Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?

2018-03-19 Thread Dai Griffiths

Mark Johnson wrote:


So I want to ask a deeper question: Effective science and effective
decision-making go hand-in-hand. What does an effective society
operating in a highly ambiguous and technologically abundant
environment look like? How does it use its technology for effective
decision-making? My betting is it doesn't look anything like what
we've currently got!


These are good questions, Mark.

Understanding 'science' as 'knowledge' it is plainly true that 
"Effective science and effective decision-making go hand-in-hand".


As a gloss on that comment, I would add that there is an imbalance. 
Decision-making aspires to universal applicability. If the state changes 
the tax regime then it expects all citizens to conform, and increasingly 
technology can be used to achieve that. But knowledge of the 
consequences to society and individuals of those changes to the tax 
regime is partial.


The state uses a regulatory framework, which is quite easily knowable, 
to regulate the chaotic interactions of society, which are complex to 
the degree that they are unknowable. In other words, governments use 
policy instruments to attenuate the variety of the society that they set 
out to regulate, and implicit in this is a recognition the impossibility 
of a complete knowledge of society. An open question is whether the 
tools of data surveillance can change or adjust that equation, and, if 
they can, whether that is desirable.


In the past you have drawn my attention to Bataille's discussion of 
transgression, which I think is relevant here. The question arises: is 
it possible for political science, with technological support, to manage 
the attraction of transgression? That seems to be the project that is 
underway in China at the moment. We can watch the results with interest 
(and perhaps trepidation).


> What does an effective society operating in a highly ambiguous and 
technologically abundant environment look like?


My working suggestion for a guiding principle would be "An effective 
society should be humble about its ability to understand its own 
workings, and those of the people who constitute it"


Dai

--
-

Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
Professor of Education
School of Education and Psychology
The University of Bolton
Deane Road
Bolton, BL3 5AB

Office: M106

SKYPE: daigriffiths

Phones (please don't leave voice mail)
   UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559
   Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
   Work landline: + 44 (0)1204903598

email
   d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk
   dai.griffith...@gmail.com

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


Re: [Fis] A Paradox

2018-03-19 Thread Otto E. Rossler
Dear Dr. Zou:
Most interesting.I enclose a recently submitted manuscript for your perusal.
Cordial  wishes,Otto E.Rossler
-

Who can program the Einstein Rocketship?

 Otto E. Rossler1 and YaëlKolb1,2

 1Faculty of Science,University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 
Tübingen, Germany

2University of Design (HfG), Lorenzstrasse 15, 76135Karlsruhe, Germany

Abstract

Acomputer-game version of the famous Einstein equivalence principle of 1907 
isproposed. Surprising implications predictably follow. The idea appears 
worthchecking by the computer-game community as a contribution to science. 

 (March 12, 2018)

 The Einstein rocketship of 1907 [1] consistsof a constantly accelerating 
vertical paper strip (interpreted as the interiorof a roaring rocketship) and 
an internal light ray that is continually emittedvertically along the strip 
from the bottom to the tip. 

 Einsteinfirst solved this typical computer-game problem in his mind, to in 
this waypredict out of the blue sky the famous “gravitational redshift”: The 
ascendinglight ray on arrival at the tip is slowed in its frequency by a 
negativeDoppler effect (like the sound of a departing ambulance) because the 
point oforigin of the vertical light ray is constantly falling back from the 
tip duringthe time it takes the light to arrive although the distance remains 
unchanged.This at the time absurd prediction enables accurate car navigation to 
date.

 Thejust described “Einstein task” is only the first step (one-dimensional 
case).It has never been simulated even though this is of course possible and 
indeeddesirable. The young Einstein thereafter in the same 1907-paper looked 
also atthe two-dimensional case: How does a horizontal light ray that hugs the 
floorof the rocketship appear from the tip when made visible towards above 
throughsome smoke in the air? This mental image would later become the “light 
clock” –a laser pulse inside a glass tube with reflecting ends and a bit of 
glitterinside to make the ticking visible to the outside world.

Programmingthis 2-D game to make it totally transparent, too, is a bit more 
difficult butis bound to teach something new. While the light pulse is 
progressinghorizontally down there, the bottom is constantly falling back from 
the tipwhile keeping its distance as we saw. Therefore, the horizontally 
advancinglight pulse downstairs necessarily does so in a locally 
downwards-slantedfashion relative to the tip. This is a first post-Einsteinian 
Einsteinianprediction (PEEP). 

