Re: [Fis] Replies to Walter Loet
Replying to Loet on information: I would say that there is a third major kind of information -- information as constraint (on anything, therefore on entropy production). This comes out of Pattee's distinction between dynamics and non-holonomic constrain. Example: examine an equation, say simply Y = aX^b. a and b are functioning as information here. This information is not uncertainty, and it does not overtly imply an observer in the usual sense. If we generalize the observer, it might be said that a and b make a difference to ... ? ... STAN Dear Stan and colleagues, Yes, a multitude of meanings of the information can be formulated, as Mark Burgin also noted in a separate email, once information is defined as a difference which makes a difference because the system of reference has then to be specified for each specific difference. Thus, the Bateson-type of information is system-specific: for which system does the difference make a difference. This system can be an assumed observer (Edelman, Maturana, Von Foerster) or a social system; for example, a discourse (Luhmann). Observers can be differently positioned and social systems can be differentiated internally (e.g., bio-information, scientific information, etc.) Thus, one may wish to construct a kind of hierarchy of distinctions: 1. The first distinction would be between Shannon-type and Bateson-type information; 2. The second distinction between the meaning of the information for an assumed observer or a network (social) system; 3. Differentiations in the systems may lead to different definition of relevant information; 4. Different subdynamics within each system can be expected to position the information differently (as elaborated in my previous email). This was my second penny for this week. J Best wishes for a happy new year, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Replies to Walter Loet
Replying to Loet --
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.netwrote:
Replying to Loet --
Your distinction between the backward looking institutional viewpoint
and the forward looking evolutionary perspective is cogent, but it plays
down the fact that the evolutionary one is restrained by current hegemonies
of theory and interpretation, always linking new discoveries to the
already-accepted 'facts'. So, I think that, for example, the parcelling of
energy expenditures between these viewpoints is rather something like 80%
institutional (including education in discovery techniques} and 20%
evolutionary.
Dear Stan,
In my opinion, this is the crucial parameter for measuring the extent to
which a system has become knowledge-based. In a previous (for example,
political) economy, the institutions can be expected to leave less room for
the knowledge-based (sub)dynamics than in a knowledge-based economy. The
latter reinforce the restructuring from the perspective of what is possible
given the models. The models open up possibilities and thus the redundancy
within the system can be increased.
Original Stan: But all knowledge must in the end be a 'building upon'
previous knowledge. On this account knowledge that implies completion, or
which is too detailed, will lead nowhere, for it leaves nothing left to do
but follow the institution. There has been a discussion of 'evolvability' in
the complexity sciences that relates to this issue. From my own development
theory, we can see that continued development of a system leads to
increasingly trivial additions to an ascendent discourse ('normal science'),
a filling in of details. This leads eventually to overthr
Best wishes,
Loet
Then,
Replying to Loet on information:
I would say that there is a third major kind of information -- information
as constraint (on anything, therefore on entropy production). This comes
out of Pattee's distinction between dynamics and non-holonomic constrain.
Example: examine an equation, say simply Y = aX^b. a and b are
functioning as information here. This information is not uncertainty, and
it does not overtly imply an observer in the usual sense. If we generalize
the observer, it might be said that a and b make a difference to ... ? ...
STAN
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net
wrote:
Information is the difference that makes the difference
Dear colleagues,
It seems important to me to distinguish between two concepts of information
because if we use the same word for two concepts this can be a source of
confusion. Perhaps, I can reproduce the two character set in Chinese which
Prof. Wu Yishan was once so kind to write for me in Chinese and which
express these two meanings. Let me give it a try:
Description: fig13_01
The above one, ‘sjin sji’, corresponds to the mathe matical definition of
informa tion as uncertainty.[1] The sec ond, ‘tsjin bao,’ means infor mation
but also intelligence.[2] In other words, it means infor mation which
informs us, and which is thus considered meaningful.
