting John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za:

 As I have tried to argue above, to avoid reductionism in reality as
 opposed to in logic and mathematics I think we need the additional
 condition of dissipation (what I call nonHamiltonian mechanics
 elsewhere -- the usual condition of conservation breaks down due to
 the loss of free energy to the system).

 John,

 Your point underscores my earlier one. Dissipation is emblematic of
 entropic processes -- which make ours an open world. There's no
 wishing that away!

 Bob

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

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

[Fis] THEORY AND SCIENCE - Msg from Bruno

[Karl Javorszky]

Bruno:
Theories needs theories do be interpreted, except that we must start from
simple agreements, on elementary arithmetic for example, to exploit that
direction.
End Bruno Begin Karl
Also, we need an agreement what to concentrate on while the communication
is made. We have agreed to use elementary arithmetic as carriers of
meaning, because everyone understands these. What we keep in our abstract
hands is now clear. Now comes the dynamic part: we sort them and resort
them and watch how these move.
If we had some entrepreneurs here, we could have a nice graphic drawn: like
camels building a caravane, the convoys moving together. I would like to
know how many of the FIS work in environments, where logistics and
housekeeping is of importance, like a warehouse manager or a HR
professional. In the business life, people do have experience and practice
with flows of mass thru spatially and temporally fixed points.
The unit of {change | transfer | dynamism} that can be stipulated over
systems of logistics overall can now be discussed in an abstract fashion,
where every word has a clear meaning. The concept of goods in transit can
be introduced by the sorting-resorting method.
There is indeed much darkness in the cave. Maybe some incendiary comments
could set a sparkling discussion and illuminate a torch in light of which
we see the entertaintment on long evenings among the dwellers: let us think
up some moving objects and move them.
End Karl
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Karl Javorszky]

Hi All,

the talk here going about a possible curriculum, I have assembled one. This
is of course only an outline but should give a realistic idea about the
half-steps needed to grasp what we understand under information. I'd look
forward working on this project. Asking for your kind tolerance, I present
the:

Curriculum (15 hrs) Additions

Requirements: able to program and manage data sets

Aim: understand ordering, reordering, spatial structures, consequences
(implications)


 Part I.: Tabulating

   1.

   We use a collection of additions: We use {1+1..16+16}, a≤b; Why 136
   2.

   Sorting and sequencing: (The meaning of the term ‘sequence’ in the
   sentence ‘The DNA is a sequence’); assignment of i (1≤i≤136); creating
   linear distances; partitioning 136; homogenizing sub-intervals; kinds of
   cuts
   3.

   Resorting from SQab into SQba and back: Terms place-space (a
seq.no1..136 is a place in a 1-dim space); place changes; moving
together
   (example in classroom, games); properties of chains (1,1 stays, 1,2 stays,
   1,3 travels: 18 steps); Table (=data set) T (T_άβ_γδ_i_j_placeάβ_placeγδ,
   where άβ from, γδ to, i-th chain, j-th step, this example T_ab_ba_3_1 3 4)
   4.

   Creating a plane by rectangular axes: example SQab, SQba as axes. Follow
   movement. Discuss terms string, loop, convoy, melody, tact, beat
   5.

   Additional aspects of a+b=c: central: u=b-a; two shadows: b-2a, a-2b;
   create 2b-3a, 2a-3b; (mention costs of commutativity), just for fun
   s=17-{a+b|c}
   6.

   Sorting on aspects a thru w: presently in this sequence, later play with
   changing sequence of first-level arguments; generate 72 SQs, assemble Table
   1 (81 cols, 136 rows)
   7.

   Identical sequences and clans: of a clan, the first we encounter is the
   chief, the others use his name as alias but give weight; Vector V:
   if(SQάβ=SQγδ, .t., .f.); if(V[άβ,γδ], member of a clan, reorder); fill up
   Table T
   8.

   Overview of resorts: Table S, S_άβ_γδ_i_J, where άβ from, γδ to, i-th
   chain, J no of steps, this example T_ab_ba_3_1 3 18); carry_a (=Σa); goods
   in transit
   9.

   Standard resorts: Properties; (6+11=17 as the quintessential magical
   incantation); names; weights (clans); three-somes
   10.

   Building space: Rectangular axes; planes;
   11.

   The concept of a point in space: two exact subspaces; one rough estimate
   of a space; (the loss of an accounting property); units of three-somes;
   Representation as a triangle, center of triangle: mass point in space;
   rotating the axes; volume included, spherical or rectangular
   representation; goods transited thru this segment
   12.

   Connection to other points: isolator and conductor (if(.exist.Δγδ
   (triangle) in chains connecting each of 3 points of Δάβ), conductor,
   isolator); not each of 3 points connected: too near .or. too far;
   telekratic effects

Part II.: Sequencing

   1.

   Permutating first-level arguments a…w: cause and effect within an
   interdependence; implicated orders; ties
   2.

   The idea of time: basic to sequencing, predecessor, successor;
   demonstrating effects of sequence changes; linguistics as mediator (Table
   V, number of .t., sequence of comparisons)

Part III. Giving names

   1.

   Mass, space, density, electric-magnetic, gravity, temperature, chemical
   valence: always check with established authorities before assigning a name

- end curriculum --

2011/12/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be

 Hi John, Hi Fis-people


 On 11 Dec 2011, at 13:49, john.holg...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

 Thanks Walter,

 A useful snapshot of PC (Philosophy of Computing). It reminds me that the
 origin of the word 'computing'   is com-putare = to consider together,
 suppose together, imagine together. This is surely what Steve Jobs was all
 about. To reduce computation to algorithmic calculation or even Turing
 machines is as restrictive as limiting information to data and documents,
 messages and codes. After thirty years of phronesis wrestling with data
 documents and computers it would be nice to know what computation and
 information mean.


 It might be restrictive at the epistemological level, but not necessarily
 at the ontological level. All mathematical notions, like infinities, sets,
 provability, definability, etc. can be diagonalized again. They cannot have
 a universal representation. But computability and computations are immune
 to diagonalization. This makes it the concept the most explanatively closed
 we have ever found. I think. This gives a conceptual deep argument in favor
 of Church thesis, and it leads also to the notion of universal machines.

 Those machines can not only compute the same class of all (partial or
 total) computable functions, but can all simulate each other, computing
 those functions in all possible different ways.
 Actually, an interesting and vast class of universal machines (those who
 knows, in some technical sense, that they are 

Re: [Fis] The State of the Art - Discussion of Information Science Education

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear FIS,



Let me systematise the requirements and conditions raised so far and then
discuss a proposal:



Recapitulation:

(maybe there will be a possibility to attach attachments to the postings.
The following should be an attachment, where I recapitulate the points
previous speakers have raised):



Now, the question is whether we are ready to come out with a syllabus for
such a course acceptable for all of us, those who are involved in the
subject, and those who aren't, but participate in the development of
curricula. Can we overcome differences between our views on the definition
of information, on the relationship of information understood in a general
way to its particular manifestations in other disciplines? Since the course
(or courses) should present an identity of the discipline of Information
Science, it is very important that we are convinced about the authentic
existence of a large enough common ground. Can we develop a map of this
territory? Can we pool resources to establish foundations for a standard,
Information Science curriculum?

(Marcin and Gordana)



Many universities have special schools for library and information science
(LIS).This is different from our discussions at this list about
information theory. Nevertheless, there is a problem with reinventing a
wheel

(Loet)



Thus, the objective should not be a common, monolithic paradigm that
everyone will accept, but commitment to a reasoned, fallible process of
selection and commitment, with the goal of enabling something new to emerge.

(Joseph)



What needs to be applied across all disciplines is Applied Category theory.

(Gavin)



What we have to do is to agree that:

1. The variety is not bad but very stimulating for reasoning, and

2. Independence is absolutely needed for growing our knowledge and
developing the science.

(Krassimir)



If we (FIS = Foundations of Information Science) are something different
from what is called “Information Science” and funded, supported by
40journals etc. we must be able to show definitely the distinction and why
this is important.

(Gordana)

End recapitulation.



Proposal:

Build Information Science (as understood in FIS) from scratch.



Negative Arguments:

· Such has never been done before, we would be outsiders, aside the
mainstream;

· No one has allowed us to do so;

· We do not know how to think and act independently;

· Will it be worth the effort;

· The strict thinking behind accounting is not my taste;

· I do not look for work, I look for fame and importance and
influence.

Positive Arguments:

· I seem to be open-minded, seeing that I am a part of an
open-minded discussion forum;

· I am quite capable of understanding the discussion here, so the
stuff is communicable;

· The audacity of the very thought is somehow fascinating;

· There is a point behind saying that 2+4 is not quite exactly 1+5;

· This FIS goes all about breaking taboos;

· Here we have something easily communicable;

· I could try to say to a friend “We work on a new understanding of
additions and what that all implies. Did you know that additions were
invented very long ago and since then never ever changed?” and see what he
says;

· I could explain that it needs computers to figure out the
accounting behind what distinguishes 3+4 to 2+5, this is why it has not
been done yet by Gauss or Euler or Shannon;

· I could say that I was a part of the group that translated pure
and abstract logic (some deep voodoos of accounting and number theory
together with epistemology) into workday concepts of Physics and Chemistry,
and of course, Psychology.



Next Step

Let us do the test of checking the intended audience for this FIS
production. Whatever we call it, if we do generate (create, dream up,
catalogise, package, edit, etc.) something worth to be taught, then it
needs an audience. Towards whom do we want to direct our efforts of coming
up with something new?

Let us do a field test and see, what the intended (targeted) audience says.
We come up with a good idea and translate it into widgets for the applied
people. (Relative to a number theorist, everyone is an applied one, but
theologians maybe.)



We could call this e.g. Reorder Theory, Rend Theory, Disciplined Thinking
Course, Finding Names For Facts Course or anything glitzy and fizzy.



Looking forward:

Karl
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Astronomers and breakthroughs

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Friends,

these last months my role in the group dynamics in Fis has been a
destructive one. Ever so often, my contribution had an irritating effect,
as the idea has been proposed that the current discussion is in itself
useless, because the underlying concepts are inexact, due to a coarse
rounding we do in connection with the additions. This is a message that
needs selling.