 Megaconsequences follow suit if the PEEP can be successfully programmed rather 
thanremaining a mere mental fantasy. For it logically follows that the light 
pathdownstairs is increased in its length relative to the tip owing to its 
beingslanted everywhere locally relative to the tip, but this without 
appearingshortened due to the slant. For special relativity which governs the 
gadgetenforces preservation of optical width inside the rocketship. Hence 
theslowdown visible from the tip, seen in Einstein’s mind in 1907, reflects 
thefact that all objects downstairs are invisibly to above enlarged in 
sizerelative to the tip by the gravitational redshift factor. This prediction – 
iftrue – entails that the speed of light downstairs is actually 
non-reduceddespite appearances.

If theproposed computer game confirms this new prediction made whilst 
anticipating it,surprising consequences follow suit. One of them reads: “No Big 
Bang” anymore becausethe speed of light is rendered a global constant again by 
the computer game. Notethat mutually very distant points in the universe now 
can no longer recede fromeach other at super-luminal speeds as is being assumed 
at present.  

So the proposed “Einstein computer game”(ECG) is a surprisingly serious playful 
proposal in the realm of games. Itwould be especially great if it could get 
implemented right away by utilizingan already existing game portal like 
“gamelab” [2]. The race is on.

We thankWolfgang Rindler, Susan J. Feingold and Andrei Ujica for stimulation. 
ForJ.O.R.

References

[1] A.Einstein, On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it. 
Jahrbuchder Radioaktivität und Elektronik 4, 411-462 (1907), in German. 
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/GR_2007/pdf/Einstein_1907.pdf

[2] https://code.org/educate/gamelab

 

On Monday, March 19, 2018, 7:26:52 AM GMT+1, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> 
wrote:  
 
 Dear colleagues
The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal 
production of knowledge is about to come. Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 
08:57:37  In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge 
exponentially grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends 
can detonate the spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in 
ancient times. Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 
2,000-year-long knowledge production method to do spiritual product 

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

2018-03-19 Thread Dai Griffiths

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 music is not a lossless representation of a performance. From 
the starting point of the sheet music, the performer has to decide on 
volumes, intonation and timing, and in some cases also ornament and 
variations. These issues arouse deep passions and ferocious debate! Nor 
would we be happy to buy a recording of a symphony in which different 
orchestras played different movements in different concert halls 
(although it might be interesting to hear).


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


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

2018-03-19 Thread 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 :

> 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 music is not a lossless representation of a performance. From
> the starting point of the sheet music, the 

Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?

2018-03-19 Thread Alberto J. Schuhmacher
Dear Alex, Mark and FIS coleagues, 

Thanks a lot for your comments and inputs. I am learning a lot from all
of you.  From my ignorance computers are logic machines. I am not sure
if intuition could be considered a logical way of thinking, somehow yes
because it is based in our experience/learning, based in our
success/failure (binary output of experiences). 

All the best,
AJ

El 13-03-2018 08:38, Alex Hankey escribió:

> Dear Mark and Alberto,  
> 
> Let me propose a radical new input.  
> The Human intuition is far more  
> powerful than anything anyone  
> has previously imagined, except  
> those who use it regularly.  
> 
> It can be strengthen by particular  
> mental practices, well described  
> in the literature of Yoga.  
> 
> Digital Computing machines are  
> not capable of this, and although  
> number crunching is a way for  
> Technology to assist, it is no substitute  
> for the highest levels of the human mind.  
> 
> Alex  
> 
> On 13 March 2018 at 01:10, Mark Johnson  wrote:
> 
>> Dear Alberto,
>> 
>> Thank you for this topic - it cuts to the heart of why we think the
>> study of information really matters, and most importantly, brings to
>> the fore the thorny issue of technology.
>> 
>> It has become commonplace to say that our digital computers have
>> changed the world profoundly. Yet at a deep level it has left us very
>> confused and disorientated, and we struggle to articulate exactly how
>> the world has been transformed. Norbert Wiener once remarked in the
>> wake of cybernetics, "We have changed the world. Now we have to change
>> ourselves to survive in it". Things haven't got any easier in the
>> intervening decades; quite the reverse.
>> 
>> The principal manifestation of the effects of technology is confusion
>> and ambiguity. In this context, it seems that the main human challenge
>> to which the topic of information has the greatest bearing is not
>> "information" per se, but decision. That, in a large part, depends of
>> hypothesis and the judgement of the human intellect.
>> 
>> The reaction to confusion and ambiguity is that some people and most
>> institutions acquire misplaced confidence in making decisions about
>> "the way forwards", usually invoking some new tool or device as a
>> solution to the problem of dealing with ambiguity (right now, it's
>> blockchain and big data). We - and particularly our institutions -
>> remain allergic to uncertainty. To what extent is "data-ism" a
>> reaction to the confusion produced by technology? Von Foerster sounded
>> the alarm in the 1970s:
>> 
>> "we have, hopefully only temporarily, relinquished our responsibility
>> to ask for a technology that will solve existent problems. Instead we
>> have allowed existent technology to create problems it can solve." (in
>> Von Foerster, H (1981) "Observing Systems")
>> 
>> With every technical advance, there is an institutional reaction. The
>> Catholic church reacted to printing; Universities reacted to the
>> microscope and other empirical apparatus; political institutions
>> reacted to the steam engine, and so on. Today it is the institution of
>> science itself which reacts to the uncertainty it finds itself in. In
>> each case, technology introduces new options for doing things, and the
>> increased uncertainty of choice between an increased number of options
>> means that an attenuative process must ensue as the institution seeks
>> to preserve its identity. Technology in modern universities is a
>> particularly powerful example: what a stupid use of technology to
>> reproduce the ancient practices of the "classroom" online?! How
>> ridiculous in an age of self-publishing that academic journals seek to
>> use technology to maintain the "scarcity" (and cost) of their
>> publications through paywalls? And what is it about machine learning
>> and big data (I'm struggling with this in a project I'm doing at the
>> moment - the machine learning thing is not all it's cracked up to be!)
>> 
>> Judgement and decision are at the heart of this. Technologies do not
>> make people redundant: it is the decisions of leaders of companies and
>> institutions who do that. Technology does not poison the planet;
>> again, that process results from ineffective global political
>> decisions. Technology also sits in the context for decision-making,
>> and as Cohen and March pointed out in 1971, the process of
>> decision-making about technology is anything but rational (see "The
>> Garbage Can Model of Organisational Decision-making"
>> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2392088 [1]). Today we see "Blockchain" and
>> "big data" in Cohen and March's Garbage can. It is the reached-for
>> "existent technology which creates problems it can solve".
>> 
>> My colleague Peter Rowlands, who some of you know, puts the blame on
>> our current way of thinking in science: most scientific methodologies
>> are "synthetic" - they attempt to amalgamate existing theory and
>> manifest phenomena into 