-snip-
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Replies to Walter Loet
As my last for this week: Replying to Walter -- The dark matter and dark energy examples are not very strong as examples of demonstrating discoveries rather than invention! These are stand-ins, just names, for disparities between predictions and observations. They are provisionally (I hope!) accepted because they fit into the current 'standard model'. In my view, a much neater way to solve the disparity leading to the dark matter idea would be too accept that the gravitation constant, g, is not constant everywhere or at al times. But that would not fit well into the Standard Model, and would impair the ability to do certain calculations because one needs some constants in order to solve equations. who replies: Stan, Your notes help me to make my point much clear, thanks. These cases are not truly adequate, I accept that, but they would if they were actually confirmed. What I wanted to refer to is about the power of conditionals: “If dark matter and dark energy are not provisional, but becomes highly confirmed then the Standard Model needs important revisions” And also, I wanted to draw attention to the conceptual changes: - One interesting example is the discovery that speed of light is a fundamental constant of the universe and its impact in the way it produces a change (from Newtonian to Relativity theories). - The case of second law of thermodynamics in times of Maxwell is an interesting one. - Another is the case in times of Kepler: his elliptical orbits and the conflict with the more accepted celestial circularity I guess this capacity is inherent in science (to be open to changes fundamentally by the discovery of new facts) it is certainly not the case in other human activity. Sincerely, Walter ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:10 PM, walter.riof...@terra.com.pe wrote: Dear Loet, Stan, Pedro, colleagues, In these topics there are a number of different approaches but the central issue is referred to on what could be a science (or a scientific discourse) and what is not (and what are the criteria to discern between them). In the human world we have many activities: ordinary activities, political activities, sportive activities, religious activities, hobby activities, and…..academic activities (one of them is the scientific activity). It would be a “great confusion” (to say the least) display all the behaviors associated with the religious activities in, for instance, a tennis match… Accordingly, we have certain preliminary criteria that you are taking into account in your notes --some internalist and some externalist--, referred to the human scientific activity. Our scientific products are “just stories” or “narratives”, equivalent to the story about himself of a storyteller in the Nobel Banquet? I suppose that many (if not all) of us have diverse reasons to answer with a resounding negative response. Although we can say that as all the other human activities that are also constrained by our capacities and limitations, the scientific (and philosophical) activities have the advantage that its products are under the public scrutiny of people with very high academic abilities (and maybe with a methodological skeptic view). These people look at the rationale of the proposals and/or results of scientific products and its consequences in reality. The scientific activities aim to increase our knowledge of nature and about ourselves --or I suppose that it is the ideal. For instance, nobody could know around 1998 that almost five percent of the universe is matter and energy and the rest something that we now call as dark-matter and dark-energy… How these *facts* would affect our theories and knowledge in physics and chemistry? What could be nowadays the epistemological and metaphysical status of “The Universal”? It seems that these kinds of questions not arise in other human activities…I think… Sincerely, Walter -- Replying to Loet -- I will post this to fis later in the week Your distinction between the backward looking institutional viewpoint and the forward looking evolutionary perspective is cogent, but it plays down the fact that the evolutionary one is restrained by current hegemonies of theory and interpretation, always linking new discoveries to the already-accepted 'facts'. So, I think that, for example, the parcelling of energi expenditures between these viewpoints is rather something like 80% institutional (including education in discovery techniques} and 20% evolutionary. On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear Stan and colleagues, I agree with Joseph Brenner that we need both, but the status of the two theories is different. Behavior of agents (scholars) and relations among texts can be mapped. In this case, we use a theory of the measurement and focus on the retention mechanism of the evolving science system. At
Re: [Fis] Replies to Walter Loet
