-----Original Message----- From: boris.sunik Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:26 PM To: 'Krassimir Markov' Subject: RE: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik
Dear Krassimir, Below are my points regarding discussed issues. Regards, Boris Sunik 1. I never claimed that computer algorithms could provide "all you know, and all you need to know" about information. To the contrary, I consider this statement as wrong. My idea is that the relevant way of information representation and information explanation consists of viewing the real world in the same conceptual coordinates, which are used for representation of computer algorithms. IMHO, this approach exactly matches the computing experience of the modern world. Computer languages are not able to express any information except the rules of manipulation with the bits and bytes of the computer storage. BUT, these very limited abilities are nevertheless sufficient not only for the controlling very different machines but also for the manipulating human beings. Why a computer is that efficient? It is while computer languages adequately model the real world. Among other this means that data designated in computer languages coincide with the outside real objects as the names coincide with the designated objects. Hence follows the idea of creating the programming-language-like-notation, which allows words directly designating external objects. 2. Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self-evident. In my opinion, no proofs for that are necessary. The solution is to build the knowledge system based on this premise and see whether it will practically work. Neither C++ no other practically used programming languages ever got any formal proofs of their functionality. The usability of a language depends not on any formal checks but on whether they could be effectively used in practice. I mean TMI could practically be used and hope it will. 3. definition of "meaning In TMI "semantics" and "meaning" are synonyms. The characteristic for TMI understanding of semantics is firstly considered at the end of "Problem Statement". Another place is 2.6 where I deliberately chose the simplest systems, because they are the best in showing the approach's basics. The approach itself could be applied on arbitrary complex systems. In a few words: ― meaning of the linguistic item is the branch(s) of algorithm(s) associated with this item. -----Original Message----- From: Krassimir Markov [mailto:mar...@foibg.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 22:32 PM To: boris.sunik Subject: Fw: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Ritz Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:22 PM To: 'Steven Ericsson-Zenith' ; 'Joseph Brenner' Cc: 'Foundations of Information Science' Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik I agree with you both. The declarative statements (4 statements in 2.4.1 Digital Computer versus Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self evident. This path is a dead end. Regards Gavin The document seems extremely confused to me. This is not least because the author does not appear to present a clear definition of the terms in the title or the expression of subject in the work. In particular, I can find no definition of "meaning" other than the one presented in a quote from Shannon and the subsequent use of the term is confused to say the least. Similarly, the term "semantic" is not clearly defined and abused. The same goes for other terms such as "knowledge." So I take an even harsher view than Joseph since it is not even a good representative of the view that "computer algorithms can provide all you know, and all you need to know." The definitive representative of that view is Stephen Wolfram's book "A New Kind Of Science," and while I have my problems with the theory in the book, it is - at least - well defined. With respect, Steven On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Dear Krassimir, > > Thank you for bringing this document to our attention, for > completeness. I > would have wished, however, that you had made some comment on it, > putting it > into relation with your own work and, for example, that of Mark > Burgin, which are dismissed out of hand. > > From my point of view, Sunik's work is another one of those major > steps backwards to an earlier, easier time when it was claimed that > computer algorithms could provide "all you know, and all you need to > know" about information. One example of a phrase the author presents > as involving meaning is "Peter's shirt size". . . > > From a methodological standpoint, I think it underlines, /a > contrario/, the > danger of focus on a single approach to information. My current idea, which > I propose for discussion, is that a document purporting to offer a > theory of > information should provide a reasoned, comparative discussion of 4 to > 5 theories. This number is large enough for judgments to be possible > on a preferred approach and small enough for the average reader, like > myself, to > keep the similarities and differences in mind. > > Thank you and best wishes, > > Joseph > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com> > To: "FIS" <fis@listas.unizar.es> > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:00 PM > Subject: [Fis] Fw: General Information Theory > > > -----Original Message----- > From: boris.sunik > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:10 AM > To: ithea-...@ithea.org > Subject: General Information Theory > > Dear Colleague, > > For your information: > http://www.GeneralInformationTheory.com > > Regards, > Boris Sunik > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