Let me try to sell the idea of a sea change by telling a tale about the
Sumerians. (Excuses to the Chinese and Indians who have learnt it
otherwise.) Those Sumerians have invented science and rationalism by
observing the heavenly bodies and invented the calendar, that is: the
counting of time. Imagine being a Sumerian and trying to figure out the
movements of the planets and tabulate them. It must have been a heroic task
of several generations, writing up and comparing and hunting for patterns.
Every sane man at that time knew that the firmament is punctured by holes
behind which the Creator's light shone.

We have a similar attitude towards the numbering system today, too. We can
gain immensely from the idea that the numbers (and their pairs, the
additions) are not on a fixed place in the firmament but move around. They
do have movement patterns and follow rules while they move. There is a
general, logical, abstract movement connected to the abstract idea of
additions. Additions are not stable, they move in groups of three.

There is a nice, clear and evident logical fact worth mentioning. Nature
uses plain common sense and maintains - among other of Her marvels - an
Euclid space of which the axes are: x: the sum of a,b; y: the double of one
relative to the other (that is b-2a); z: the double of the other relative
to the first (that is: a-2b). This is a rather working-day approach to
space: the two together and the two doubles give a rough idea about how a
is relative to b, and this across sizes. Now the trick is that three of
these additions together generate a unit of mass, so that what remains is
the place of the three-some in a three-dimensional space. So, every
addition - in union with two others - is concurrently a place in a
perfectly rectangular space with axes: a+b, b-2a, a-2a.

Now this is something the old Sumerians would have thought useful; and they
would have found it, too, if only they had the computers.

Karl
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

[karl javorszky]

On Form Conveyed By Data

Among the terms in the question form conveyed by data the term data is
the least ambiguous.
We will doubtlessly agree that 1,2,3,... are data

Whether a sequence 123456...16 is in a different form to a sequence e.g.
42315...11 is a subject of semantics.

We know that children order things according to their size on a request now
please bring this in a nice form. So it seems that the term form may be
applied to an ordered sequence as opposed to an un-ordered sequence. The
former will be experienced by average humans to be in a right form while
the latter will be described as not in the right 'way' as an answer to the
question please tell me, which of these heaps is in a proper form.

The case will become more logical if we consider the multitude of ways a
collection can be ordered according to several aspects.

I would say that the Addition Table is a good example to support the answer
- which I give to the question can form be conveyed by data (in the context
of information transmission)?: Yes, form can be conveyed by data.
Distinct orders are in distinct forms. The distinctions are recognisable and
communicable, therefore interpersonal (=objective).

Karl




2011/10/6 Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net

 **Ø  **There are two ways we can use the idea in-form.

 

 Yes, this is the other notion of information. Shannon-type information does
 not “inform”, but is counter-intuitively defined as uncertainty (or
 probabilistic entropy) and measured, for example, in bits of information. It
 is based on probability distributions.

 Bateson (1973) and many others did define information as “a difference
 which makes a difference”. Probability distributions contain only
 differences. If these first-order differences make a difference in a second
 dimension then a system of reference is assumed for which the first-order
 difference may make a difference. This system of reference may then discard
 some incoming information as noise and provide meaning to other information.
 Perhaps, it is useful to call this meaningful information (or observed
 information) as different from the expected information (or uncertainty) in
 the case of Shannon-type information.

 The system of reference does not have to be “an observer” as is often
 presumed in the cybernetic tradition; it can also be discourse. Does this
 contribution make a difference for the discourse? The two notions of
 information are to be kept apart because otherwise the discussion becomes
 confused.

 Best wishes,
 Loet 


 (a) A cannon ball can inform a wall - the energy and the signal are
 both delivered by the ball. Similarly an artist can in-form clay to create a
 work of art. In this case the recipient (wall, clay) is passive.

 (b) A relatively weak signal, say one broadcast by a radio station can
 inform a radio.  The radio uses the form of the signal to modulate energy
 that comes from a different source - it selects the signal from many others
 (by tuning) and amplifies it using energy it gets from batteries or the
 grid.

 I think that (b) is how the term is used in a modern context while (a) is
 more historical.

 It is in the context of (b) that I pose the question about information
 being the form conveyed by data. In (b) the recipient plays an active role
 to select a particular signal which then modulates or informs some internal
 activity.  We can think of human perception in this way - we detect and
 select signals and use them to create models of our environment.

 This (b) model can be used to describe a range of activity from Shannon
 type communication to biological (DNA) activity, but I am not sure it can be
 applied to chemical activity.

 To my un-informed way of thinking chemical interaction is more like (a) -
 a passive response - rather than a selective active response as in (b).

 Dick Stoute

 On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Gyorgy Darvas darv...@iif.hu wrote:

 The question can be put even so:

 Is there information only when the recipient is (or it is perceived) by a
 conscious human being?  (in a weaker form: by a sensitive, brain-equipped
 animal?)
 or
 Can we speak about information between inanimate objects as well? (e.g.,
 when a valence electron of an atom feels the electric field of the
 electron-shell of a nearby other atom.)
 Depending on the answers on the above questions, then we can ask, whether
 can we speak about information on there is a valence electron, when there
 is no other atom at Coulomb-range to which this data were conveyed?
 In general: is information a subjective category, or independent of whether
 it was perceived by somebody/something?

 (Further, see my paper in Information FIS-Beijing issue, this summer.)

 Regards,
 Gyuri


 At 12:08 2011.10.04.ÿ, you wrote:

 

 Dear Dick,
 Replying to the following two questions may help:
 (1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ?
 (2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there 

Re: [Fis] Chemical information: a field of fuzzy contours ?

[karl javorszky]

Dear Colleagues,

taking the risk of repeating an idea that has been advanced here in FIS a
number of times, I'd like to offer answers to Michhel's questions:

Michel:  Now, I ask you the following: please can you provide an extremely
simple example (the most simple you could imagine) of situation in
which you can say:  in this situation, information is ... .
Answer: Let me present a numerical table based on a+b=c, consisting of 136
additions (between 1+1=2 and 16+16=32) which is evaluated on 9 aspects of
the additions (namely: a,b,a+b, 2b-a, b-a, 3b-2a, 2a-b, 17-(a+b), 3a-2b) and
ordered on two of these aspects (therefore existing in 72 distinguishable
collections of sequences of distances). This table gives rise to two
concepts of Euclid spaces (consisting of 3 rectangular axes each) and two
planes (with 2 rectangular axes each).
The term information can then be used - as Michel asked for - in a deictic
fashion by pointing to a collection of spatial points in both Euclid spaces
and saying  in this situation, information is:  whether we consider
relevant the connection of these spatial point-collections with  this 
or  that  collection of different spatial points which are connected to
the presently pointed-at collection odf spatial points by either  this 
or  that  re-orderings of the collection. while one points at two
different ways of re-ordering the collection among the 72 ways of
re-ordering the collection, and calling one of them  this  and the other
 that .

It helps if you, dear Colleague, construct the above-mentioned table. Then
it is irrefutalby clear that the meaning of the term information is indeed
contained in the underlying rules that construct a+b=c as a logical
procedure. The only innovation is that one does not ignore the differeneces
between a1+b1=c vs. a2+b2=c (a1 # a2) as one was instructed at Elemenary
School to do.

Michel: 3. The comparison Pedro did with symmetry is of interest: can
anyone
define symmetry ?
Answer: Using the table constructed above, one may point to the two Euclid
spaces and say: The two spaces are  symmetrical  and the term 
symmetrical  is defined by the following: a. the two spaces are
interconnected by a point/plane which we call symmetry centre/axe and each
collection of (a1,b1; a2,b2; a3,b3) which finds a spatial representation in
both of the Euclid spaces is in a symmetrical  relation.

Here, again, it helps if one constructs the above-mentioned table in
visualising that a symmetry exists.

I hope that these suggestions are both clear and understandable. It is,
however, necessary to construct the table to be able to use the definitions.
(Like one cannot explain the definition of sin(x) without having understood
the construction of a trigonometric table).

Karl


2011/9/23 Michel Petitjean petitjean.chi...@gmail.com

 Dear FISers,

 Pedro raises several points.
 Among them:

 1. Chemoinformatics or Cheminformatics ?
 Both terms are encountered. I would say that unless some authority
 takes a decision, both terms will continue to be used.

 2. Despite I gave an example of what could be cheminformation in a
 concrete case, I did not tell what was exactly cheminformation in this
 concrete case. I just asked the question of what it could be.
 Now, I ask you the following: please can you provide an extremely
 simple example (the most simple you could imagine) of situation in
 which you can say:  in this situation, information is ... .
 Chemical information is welcome, but an example from physics would be
 great, too. However, please, no biology example, that will be dicussed
 at the occasion of a future session.
 These examples are expected to help us to define information in more
 general situations.

 3. The comparison Pedro did with symmetry is of interest: can anyone
 define symmetry ?
 During a long time, symmetry had in common with information that many
 people attempted to define it in its own field, giving raise to many
 particular definitions, but not to a common and widely accepted one.
 Some years ago, although I needed to mention a definition of symmetry
 in one of my papers, I was surprised that I could not find an unifying
 one (symmetry is known since millenaries!!). Even in the book of Weyl
 I did not find the expected one.
 So, I decided to build my own one (Symmetry: Culture and Science,
 2007, 18[2-3], 99-119; free reprint at
 http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.paper.SCS.2007). See also:
 http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
 In fact, the group structure which is generally a priori imposed, is a
 consequence of several properties that the definition should satisfy
 to be in agreement with some obvious intuitive requirements (and so,
 five different groups appear naturally, none of them being imposed a
 priori). Of course, the proposed unifying definition applies to a
 broad spectrum of situations, not only the geometric one: matrices,
 functions, distributions, graphs, etc.
 But that was possible because I already had 

Re: [Fis] end of session

[karl javorszky]

Dear All,

please let me contribute to the summary of this session. Of the
multi-faceted work we have done, I'd like to touch but two points: a.
applicability and code, b. time.