Replying to Loet -- I will post this to fis later in the week Your distinction between the backward looking institutional viewpoint and the forward looking evolutionary perspective is cogent, but it plays down the fact that the evolutionary one is restrained by current hegemonies of theory and interpretation, always linking new discoveries to the already-accepted 'facts'. So, I think that, for example, the parcelling of energi expenditures between these viewpoints is rather something like 80% institutional (including education in discovery techniques} and 20% evolutionary. Dear Stan, In my opinion, this is the crucial parameter for measuring the extent to which a system has become knowledge-based. In a previous (for example, political) economy, the institutions can be expected to leave less room for the knowledge-based (sub)dynamics than in a knowledge-based economy. The latter reinforce the restructuring from the perspective of what is possible given the models. The models open up possibilities and thus the redundancy within the system can be increased. Best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] replies to Walter, loet Joseph
Replying to Walter -- On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:41 PM, walter.riof...@terra.com.pe wrote: Dear Colleagues, It seems that a good start point is to look at the “dissipative structures world”. And we could ask if in every dissipative structure it is possible to find information and/or computations and/or intelligence and/or the like… Of course no in cyclones and hurricanes, neither in Bénard cells and Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactions, but we would almost surely affirm the living systems have these capacities. At least, we can affirm it would be in animals and plants, but in archaea and bacteria? Keep in mind that these microorganisms usually exist in multispecies communities,like biofilms. This makes them more less equivalent to simple living tissues. or, in prebiotic systems? As an evolutionist and materialist, I would expect that any property higher living forms have would have had precursors in more primitive, ancestral systems -- but, of course in more rudimentary form. My bet is that there was a beginning from which we could talk about information (with meaning) and then, on natural computations and then, on behaviors and then, on cognitive phenomena and then, on other more sophisticated phenomena and so on… This beginning was the one with “minimal complexity”. A kind of molecular dissipative structure with processes behaving like dynamic biological constraints: (1) a container made of amphiphilic molecules and (2) a micro cycle, driving the protocell far away from thermodynamic equilibrium, and with the basic properties of life: biological information and biological functions…and then, we could talk on autonomous agents…(Riofrio 2007). Could I have copy of this? Thanks. Nowadays, comparative genomics, metagenomics and system biology are increasingly showing that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape evolution, and even it is not quantitatively dominant. It happens that non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously thought (Kelley Scott 2008; Koonin Wolf 2009; Dhar Giuliani 2010; Doolittle Zhaxybayeva 2010). Perhaps, more than one of these forces shaped evolution before Darwinian threshold was reached by protocells. Some think that self-organizing forces predominate in ontogenetic development, and may be responsible to discovering new forms. And this circumstance is owed to the fact that each new level of complexity materializing in the universe implies, by necessity, the emergence of new properties containing causal efficacy that will, in the end, produce new events in our universe. Moreover, we contend this prebiotic world might have been comprised by an almost continuous series of systems, and when we talk about continuous, it is in the sense that the most fundamental properties of these different types of systems – behaving as the details of a specific, self-organizing kind – would have been shared by all of them. In consequence, it is possible that these molecular dynamics had provided the conditions for the emergence of the first small world structures as core characteristics to the way in which the biological realm computes. That looks promising. Sincerely, Walter **Then, replying to Loet On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear Stan, It seems to me that “senescence” applies to system components which are continuously replaced (generationally) by the autopoietic or dissipative system, while the system at this next-order level can be expected continue to develop (or stagnate). For example, the clouds come and go, but the weather pattern is continued. Of course, a systems level can itself be embedded in a next-order system and thus be replaced, but at a much lower frequency level. Yes, I would propose that all dissipative systems follow the 'canonical developmental trajectory' shown in my posting. So, what you say here could be the case. The 'next-order level' would itself necessarily senesce eventually, but at a much slower rate. Thus, we have to distinguish in terms of the vertical levels of the hierarchy. J As you know, this is of great interest to me! **Then, replying to Joseph, who said: One of the important aspects of Pedro's limitations as that they themselves appear to me, at least, to be the resultant, the effect of some kind of interactions, as well as have causal power for further development. Thus Stan is right in calling attention to senescence, but anti-senescence also exists and the 2nd Law alone (massive input of energy) is necessary but not sufficient to explain it. Anti-senescence is reproduction of new dissipative structures, as in weather systems and living systems. My point is that tis is the usual focus of almost everyone in our growth-fascinated culture, while senescence is almost always avoided as a topic of inquiry, except in medical circles. As our global society