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

2018-03-19 Thread ZouXiaohui
Dear colleagues


The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal 
production of knowledge is about to come. 
Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 08:57:37  
 In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge exponentially 
grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends can detonate the 
spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in ancient times. 
Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 2,000-year-long 
knowledge production method to do spiritual product processing.The 
double-chessboards based on the wisdom integrated theory and cultural gene 
system engineering practice came into being. Its primary feature is that it is 
a combination of humans and machines that can instantly complete the knowledge 
production of any one knowledge module. The formation and promotion of 
popularity has gradually highlighted its unique charm.For example, any 
text segment imported into the word chessboard web development environment and 
application platform can instantly form almost all the language points, 
knowledge points, and original points contained in the world-wide super 
collaboration of the text segment. . This not only provides the convenience for 
the original creators or experts themselves to confirm their themes, styles, or 
characteristics, but also provides a common platform for teachers, students and 
the general public to participate in the finishing of knowledge modules.
Such a large-scale production of knowledge is supported by the three major 
system engineering practices of language, knowledge, and software. It is a 
brand-new approach to education informatization. At the same time, it provides 
a typical example of collaborative innovation that focuses on the intelligence 
capabilities of human-computer dual-brain intelligence. Both men, women, and 
children can discover from their most interesting speech fragments. Their 
respective real interests, hobbies, and good at, and then used them to 
participate in the integration of teaching and learning of social system 
engineering and the combination of soft and hard language and formal system 
engineering double practice, so as to reflect the three basic categories of 
object-oriented text The generalized textual cultural genetic system project 
contributes meager forces and gradually discovers and finds their precise 
positioning in the overall system of human knowledge building construction. 


 Data, language, information, and knowledge all have intersections. Therefore, 
it is often misunderstood. The text that records knowledge is a typical type of 
data. Obvious ambiguity allows the machine to be automatically ejected; human 
experts are easily ambiguous in their respective fields; the most difficult 
ambiguity is the category of overlapping (basic concepts).


Best wish! 


   Zou Xiaohui



iPhone

-- Original --
From: Syed Ali 
Date: ,3?? 6,2018 11:20 
To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
Cc: ?? , fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox



 Many thanks Zou. 


Syed


Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email 
is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have 
reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify 
the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other 
use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is 
strictly prohibited.



 
On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:35 PM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues and Syed??
  Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your 
questionCould you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning 
?:
 Undoubtedly,the point of view ?? information is the container of meaning?? 
is certainly wrong.
  For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, in 
addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the physical 
world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or generalized 
text. Among them, there is both formal information and content information.   
   Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified in 
many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to 
disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come from 
ambiguity.   
  Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information that 
can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or subject of 
information science). 
 These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or 
suggestions!
  Thank you! 


  Best wish! 


   Zou