To have a businessman in our group is a blessing. We are reminded that
science is not only a pastime but should bring some profit, too. The
hypothesis we have accepted (I do not dare to write: the result we have
agreed on) is that there was a deep logical flaw in our rational thinking
these last centuries. We have culturally accepted a rounding error in our
calculations by concentrating on one - rather debatable - definition, namely
that a1+b1=c=a2+b2 with a1#a2. This has turned out to be the result of a
wishful thinking. Our ancestors have not been able to look deeper into the
consequences of this rounding error. Our generation has had access to
computing devices which have allowed shifting through wast amounts of data
until some numerical facts could be found that allow a much exacter modeling
of Nature than the classical way of reckoning has so far made possible.

The basic tool one uses - in its easiest and lightest, primitive version -,
is a Table with 136 rows and 72x71 columns and 9 planes. The actual
complexity is in fact a bit more demanding. Yet, this Table appears to give
a good model for quite many applications relating to order, information,
movement, places, mass, velocity, alternatives, potentials (energy) and many
more concepts one is happy to have found a rational explanation (definition)
for.

The Table will at first be studied in C++  or Matlab varieties. After its
usefulness will have been recognised, it will be doubtlessly integrated in
chips (prominently, on both ends of a communication channel), therefore
written in machine code, if not hardwired.
The practical uses of the Table cannot now be enumerated. Focused hearing,
pattern recognition and cryptography will be the most evident beneficiaries.


As the concept behind the Table deals only with a+b=c, the concept will be
useful in every field where formal logic contributes. The relationship
between place and mass is of a high importance both in Physics and in
Chemistry. The quality property of assemblies of mass in (relatively) fixed
places is what Chemistry in the sense of Biochemy and - later - Genetics
deals with. So, the businessman in our midst may look forward to fruitful
results of the translation of basic science into applications.

Natural numbers and operations with them cannot be patented. Their
applications can. This group may have made progress beyond the most
optimistic estimations - if the group can and will act responsibly. Now, it
is the turn of the businessmen to be active. The proposition is out in the
open.

To the discussion on what we call colloquially time. There can be at least
three different readings found if one understands the concepts behind a+b=c.
First, there is the length of a convoy. This is a local, closed loop of
time. Second, there is time as the differentiating semantic marker between
cause and effect. This  can be read off the Table by means of the ties. If
the ties are ordered, there must have been a before. Third, there is the
global reading of time. This is visible on differentiations of a+b=c as a
temporal-spatial process. One unified reading being logically impossible
(there cannot be concurrently contradicting readings of priorities of
orders), there evolve subsegments in space in which each a different version
of the local times exist. As not all possible reorders can take place
concurrently, there will be sub-alternatives, in each of which those
reorders can take place which would be elsewhere contradictory.

Thank you for the collaboration and the high level of discussions in this
session.
Karl

2011/5/27 Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

 Dear FIS colleagues,

 The ongoing session on  information theory  (information: mystery
 solving) will be closed soon. At his convenience, Mark Burging will
 send the usual Colophon with his impressions and some synthesis.

 These are pretty complicate weeks for teaching and research, so some
 pause in the discussions will be appreciated by many. In any case, the
 list is always open to tangential discussions and spontaneous new
 themes. Personally I would like to contribute next week to the ongoing
 exchanges on information and the nature of time --from the point of view
 of neurosciences, am affraid conventional time is quite untenable (as
 well as the personal sense of!)

 best wishes

 ---Pedro

 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -

 ___
 fis mailing list
 

Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering Principles

[karl javorszky]

Dear All,



the contrasting views between Loet’s understanding of order as an
implication of information and of the alternative which deducts information
from order are in no real opposition. Rather they reflect differing
perspectives, like the tradition of e.g. measuring a room from a middle
point outwards or from the corners inwards: this is an opportunity for
taxonomy and codification.



The numbers are fountains of possible compromises, as a closed system, of
which all alternatives are known, can easily be modelled by a collection of
logical statements.



Let me digress a bit about numbers: these are logical signs that can
represent anything. In the sentence-logic or order-logic that we try to read
out of them, they could be represented by ☺, ☼, ◊, ♣, etc. As long as they
obey the rule e.g. of  ☼ + ◊ = ♣, and there is a sufficient number of them,
an order evolves. Now, what an order specifically is, that is the deepest
question of philosophy. This is why it is so helpful to use the index finger
and say: “this is a deictic definition of order” while one points the finger
to a sorted table. (Augustinus: Confessiones)



If the symbols are ordered and re-ordered, specific migration patterns
evolve. Some construct two spaces of three rectangular axes each. Loet said
the same in different words, by pointing out that some attributes give a
sort of fixation to a concept.



Usually, one uses the numbers for counting, that is, in their capacity as
natural numbers. Here, we can use them in their denominative capacity,
because even their ordinal capacity gets lost as they cease to impose the
“natural” order of natural numbers, namely 1,2,3,4,…



In its denominative capacity a+b=c can mean the same as ☼ + ◊ = ♣ or “horses
and tables have four feet”. Here comes the individuality within the group
(today’s slang for re and universalia), because on ☼ + ◊ = ♣ we recognise
that each ☼ of many ☼ is indistinguishable to the others and that we do not
know what the natural order between ☺, ☼, ◊, ♣ might be. So we do not know
the deviation of the members of a tie to the ideal-typical member of the
tie, and this means that information can and can not be present, in
dependence of the actual individuation of the members of the group. This is
what Loet and me agree on so far.



Loet and me have not yet compiled our concepts about fragments,
fragmentation and distinction, but I am very confident that he widens our
understanding on one hand and will be presenting an important – probably,
the most important – side of the coin.



What this person can contribute to the philosophical debate, is not much.
The accountant has produced a Table and uses it as a demonstrative tool for
concepts of order and reorder. A table of symbols has absolutely no meaning
at all, neither epistemological, nor transcendental, nor does it pretend any
exclusivity to order concepts.



One will certainly have difficulties explaining that the secret of the
cosmic (ultra, mega, meta, ultimate, basic, etc.) order lies in the
combinatorial intricacies of how to express 67 by means of extents 32 or
otherwise. This appears to govern the metamorphoses in the Table between
“how many”, “what kind” and “where”. Whether one gains or loses faith on
recognising that another mystery is gone is an individual matter.  As a
culture, we have forgiven the meteorologists for ruining our concepts of
Thor rolling his hammer and substituting it with audible fragments of
discharges, which is much less juicy. So the metamorphosing tricks of Nature
may also be explained away with boring technicalities. The numbers
themselves make no revolutions, their interpretation does.


Karl

2011/3/28 Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net

 Dear Joe and colleagues,



 1. Does Loet's reply to Karl regarding frameworks for observation of actual
 states vs. frameworks for expectations imply that such frameworks are
 completely mutually exclusive?



 Of course, not: the expectations are informed by previous observations and
 further observations can change our expectations. More precisely:
 observational reports are needed to make the discourse (entertaining
 expectations) progressive.



 2. Regarding information (copying from Karl), the two views in summary
 are:



 By information, this approach means the deviation of the actual cases from
 the ideal-typical case, in which an order exists. (universalia sunt ante
 rem)

 The opposing view explains information by means of the axiomatic idea of
 order.



 I would prefer to use a plural for “ideas of order”: paradigms, theoretical
 frameworks, etc. As argued before, the “sunt” is problematic because this
 order does not “exist” (in the res extensa), but can be entertained (as
 cogitate in the res cogitans).



 The information content is then the deviation of the actual cases from the
 ideal-typical state, as Loet defines, and concurrently an implication of
 which order prevails, as the opposing view suggests.



 The information content 

Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam

[karl javorszky]

Dear James,

thank you for the widening of this discussion.

Order and Information

Let us not close this session on the historical perspective of the
modern concept of Science yet. Loet’s thoughtful remarks about the
relation between information and order bring us back to some deep
problems they were addressing in the Middle Ages.

The discussion about the relative importance of the universalia vs.
the re (also known as Occam’s) can be restated in today’s terms as
follows: is the idea behind the thing more useful as a description of
the world as the descriptions of the things themselves?

In Loet’s view, there exists a framework within which we can observe
how the actual states of the things are. Therefore, in this approach
there is no need for a separate concept of order; as each possible
alternative is a priori known, it is the information content that
gives a description of the world. By information, this approach means
the deviation of the actual cases from the ideal-typical case, in
which an order exists. (universalia sunt ante rem)

The opposing view explains information by means of the axiomatic idea
of order. The system is in the same fashion closed, and every possible
alternative is equally known a priori. The difference in viewpoints
lies in the focusing on the properties of the ideal-typical case vs.
the actual types of cases. (universalia sunt post rebus).

The numbers offer a nice satisfying explanation. As we order the
things, we encounter ties. (A sort on 136 additions will bring forth
cases which are indistinguishable with respect to one aspect.) The
members of a tie can represent the universalia. (“All additions where
a+b=12” is e.g. a universalium) The actual cases will – almost – each
deviate from the ideal-typical case.

The information content is then the deviation of the actual cases from
the ideal-typical state, as Loet defines, and concurrently an
implication of which order prevails, as the opposing view suggests. So
it is the same extent and collection which both see, but the names are
different as is different the approach of calculating it. A reorder
creates different ties, therefore a different information content.

The difference between the Middle Ages and today is, in my view, that
they had no possibility to face the idea that there is no ultimate
ordering principle behind the many obviously existing ordering
principles. Our generation has credible news about societies which are
ordered in a completely different fashion and yet are not struck down.
We have experienced too many ideal orders to believe that any such
exists.

Karl

2011/3/24, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es:

 Dear all,



 Thank you very much to Pedro for asking me to suggest a discussion for
 the list and to everyone else for indulging me.  As a historian, I have
 learnt that questions I naively thought were quite simple have turned
 out to be very complicated indeed.  The purpose of history, I think, is
 to explain the past.  It is not just a collection of facts (one damn
 thing after another) or even attempting to find out what really
 happened (although it does help if we can do this).  Historians want to
 ask why? and how? as well as what?



 Among historians of science, there are two camps.  The larger one
 examines science as a cultural artefact within a particular historical
 milieu.  It seeks to answer questions like why did people believe what
 they believed?, why did they practice science in the way they did?
 and what did they hope science could achieve?  Historians in this camp
 tend to be specialists in a particular area.  They want to see the world
 through the eyes of their historical agents.  Questions about whether a
 particular scientific theory is true or corresponds to objective reality
 are not very relevant.  What matters is the way people in the past saw
 things.  We need to understand them.



 A second, smaller camp of historians of science where I have pitched my
 own tent want to know what caused modern science.  They recognise the
 enormous utility of scientific discovery and seek to explain how mankind
 came by this wonderful tool.  In other words, they seek a theory of the
 historical origins of science.  For this camp, questions about truth are
 of paramount importance because we are trying to look back in time to
 find the beginnings of processes that ultimately lead to a particular
 end.  That end is a scientific practice that produces true theories, or
 at least theories that correspond to an objective reality.



 This quest for the origins of modern science is difficult, not to
 mention rather pointless, if you contest the claim that modern science
 can give rise to a true description of the objective world.  So, when I
 presented my claim that we should look in the Middle Ages for these
 origins, it seems I had ignored a number of prior questions.  Indeed,
 the whole concept of science as producing true information was rapidly
 thrown into question.



 I 

Re: [Fis] comments next session. Logic of Non-Distinctions

[karl javorszky]

Dear All,

Thanks to Pedro for his remarks about our collaboration which now
extends some 16 years. At that time, I was terminating a job as senior
systems analyst with the IAEA and took up again a question I was
addressing after doing my PhD in psychology and statistics. The
question was: “How is the transfer of information engineered the other
way around in genetics?”
The “to” direction (from the DNA into the organism) was well
understood. The DNA is a sequence and some biochemical mechanisms copy
its information content into something which is not a sequence. For
those in the data processing trade, contents are indexed either
sequentially or category-based. We have a data transfer from a
sequence into a category-based collection and – in the ovaries and
testes – from a non-sequenced collection into a sequence again.
Having counted the number of distinguishable logical states of a
collection, while it is sequenced, and again while it is commutative,
one finds on comparing the results that a very funny intertwined
relation exists. This is the main accounting trick Nature uses to copy
from and to between sequences and commutative collections. The
comparison of the two functions shows that if the cardinality of the
set is below 32 or above 97, there are more sequential states to the
collection than distinct logical states of the same collection if
treated as commutative; and of course the other way around, too. This
play with the real content of our concepts behind “how many”, “what
kind” and “where” allows Nature to shrink and expand at will.
The disagreement with Pedro is a long-standing one and relates to his
results of the evaluation of the number of logical states a
commutative set of n objects can be in. My proposition is that the
number of distinct logical states of a commutative set of n objects
agrees to the number of partitions of n raised to the power of the
logarithm of the number of partitions of n. No one has yet given a
proof that this is erroneous, nor have I heard of anyone saying his
opinion about the correct result. So I stand to my intertwined
functions and would of course prefer people saying that their results
disagree, and not that my results are a miscalculation. No problem
with the calculation. One may reject the idea that the copying must
allow for as big a disc space as the size of the data set one wants to
copy. We see in genetics copying happening to and fro, therefore there
must be a size allowing the process to take place, once in “to”, once
in “from” direction. There must be excess possibilities (disc space)
at least as many or more than the set contains, if the set copies from
the organism to the DNA and also if the set copies from the DNA to the
organism. Now a set that needs more (or less) disc space both ways of
copying in dependence of the size of the chunks transmitted does have
some funny characteristics. The basic flip Nature uses is that it
treats the assembly concurrently as a commutative set of twice 67
units and as a sequenced set of thrice 45 units, and this relates to
(has the consequences of) a reading of the assembly in a 12 based
sequence. The graphs showing this interrelation are available on the
web.
The discussion in 2011 is far advanced on these starting points.
Presently we deal with the machine-ready translation table of the main
trick in 2 or 3 dimensions. That the numbers (as dimensionless natural
numbers counting the number of distinct logical states) don’t match in
the 0th or 1st dimension has been already discussed (see above). Now
we unfold from the numbers themselves two planes and two Euclid spaces
(which can be merged into one accounting-wise, while losing the
accounting exactitude of either the place coordinates or the amount).
Unfolding from the planes the spaces and folding from the spaces the
planes is no big deal, because they are all logically the same.
Genetics boils down to a play of combinatorics on
{a,b,a+b,b-a,b-2a,2b-3a,a-2b,2a-3b}.
The jump in abstraction from sperm to sequence and woman to
commutative collection is maybe for some a step too far. Clarifying
the accounting procedures behind a sequence being logically equivalent
to a commutative collection (in quite many respects) and while the
logical equivalence is maintained (the organism lives) remaining
equivalent in both of its readings may help getting a solidly rational
view of the process. If it is rational, which we hope it is, it must
be suited by its intrinsic properties to a discussion originating in
a+b=c. The sad fact is that we humans do have to dig that deep in our
fundamental ideas about rationalism and causality until we arrive to
that point where we can notice that we took the wrong turn. This wrong
turn was the cavalier attitude towards the small details relating to
the subtle differences between 3+4 and 5+2. Once one uses the
contrast, the concept of additions gains a much wider scope of
applications and many processes can be brought into that which we can

Re: [Fis] Info Theory

[karl javorszky]

Limits of Glue

Joe:...that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived.

Yes of course. We know that Nature exists and has manifold properties.
(Thomas Aquinas).
We speak about our experiences with Nature. To make certain that we
understand each other clearly, we use words with progressive degrees
of formal meaning. The extreme of this is that we use the public
language, i.e. numbers, - where no person has (should have) subjective
connotations, and the denotations of the words are clear. The imagery
built up by this method has the shortcomings that it is a very
abstract, detached, idealised way of speaking about Nature. It has the
advantages that we each know that we mean the same as we say in this
model Nature is in a constant change as we refer to the fact that the
Euclid spaces which give mass a localisation are derived from the
concept that a reordering always takes place, no side of a logical
argument having any innate, intrinsic claim of being more true than
other aspects. It is a continuous reordering which brings forth the
convoys of objects moving together (“strings”) and one of the readings
yields coordinates in two perfectly rectangular spaces. So the basic
principle is that it moves, as Heraclit said it should.

What I say in normal, subjectively colored language is that space is
actually two spaces which are merged into each other. The fabric of
space is made up of the undecided logical (sub-)questions of the
relevance of aspects. If it is more descriptive of a+b=c that 2a-3b is
in such and such way more related to b-2a than to 2b-3a (just to
mention an example), then space either constricts or expands or the
strings going thru the truth points of this debate have to carry more
fillings or less. The stuff must be somewhere. The 4D space you ask
about is perfectly there, with strings attached, twice.

Yes, physiology is a science of accounting and maintaining very strict
limits. This is even more true of neurology. That we humans have funny
ideas is built into the mechanism and can be seen e.g. on wolves,
bears, apes as they play and chase imaginary prey (which is strictly
speaking a hallucination).

The translation sequenced-commutative is what we see in the DNA and in
the functions of the brain. The electrical discharges which we call
thoughts are sequenced and come from specific places, but are
otherwise uniform. The cells fire or fire not. They have two logical
states. This is the Shannon way of doing things. Then, interdependent
with this, we have multiform material which is displaced. The fluids
are only generally somewhere in the region, they can lose their place,
and quite importantly they are of several varieties. The anti-Shannon
idea is that there are more forms in Nature (which we can speak about
in a formalized fashion) than this one and not this one.

The model presented is not an explanation for everything and all. It
is a tool to play with. We have 16 kinds of building blocks in two
sets, black and white. We pair the blocks and order them. Then we
reorder them again. We then discuss which pair goes with which other
pairs together in a convoy. This appears at first sight very
complicated but is extremely logical.

The glue in question connecting and partly fusing concepts in our
brain and between sciences and societies and among particles and
galaxies is well pictured in the formal language by the strings that
show the (possibly irrelevant) spatial coordinates of the convoys. It
is not the accountant’s job to give names to amounts systematically
under way and partly misplaced. It is the scientists’ prerogative to
decide what they call a string, a field, a force, a molecule.
Accounting processes connect points in Euclid spaces with extents. We
present accounting transformation of “where” into “how much” and the
other way around.

The model will not yield useful results if the concepts are not clear
enough. So it can not be used to explain the revigorisation on
figuring out a solution, catching an idea nor the birth of supernovae
out of pressure of space, although something appears similar. The
present usefulness could be somewhere between chemistry and
physiology.


2011/1/23, Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nz:
 Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy
 and
 entropy production?
 or the the fabric behind these two concept?
 If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and
 formulae for this binding?

 It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations
 of
 information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce
 (Information Theory)
 Regards
 Gavin





 
 From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es;
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory


 Dear Karl,

 The assumption I would like to check that 

Re: [Fis] Future discussions

[karl javorszky]

On Information Theory - Interested in Contributing or Chairing the Session

Dear Pedro and Colleagues,

let me propose a session on Information Theory. We could

* define the order concept
* define information being a specific order being (not being) the case
* show ways of numerical assignments to different states (phases, extents)
of information
* discuss the material, spatial and energetical implications of information

On interest additional background themes would be
* overwiev of history of epistemology
* neurological distortions of a rational approach to epistemology (artefacts
of neurology).

The subject is well communicable.

Karl

2011/1/18 Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

 Dear FIS Colleagues,

 Thanks to Yixin for his Colophon. I was a nice way to close the past
 discussion session on Intelligence and Information and to reconnect
 with our mail exchanges in this New Year. As for the coming sessions,
 there are a few commitments and possibilities prepared.

 --Theme: Historical Foundations of Modern Science. It will be chaired by
 James Hannam, author of a very recent (and successful) book on the
 topic. I will send further info about the book and the planned session
 next days.  It is the first time we approach science and society, with
 the inherent relationship between different modes of knowledge, from an
 historical perspective --quite an experiment in our list! We would begin
 the session around 1st February.

 -- Theme: On Information Theory. Although different parties have been
 interested in a session on Axiomatics, Centrality, Applications, etc.,
 the session is not well defined yet. More concrete suggestions (and
 chairs or co-chairs) will be welcome. Given that a General Information
 Theory real conference will be organized by Krassimir within the ITHEA
 series this Summer (the announcement will be post soon) we could make
 sort of a preparatory discussion around middle of March or so.

 -- Theme: Foundations of Social Information Science. This discussion
 session has been proposed by the colleagues of the Beijing FIS Group,
 to be chaired by Xueshan et al. It would take place around Spring time.

 Suggestions on the above, or about further themes, will be appreciated;
 they can be posted directly into the list or sent off line to my own
 address... It will be nice sharing the discussions amongst our Info
 community for another year!

 all the best,

 ---Pedro

 --
 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -

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

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

Re: [Fis] Closing Comments? From Qiao T.Q.

[karl javorszky]

On Information

Please allow me to respectfully disagree with many of you. The term
'information' can well be defined by stringent logical-mathematical methods.
It will, however, need agreement on the calssification of the kinds of
information.

In preparation to an answer to the questions formulated by Pedro I prepared
a short summary. As this deals with the same concept, I'd like to include it
here.

On recognising the properties of matter and of the intellect itself.



This subject has been worked through by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa
Theologiae.

In today’s terminology, one may restate the following:

We recognize the patterns of our perceptions. These show that different
kinds of matter exist. The inner differences that we make among our
impressions depend on one hand on the properties of the matter “outside”, on
the other hand on the fineness of differentiation of one’s own intellect
“inside”. We deduct the outside world by means of our insight into the
patterns of our impressions.


Since Thomas the following has been added:

We have an instinctive and an intellectual set of rules of the brain. These
are interdependent. The intellectual set of rules can be codified and
results in formal logical sentences in formal logical languages. In this,
made-up, idealized world, every sentence is related to every other sentence
by means of made-up rules. A coherent system of thoughts is in itself
conclusive and well-explained, and may of course be near to, or far from
Reality, if Reality means that from what the system of idealized sentences
has been idealized away. The set of rules may in itself be beautiful and
elaborate, and this is completely disconnected to the question, whether
anyone obeys them. Within the set of rules, it can not be decided, whether
they have any outside consequences, therefore this question cannot be
discussed and one should keep his silence about it.


Recently, some have addressed the problem of inner contradictions within a
well-constructed closed logical system and have come up with the following:

The rules have been derived by observing something that happens regularly.
Therefore, there is something what is continuously irregular. Relative to
that background of perception we rejoice in recognizing that what is
invariably somehow, and are proud of predicting its next occurrence. The
next occurrence we distinguish re the place and the properties. We try to
understand the interplay between the place and the properties of the next
occurrence, because that is already a task exciting our intellectum, in the
sense of perceptive organs. The thing catches our attention by its
predictability. Therefore, there exists a background, less predictable, less
ordered, which we use to recognize the foreground before it. Now within a
closed logical system – like the human intellect is one – there cannot be
unregulated processes which one uses dependably, and be it that one uses
them as backgrounds. So there is a minor and a maior degree of order and the
perception uses the maior degree of order to perceive before the background
of the minor degree of order.

This concept has been demonstrated on our traditional and other ways of
dealing with the most simple logical statement there is, namely a+b=c. We
have at all times a presently relevant order in existence and can relate to
previous and future states of the world, and this before a multitude of
aspects which are presently irrelevant. The irrelevant aspects provide a
multitude of different orders which are by magnitudes more pervasive than
the order, and can therefore well be used as background.


Restating Thomas: the intellect knows that it is well-ordered. It can
deduct, and recognize by its shortcomings, that a higher, better, (in his
terms: divine) order exists. By today’s methods it is possible to relate
that what is the case to that what is not the case. The order prevailing in
the background is not a disorder but an order based on aspects that are
irrelevant. There are always many more irrelevant aspects to a logical
statement than relevant ones, so there is always a background before which
we can recognize the relevance of some aspects.


Information now can be understood to relate to the alternatives within the
maior order, and again as relating to the properties of the maior order
within (connected to, contrasted to) the minor order. This method allows
very well exact and usable definitions of information.

So, the vote is not unanimous. There are solid, step-by-step deictic methods
of definition for the term 'information' using a+b=c.

Karl

2010/12/21 Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

  An interesting message from Qiao Tian-qing

 Note: attachments are not much welcome by the host server of this list.
 --P.

  Mensaje original   Asunto: I agree with you  Fecha: Sat,
 18 Dec 2010 10:52:38 +0800  De: whhbs...@sina.com  Para:
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

 Dear Pedro

 You said:  ‘*Factually, information 

Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky

[karl javorszky]

On the difference between natural numbers and theories:

The tool offered for use is based on natural numbers. It is devoid of any
interpretations aside the interpretation relating to common axes that are
rectangular. It is pleasing that Stan sees many ways to use the
interdependence among natural numbers to be relevant and applicable in
thermodynamics.

The accountant is satisfied after having found an accounting trick Nature
appears to use. That this accounting trick is used all over the manifold
activities of Nature is what the accountant says. Stan's remarks show that
the model does have practical relevance.

The inventor of triangulation by means of trigonometry may have been
ridiculed that he does not know the geography of England, although he may
have implied that this table can be useful in mapping England.

Let me restate: the Table offered shows additional ways of dealing with
summands, aside the old method of joining them. Sorting and resorting brings
forth two Euclid spaces connected by two planes. The natural unit of
transaction is a triplet, which is a logical-numerical statement about the
spatial coordinates of fragmentational states.

It is a pleasure to learn that the idea appears applicable to Stan to deal
with thermodynamic terms of reference in reformulating the concept.

Karl


2010/12/3 Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu

 *Replying to Karl, who said:*


 one can use a stable model used by neurology and psychology to come closer
 to understanding how our brain works. This can help to formulate the
 thoughts Pedro mentioned being obscure.

 One pictures the brain as a quasi-meteorological model of an extended world
 containing among others swamp, savanna, arid zones. The dissipation of water
 above these regions causes clouds to form and storms to discharge the vapor
 within the clouds. The model observes the lightnings in the model and sets
 them as an allegory to thoughts (these being electrical discharges) as
 opposed to hormones (that are the fluids in the swamps). So there is an
 assumed independence between the rainfall, the humidity of the ground, cloud
 formation and lightnings. The real meteorologists would not agree with the
 simplification that the lightning is the central idea of a rainfall, but
 this is how the picture works (at present).

 Why I offer these idle thoughts from the biologic sciences to FIS is that
 it is now possible to make a model of these processes in an abstract,
 logical fashion. The colleaugues in Fis are scientists in the rational
 tradition and may find useful that a rational algorithm can be shown to
 allow simulating the little tricks Nature appears to use.

 Nature changes the form of the imbalance, once too many or too few
 lightnings, once too much or lacking water - relative to the other
 representation's stable state. There are TWO sets of reference. The
 deviation between the two sets of references is what Nature uses in its
 manifold activities.


   This model looks at the physical equivalences in two realms by
 modeling in thermodynamics.  Today in thermodynamics we have an advancing
 perspective known as the ‘Maximum Entropy Production Principle’ (MEPP) for
 relatively simple systems like weather, or Maximum Energy Dispersal
 Principle’ (MEDP) for complicated material systems like the brain.  In both
 cases the dynamics are controlled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which
 imposes that the available energy gradients will be dissipated in the least
 possible time, taking the easiest routes available.  This becomes very
 interesting in the brain, where the flow of depolarizations would then be
 predicted to be biased in the direction of more habitual ‘thoughts’.  I
 think that this prediction seems to be born out in our own experiences of
 the frequent return of our attention to various insistent thoughts.  I
 recommend that Karl inquire into MEPP.  For this purpose I paste in some
 references.


 STAN


 MEPP related publications:


 Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2009.  Economies evolve by energy dispersal.
  Entropy, 2009, 11: 606-633.


 Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010. Physical foundations of evolutionary
 theory. Journal on Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 35: 301-321.


 Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010.  Cultural naturalism.  Entropy, 2010, 12:
 1325-1352.


 Bejan, A. and S. Lorente, 2010.  The constructal law of design and
 evolution in nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B,
 365: 1335-1347.


 Brooks, D.R. and E.O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy: Toward A Unified
 Theory Of Biology (2nd. ed.) Chicago. University of Chicago Press.


 Chaisson, E.J., 2008.  Long-term global heating from energy usage.  Eos,
 Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89: 353-255.


 DeLong, J.P., J.G. Okie, M.E. Moses, R.M. Sibly and J.H. Brown, 2010.
 Shifts in metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major
 evolutionary transitions of life. Proceedings of the Natiional Academy of
 Sciences. Early 

[Fis] strings, vacua, structures

[karl javorszky]

Dear colleagues,

the term string as mentioned by Joseph triggers a comment.

We can use the term string like any of the terms sqrt(), sin(),route
between(), etc. The term string does have a solid concept behind it, but,
alas, it needs more arguments. A string is to be observed to connect
fragmentational states and spatial coordinates. HOW MANY spatial coordinates
(and fragmentational states) a string connects is one of the properties of
the string, as are properties of a string WHICH fragmentational states cum
spatial coordinates the string connects.

The idea of a string comes from observing elements of a set being
resequenced. If one reorders a set, the elements move in a way that is very
precisely given. Those elements that move together during a rearrangements
constitute a sequenced group. The movements of members of this sequenced
group are called a string.

To visualise the concept, it helps to write up the first 136 additions and
then rearrange this collection. Let me quote from one of my papers: (here we
discuss the sequential place of an addition a+b=c among other additions.
Writing up 1+1, 1+2, 1+3, 1+4,..., 16+16 gives us the 136 cases we sort -
order, sequence - around. We then resort from sorting order ab - what we see
now in 1+1,1+2,1+3,...- into order ba, which runs like
1+1,1+2,2+2,1+3,2+4,3+3,1+4,...)
quote
Place As Such, Place of Each Case

The order implicates a place for each case. If the order changes, the place
of the case may or will change. E.g. in order AB the sequence of the cases
is (1,1),(1,2),(1,3),... In order BA this modifies into
(1,1),(1,2),(2,2),(1,3) Place 3 in an ordered sequence is (1,3) if the
order is AB and (2,2) if the order is BA. The place* of* (1,3) – the place
now as an attribute of the specific pair of *(a,b)* – is 3 if the order is
AB and 4 if the order is BA.
Threads

The term *thread* can be demonstrated on the place changes that follow from
the change in order from AB to BA. The thread that involves (1,3) moving
from place 3 to place 4 concurrently causes successive place changes of
elements {3, 4, 7, 22, 23, 30, 107, 114, 115, 130, 133, 134, 120, 116, 66,
71, 21, 17}.

endquote

So, if one talks of strings, one has a clear definition of the term, but the
sentence gains on precision if one adds, which reorder one means. Like
pointing out the meaning of the min() function is one thing, and pointing
out which element we mean, it is helpful to provide the arguments, too.

The case is similar with the term structure for which there exists also a
clean definition. The idea behind the term vacuum can be demonstrated and
receive a definition by observing the spatial points to which no strings are
attached.

The idea of Strings is an implication of the idea of Order which is an
implication of the term Number of Summands.

Karl

2010/11/14 Srinandan Dasmahapatra s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk

 Hi,

 I've been meaning to send a note on Kevin Kirby's brief outline of
 Conrad's fluction framework, but haven't had the time to compose my
 thoughts coherently.  I realised that I wouldn't really have the time
 to do so, so I had better send something half-baked along anyway to
 contribute to the discussion.  Kevin concludes his piece with the
 following remark: quoteOverall, within fluctuon theory the
 interaction between the manifest organism and its unmanifest vacuum
 sea image abets the evolution, persistence, and maintenance of this
 unique complexity [of life].  This is a fascinating and rich notion.
 What can we unfold from this notion now in 2010?/quote

 The way I see it, organisms are organisational units, and we tend to
 view genomic content as informational units.  However, genomic
 identifiers are merely one way of providing information tags.  Apart
 from the presence/absence of sequence, there is also the notion of the
 multiple/collective (to borrow Alain Badiou's language) -- collections
 of molecules that bear that signature.  It is these collectives that
 comprise the dynamical state of cells and organisms, and the
 cardinalities of these sets may often be used as a proxy for snapshots
 of organismal state.  This tells us that organisational units such as
 tissues may be characterised via such cardinalities -- liver cells and
 heart cells have different protein number distributions within the
 same organism yet protein distributions in liver cells are more
 similar across taxa.  Hence the fluctuon concept may be viewed in this
 concept as the creation and annihilation of molecules following gene
 expression, or the transition into and out of active or inert
 molecular state, around the vacuum -- the steady state of an open
 dynamical network.  The response characteristics of this proteomic or
 messenger RNA cloud and the entropy production (as measured in terms
 of fluctuating numbers around the steady state) offer dynamical
 proxies of the organism, extending the static snapshot.  This becomes
 conceptually and mathematically accessible to perturbative ideas 

[Fis] Modeling the concept of information

[karl javorszky]

Question:
how closely a theory of information must be wedded to physics.

Answer:
Physics is a comprehensive model of Nature. If Nature obeys 1 (one)
comprehensive set of interrelated logical facts, then physics' partial
results (like optics, thermodynamics, electricity, solid state mechanics,
etc.) are deeply interrelated. The differing aspects of Physics are then
only shadows thrown in differing directions, because our viewpoints are
different and the underlying interrelations are of a high complexity.

Insofar Physics is a rational science, its statements are logical sentences.
Therefore they can be represented in a strict logical notation. Results of
physical experiments are then predictable by mathematical models.

A comprehensive logical model is then equivalent with an explanation of
Physics' interrelations.

Such a comprehensive logical model has been presented in the Beijing
conference's papers and in my last contribution some two weeks ago. It deals
with new ways of reading that same old logical axiom: a+b=c.

We use the following novelties:
* use all values for a and b in the range of 2*i**2 for i=1 to i=4, that is
1=a,b=16
* focus on the difference between a and b, that is b-a and a-b
* set this in relation to a and b, creating b-2a and a-2b as measures
* create 3 shadows of a+b=c, namely b-2a+b-a=2b-3a; a-2b+a-b=2a-3b and
a+b+2b-3a=3b-2a
* then we have 4 fundamental additions that have differing spatial
consequences, representing the 4 fundamental forces at work in Physics
* create a spatial web of the consequences of the 4 additions by ordering
the collection of additions
* assume a continuous logical discussion about which of the 4 fundamental
additions is more relevant than the others
* as a consequence of the continual rivalry among the 4 fundamental forces,
see movements of logical statements in a spatial system of coordinates
* find two logically equivalent spaces arising from the 4 fundamental forces
being concurrently at work
* find a common Euclid space into which the two logically equivalent spaces
can - under some circumstances - merge
* find that the natural unit of consolidation between the two logical spaces
is a triplet of logical statements relating to the spatial coordinates of
fragmentational states.

This model pictures the hypothesis that Physics is one and indivisible and
is explicable by logical means.

The model further offers inroads into understanding the role of a triplet,
which is a logical statement about a fragmentational state, both in genetics
and in logic.

So, to conclude the answer to yout question, yes indeed there exists a model
that shows a comprehensive picture of Physics in its totality.

Karl

2010/10/6 Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es



  Mensaje original   Asunto: physics and information  Fecha:
 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:23:34 -0700 (PDT)  De: Jacob I Lee
 jacob...@csufresno.edu jacob...@csufresno.edu  Para: Pedro C. Marijuan
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es  CC:
 fis@listas.unizar.es


 Hello,

 The recent discussion of the fluctuon model has made me curious about I
 want to think of a theory of information that is independent of any
 particular model of physics, but this seems perilous when, for example, such
 things as the simultaneity of events across frames of reference may have at
 one time been taken as axiomatic. At some level of abstraction is there a
 physics-neutral theory of information universally applicable to any possible
 physics?

 My questions are assuredly naive, but naivety is the source of all
 questions.

 Best,

 Jacob
 www.jacoblee.net



  --



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


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

Re: [Fis] Fluc replies - more. Reply to Gordana

[karl javorszky]

Dear FIS,

the discussion here is excitingly interesting from the standpoint of formal
logic. The points that one may comment on regard:
 tautology
 structure
 totality of structures interacting with one another
 epistemological constructions
 relationship between matter/energy
 perspectives of descriptions
 philosophic relativity
to name but a few.

Formal logic addresses all these points and introduces a neutral web of
well-defined concepts, the relations of which allow quite exact definitions
of the above terms.

We find empistemologically clear and well-defined explanations for these
terms by taking recourse to the words of a formal language (in the sense of
Wittgenstein), namely to the natural numbers. We may be in the situation of
those of our forefathers who have felt that there is a comprehensive
explanation to spatial arrangements they observed but lacked the exact
understanding of the words height, distance, angle and so forth. I
don't know who proposed using simple calculations regarding the sides of
triangles to arrive at trigonometry, but the principles that can be read off
the tables of trigonometry demonstrate that numbers do have a use outside of
mathematics, too.

The concepts of sinus and cosinus and tangent etc. could be understood
after one has seen how these concepts are generated by simple numeric
procedures.

Please allow me to propose for general usage some tables based on natural
numbers. The concepts can prove to be well usable and versatile, after one
has seen how the concepts are generated.

The Table to be introduced into this discussion is quite simple, in fact not
more complicated (from the level of its intellectual principles) as dividing
the lengths of sides of triangles. It uses following novelties in the
dealings with natural numbers:

1) we discuss the instances of a+b=c for values of a,b 1..16;
1.1. This yields 136 cases of additions, from 1+1=2 to 16+16=32
1.1.1 we alsways assume a=b
2) we concentrate on the symmetry of a and b, that is on u=b-a;
2.1 u can be in the range of 0 to 15
3) we generate measures for the relation of u to a and b
3.1. we build k=u-a
3.2. we build k+u=t
3.2.1 we make an addition ((b-a)-a)+(b-a)=2b-3a
3.3. we build -u=a-b
3.3.1 we do this for reasons of commutativity
3.4.  we build q=-u-b
3.5.  we build w=q+(-u)
3.5.1. we make an addition ((-u-b)+(-u))=((a-b-b)+(a-b))=2a-3b
3.6. we thus have 4 additions:
3.6.1. a+b=c
3.6.2. k+u=t  =((b-a)-a)+(b-a)=2b-3a
3.6.3. q+(-u)=w  =((-u-b)+(-u))=((a-b-b)+(a-b))=2a-3b
3.6.4. reading column 3 down we see c+t=-w=(a+b)+(2b-3a)= -
(2a+3b)=3b-2a
3.7. we propose to investigate, which of the 4 additions is generally
relevant in each case of a,b
3.8. we call the terms a,b,c,k,u,t,q,w, and and measure s=17-{a+b|c}
aspects of a+b=c
4. we introduce the conept of order
4.1. we order the set of 136 additions by sorting them
4.1.1. we use the procedure sort() from excel or any other software to do
so
4.2. we sort the collection on two of the aspects
4.2.1. we have then 72 sorting orders, 9 aspects once as 1st, 8 aspects once
as 2nd sorting key
4.3. each case of a+b has then a specific sequential place in the sequence
1..136
5. we re-sort from sorting order alpha,beta into sorting order gamma.delta
5.0.1. alpha,beta,gamma,delta are any of the 9 aspects
5.0.2. alpha#beta, gamma#delta
5.1. we investigate the place changes of the individual cases of a+b
5.2. those cases that move together we call a thread
5.2.1. the term thread may possibly be the concept behind the word
string used in Physics
5.3. some resorts yield no changes, some do
5.3.1. those resorts that yield no changes we call the structure
5.4. there are resorts that offer themselves as unit resorts
6. The unit resorts allow constructing two Euclid spaces
6.1. the two Euclid spaces differ slightly
6.2. the two Euclid spaces can be merged into one Euclid space
6.2.1. in this merged space one loses either the position's exactitude or
the extent's exactitude
6.2.2. the differences of the two Eulid spaces may well be the concept
behind the word information
7. there are several - but by no means an infinite number of - realities of
orders' consequences
7.1. the terms relevance and importance of ordering concepts can easily
be defined.
8. The term logical archetype is defined by those standard rearrangements
that are geometrically representable in an Euclid space
8.1. the term logical archetype may well be the concept behind the words
chemical element.

This is of course only a very cursory introduction. The idea is new but it
seems to be quite useful to contribute to a discussion within FIS. The usage
of this kind of approach to words is, that one may well point out: this is
what I mean as I say 'structure' or 'information' or 'ordering principle'.

Exact science has to be rooted in solid logic, where the words one uses do
have a clear and unmistakable definition. Nothing is better suited to be

Re: [Fis] curious chronicle

[karl javorszky]

There was some truth in this epic. The Spanish were more elegant and
flexible. The group ballet coordination was lighter. They deserved it well.
Bravo, Espana!


2010/7/12 Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

 Dear FIS colleagues,

 More than a soccer match? Please, have a glance at the chronicle below
 by Chris Matyszczyk (CBS):

 The world was running out of hope.
 Shame was grasping for glory, preparing to clutch it in its filthy
 hands, when up stepped a true hero.
 Andres Iniesta doesn't look like a hero. He looks like an unassuming
 vacation waiter...

 --see complete text at:



 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-20010211-10391697.html?tag=featuredPostArea

 --
 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -


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

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

[Fis] Looking for cooperating institutions - eu money

[karl javorszky]

Dear Colleagues,

it appears that the basic mechanism of the regulation at work in genetics
has been found and the logic can be explained and made quite understandable
- even for those who believe themselves to be challenged in numerical
approaches.

There is Big Money in this, as the explanation allows predicting the role
and function of genes.

EU has set aside some extreme amounts of money (several hundreds of millions
of Euros) under some restrictions. The most important of the restrictions is
that there must be involved at least 3, but preferably 5-8 - distinct Member
States' institutions in order to qualify for the project subsidy.

I can mobilise some Austrian and Hungarian faces but it would help if there
were more signatures and stamps on the formulars. So, if any of you can fill
out forms and jump on a band-wagon, this is the time.

In order to alleviate your fears that this is another spam coming from a
bank in Nigeria promising you great richesses if only you pay up front some
fees, I would like to outline the project proposal:
the most important point is to realise why we were not able to open this
puzzle so long. This was because we were instructed at school to disregard
the differences between 2+2 and 1+3. The number and position of cuts is in
reality as important as the number of continuities between the cuts.

We use a custom-built Addition Table which orders the additions according to
the number and position of the cuts as well as according to the properties
of the continuities. It turns out that adding and removing cuts at liberty
shows their function in  ordering the multitude of additions. The aspects of
additions - which type and number of cuts we use as ordering principles -
impose specific orders on the multitude of additions.

When changing the importance and relevance of the aspects which order the
collection of alternatives of being fused or split we see reordering costs.
Changes among principles of order bring forth differing transaction costs.

We introduce a logical unit of transaction cost which comes from
reordering from order A into order B. We find the unit extent of transaction
cost and use this unit to express every other unit with. Then, extent,
spatial place and properties become but different appearances of the basic
unit transaction cost of reordering.

It turns out that sequenced and commutative - two and three-dimensional
collections - are but differing aspects of one and the same wiggly-woggly
accounting balance and that concepts of static order are but a special case.

I am happy to send you a 10-pages summary of the ideas.

Do drop me a few lines if you are interested.
Best wishes
Karl
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] European Research?

[karl javorszky]

Dear Colleagues,

solving the puzzles of our generation certainly requires a co-ordinated
effort from many sciences. Research into the functions of the human brain
has unearthed some perceptional artefacts of humans. These methods of
perceptions are optimised for the tasks of biologic entities - as hunt for
prey, fight with carnivores, hiding and disguising, e.g. -, but can prove
less optimal if dealing with the non-living world.
Our nervous system has been optimised for tasks different to the task of
solving problems of theoretical physics or of information theory, let alone
theoretical genetics.
Maybe the approach of un-doing the perceptional optimisiation results of our
nervous system can be of some help.

Nature itself cannot be mysterious. If we experience a set of rules as non
understandable, this can only be caused by our thinking habits. If we cannot
understand how something works which obviously works (like magnetism,
electricity, gravitation or genetics), the problem can only lie with our way
of looking at it, not with the natural process itself.

This brings us to the task of searching for ways where we make errors of
judgement, where we are led by our nervous system to hold something for
self-evident, although it is not. Maybe we have prejudices in believing some
aspects of Nature to be important while they are important only in our eyes
(and ears and skin and Golgi apparatus, etc...), or disregarding the
importance of some aspects, because we are used to believe that these
aspects are not important at all.

Looking into which aspects we believe important and whioch aspects are there
and what if we use less of prejudices on the subject of importance and
relevance can be - in my beliefs - a practical inroad towards understanding
how Nature actually works. After all, it must be a no na, that is, a
self-evident truism of no surprise. The oinly surprise we should encounter
is that about how we managed not to notice the self-delusion we suffered
before.

I believe FIS is sufficiently competent to catch this EU pot of honey. There
are quite many competent scientists in the rows of FIS and we have the
openness of mind to achieve good results. The time may be right, also.
Someone, somewhere will certainly start thinking about the perceptional
artefacts we are used to and what if one discounts all that which has
erroneously been thought to be important and not important among the aspects
of a description of Nature. We should catch the opportunity.

Karl



2009/9/19 Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch

 Dear Friends,

 The two FET projects Pedro describes are quite different, and there is
 little that I feel I could contribute to the first. As far the FIS
 enterprise is concerned, I was not present at its inception, but I feel it
 has /potential/ as a topic, but that some additional structure as regards
 its own 1) scope and objectives, 2) methods and 3) conclusions would be
 necessary.

 If others think likewise, draft suggestions could be made in these
 categories (and/or others), perhaps first to Pedro for compilation.

 Best wishes,

 Joseph

 - Original Message -
 From: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 To: fis fis@listas.unizar.es
 Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 11:45 AM
 Subject: [Fis] European Research?


 Dear FIS colleagues,

 Herewith I am including the web address to download the Future and
 Emerging Technologies document that has been proposed by the European
 Union as a framework for transformative research and for challenging
 current thinking... well, at least the funding is very good.

 The case is that some FIS parties are trying to articulate a preliminary
 pre-draft about the quest for a Neurodynamic Central Theory.  We would
 welcome (I am included) interested people from neurosciences and
 closely related fields. Actually, the FIS enterprise itself could be
 another potential topic to propose.

 best wishes

 Pedro


 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fet-open/home_en.html

 in that page, at latest documents, download:
 FET-Open in FP7 - Extract from 2009-2010 Work Programme

 --

 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
 50009 Zaragoza. España / Spain
 Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 -








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

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

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

Re: [Fis] more thoughts about Shannon info

[karl javorszky]

The model proposed for numeric treatment of information answers following
points raised by Shannon and Logan:
Logan:

  The inspiration for adopting the word entropy in information theory comes
 from the close resemblance between Shannon's formula and the very similar
 formula from thermodynamics: S = -k ∑ pi ln pi .   Entropy is related to
 the second law of thermodynamics that states that:

 Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one
 place 
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out. And energy is
 governed by the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy cannot
 be destroyed or created.

 Is there an equivalent 1st and  2nd law for information?


Yes, there is. Information being the relation between the number of symbols
and their kind (properties, extent: in the numeric sense, extent, in the
logical sense: kind) one can propose following observation to e generalised
into a rule:
A closed system of symbols can be transformed into a differing closed system
of symbols while maintaining an identical informational content.
This means that the relation between the number of symbols and their kind
cannot be destroyed or created.

 Entropy is used to describe systems that are undergoing dynamic
 interactions like the molecules in a gas. What is the analogy with Shannon
 entropy or information?


In both cases, this is a LOCAL phaenomen taking place in a globally closed
system. While a part of the system cools down to a uniform level, a
different part of the system heats up (explodes, fuses, contracts, etc.). In
the numeric model, if the overall constant of information content of an
assembly remains the same (as it definitely does, assuming a finite *n*),
there may well be subsegments in the logical space which are more uniform
than other subsegments.
(Example: all true logical sentences that detail the relation between parts
and the whole with the whole being 137 is the closed universe. This set has
a given, constant, overall information content. It may however be very well
the case, that one specific subset has a deviating extent - locally - of its
own - local - information content.
Numeric explanation:
It may be, that 66 is with a prob of 90% in 10 .. 18 parts, but it may as
well be, that one of the cases describes a freakish assembly of far too many
1s as opposed to bigger summands. Any of the summands can be outside its
most probable range, and it is a certainity that one will observe a local
phaenomen of dissolving of summands into elementar units.)
This process happens in actual Nature surrounding us sufficiently often and
is sufficiently unusual so that humans notice and remember it and give it a
name. It appears that this process carries the name of entropy.

 Is Shannon's formula really the basis for a theory of information or is it
 merely a theory of signal transmission?


No, Shannon's formula is not the basis of anything in information theory.
Shannons formula is the roof of an edifice based on the logic of
similarities. Information theory deals with a different basic concept. In
information theory the kind of a symbol is also a logical category of its
own and is not derrived from the number of symbols. (In classical -
similarity based - logic, the kind of a symbol derives from its number (the
number of elementar units that make up this whole). Information theory
negates the assumption that the parts actually and absolutely fuse into a
whole, an assumption which is depicted in the procedures currently in
exclusive use relating to the operation of addition.

 Thermodynamic entropy involves temperature* *and energy in the form of
 heat, which is constantly spreading out. Entropy S  is defined as ∆Q/T. What
 are the analogies for Shannon entropy?

 There is the flow of energy in thermodynamic entropy but energy is
 conserved, i.e. it cannot be destroyed or created.

 There is the flow of information in Shannon entropy but is information
 something that cannot be destroyed or created as is the case with energy? Is
 it conserved? I do not think so because when I share my information with you
 I do not lose information but you gain it and hence information is created.
 Are not these thoughts that I am sharing with you, my readers, information
 that I have created?

Globally:
In the case that humans DISCOVER the a-priori existing laws of Nature, your
communication does not transmit anything new, because the connections have
always been there, only we did not notice them afore.
In the case that humans CREATE mental images depicting a Nature that is - by
axiomatic reasons - not intelligible to humans, your communication says. Is
it new for you that I can make myself understood? and is a communication
for grammatical reasons, with no content.
 Locally:
Your communication reorders the concepts within the brain of the reader and
presumably changes some relations between the number of symbols and kinds of
symbols that were and are there in the brain of the reader.

Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity

[karl javorszky]

Let me add to Igor's points about instability:
Redundancy/diversity, on
the other hand, is essential ... It creates informational entropy and gives
a momentum to
material/energy entropy production ...
that
redundancy/diversity DOES NOT GET CREATED it isd always there, but we choose
to neglect it, because Darwin has preferred those who recognise the
constant, alike, similar before the background of diversity and similarity.
The background DOES NOT GET CREATED by the figures in the foreground, it is
there.
In our case, it is the background of discontinuity before which we recognise
the uniformity, continuity and existence of our logical units.
Karl
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity

[karl javorszky]

Igor's is indeed an important point:
initially there was no diversity at all,  than it increased discontinuously
in evolutionary time
if we think the Big Bang to be one,undifferentiated clump of matter which
got differentiated and ever more complex, we make us a wishful picture. The
negation was always there, together with the assertion. The realised
variants were quite simple and uniform, the non-realised alternatives were
manifold and complex. Let me bring this into perspective with natural
numbers:
irrespective of which order we regard the additions, the cuts are there at
the same time as the whole. Before we do anything, we have to visualise an
extent. With the extent we should visualise that it is a heap of
alternatives, too. The cuts are there at the same time with the continuity,
they do not get evolved. We make a time-based sequence: first we wish the
cuts away and then we reimagine them along with the stuff. But they were
always there, neither our wishing them away not us wishing them back alters
their existence.
Maybe they were not actualised, but the whole of the set contains both its
assertions and the negations thereof, too.
This is not a religious belief, so I may drop this point, but in my feeling
it is more symmetrical to think that the negation comes with the assertion
and does not evolve therefrom. Alltogether they are part and parcel, like
packaging and content. Which parts of the packaging are not useful and get
discarded is another point. Maybe you refer to that.
Karl


2007/3/8, Igor Matutinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


 reply to Karl:

In fact I meant it creates informational entropy for an *external
observer*.

For the sake of precision, we may say that diversity neither get created
nor it is always there - it evolves - .

Best
Igor

- Original Message -

 *From:* karl javorszky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
*Sent:* Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:00 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural
Complexity


Let me add to Igor's points about instability:
Redundancy/diversity, on
the other hand, is essential ... It creates informational entropy and
gives a momentum to
material/energy entropy production ...
that
redundancy/diversity DOES NOT GET CREATED it isd always there, but we
choose to neglect it, because Darwin has preferred those who recognise the
constant, alike, similar before the background of diversity and similarity.
The background DOES NOT GET CREATED by the figures in the foreground, it
is there.
In our case, it is the background of discontinuity before which we
recognise the uniformity, continuity and existence of our logical units.
Karl

--

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity

[karl javorszky]

Dear Colleagues,

the discussion about complexity leads us back to our basic assumptions. The 
core point appears to be, how we perceive a): the world, and b): what we 
think about the world, and c): how a) and b) fit together. This can be 
formalised into a) how we feel, b) how we think, c) how we integrate what 
we think with what we feel.
The question of how - in what ways, what extent, in whose judgement - that 
what one thinks and that what one feels interact is the subject of 
morality, theology, dramaturgy, choreography, music and art generally.
So far, the interplay between what one thinks and what one feels has not 
been investigated by classical mathematics. There are now some approaches 
which suggest that indeed there is a rational way of comprehending the 
methods, aims and goals of that what governs the interplay among what one 
feels and what one thinks.
The approach states that what we think is a realisation of discharges of 
the nerve cells of our brain, are therefore linear (as the bursts of the 
ganglions are in a temporal distance among each other). What we feel is in 
this approach a realisation of a composition made up of commutative symbol 
carriers (as the biochemical hormones of the nerve cells in our brain are 
liquid and not sequential, they are treated as a commutative collection).
There appear some quite interesting cause-consequence relations just within 
the realm of natural numbers. This suggests that Nature - as recognisable 
via the natural numbers - does have a concept of an a-priori order, and we 
can read the ordering principles off the natural numbers.


The complex discussion going on in FIS could be enriched in two ways by 
this person: explaining the connex among the symbols (detailing, what the 
logical operation of an addition implies, and which of the implications are 
in themselves contradictory), or mobilising the emotional-hormonal connex 
among the meanings of the symbols (eg by pantomimical presentations of 
relations between disjunct and monotone, by asking you to partake in a 
ballett performance so you feel the relations of closeness and belonging 
vs. freedom and lonesomeness). It is the interplay, neither the correct 
explanation, nor the virtuous feelings are in themselves in disarray, but 
how they are connected to fixed structures among each other is what the 
song is about and the additions list.


The formal presentations have been made. Presently, this person works on a 
communication detailing the relations among emotional symbol carriers. This 
results in a piece of art, not in a piece of reasoning.


The artwork is now present, so I am now ready again to attend these talks, 
and may offer to explain it all, by literary - emotional - means, in the 
form of a dialogue, not as a writeup. The writeup is now with a publisher, 
so we can exchange questions and answers.


Karl
 


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

[FIS] Modeling Complexity

[karl javorszky]

Dear Fis,

the discussion appears to move in a very interesting direction, connecting
the experiences learnt by the kid with the subject the kid learned. How this
subtle connection influences our concepts about Nature is a central
philosophical problem.
In my contributions in the last few years, there were attempts to raise the
subject of additions in this context.
Now I have written a comprehensive treatise about this, in a literary style.
It is about 92 pages long and is in German. If a member of this list wishes
to read this work of art, not a scientific article, he is welcome to contact
me. The manuscript is not yet published, so a discretion and
confidentiality, also in a legal sense, is expected.
I can also be of assistance, if a translation is undertaken.
Karl
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] genetics: the most outstanding problem, SOLVED

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Stan,

In your last posting, you said:
 SS:  Of course, the origin of the genetic system is arguably the most
 outstanding problem facing natural science.  It seems that, other than the
(to me) unconvincing RNA World idea, there is no compelling model of it.

The model that the RNA (together with the DNA) is a sequence and that the
genetic mechanism copies the information from a sequence (the dna/rna) into
a nonsequenced assembly (the living organism) and from there (by means of
the ovaries and the testes) back into a sequence is a quite compelling
model.

The term information has been shown in this chatroom to mean the cuts that
segregate, separate and distinguish summands;
The term sequence has been defined by Peano;
The term nonsequenced /=commutative/assembly is indeed hairy, as there
exists no definition for multidimensional partitions, although this is what
it means;
The term copies means a filter restriction on a set of entries into a
database (a restricted, in optimal case, bijective map between two
enumerations).

So, we can say:
Genetic information management can be modelled by assuming that 
The information (the pattern of cuts on intervals)
In a sequence
Gets copied into
The information (the pattern of cuts on several intervals)
In a commutative assembly
And from there back.

A mathematician would never go near or touch something that has no
definition. Contrary to a psychologist, who has a quite different attitude
towards things undefined. 
Even, if a logical entity behaves in a fashion that it is not possible to
say by rational words what it is, we can count its differing subtypes. In
the Middle Ages, they maybe counted different aspects of witchcraft or
aurification. It is legitimate to count differing appearances of a thing
even if we do not know what the thing is; as long as we can distinguish two
different kinds of that something. And that we can distinguish two differing
multidimensional partitions (e.g. sociograms) is an obvious truth. 
By counting distinguishable appearances of a logical entity we do not know
the exact nature of, we can establish its logical width, domain, complexity.
In the present case, we only need to know how many different kinds of
multidimensional partitions exist, not what they are in reality.

In reality, and this answers the other question in the post:
I know of no scientific principle that allows 
for ANY analogous entity in nature, 
save humans, to store its structural information 
digitally on a specific kind of molecular template.
What one means by the term multidimensional partitions appears to be the
cut pattern on the set. We have spoken about the cuts separating two similar
units generating the basis of our present counting system, N. They are
thought as unit as we think the unit to be of unit properties, that is,
alike to any other unit.
We overlook the existence of the diversity of the cuts. If we think the cuts
as extremely unit like as we think the units unit like, there remains no
space for the diversity property of the opposite of the similarity.
We end up like a partial judge who listens only to the one side. Yes, our
counting system is based on similarity. So what is it opposed to? Who
represents the interests of those who are defined irrelevant? 
The cuts have differing heights and numbers. We should not force them to be
in the same - similarity based - logical picture as that they are the
enemies of. The cut is the mortal enemy of the continuation, and it succeeds
in discontinuing our perception. (We do not go, after all, as consequently
to the end in asserting similarity as to say that everything is one and
without any interruption.)
We do accept the existence and the relevance of the cuts, but we really do
not recognise their legal right to be there and to be counted in their own
facon d'etre. 
Once you start co-employing the cut patterns alongside the texture, the
mechanism will become apparent, by which only such sequences can exist,
where the cut pattern agrees to the cut pattern on the heap of textile. The
key element in the mechanism is the individuating power of the symbols
employed, and that boils down again to diversity, that is how diverse are
the logical units we use to describe the world with.
It is a long and detail-rich seminar one needs in order to re-educate
himself on using diversity alongside similarity. The FIS chatroom may not be
in its intention such, so we cannot go more in details here. But please let
me keep the chance to maintain the belief that the model - compelling to me
- that our logic has heretofore not been sufficiently complex to describe
the most basic method of densifying information, namely that of writing and
rewriting it from a sequence into a commutative assembly and back, by
employing symbols that individuate in differing extents. We can increase the
complexity of our logic by co-employing the heretofore neglected aspect of
the properties of the cuts and their patterns. This makes the