Dear Pedro, Qiao Tian-qing, Karl and all FIS colleagues.
Please receive my best wishes for the New Year. Let it be fruitful and
successful !
Sorry, for a long time I have no possibilities to work in internet. I had many
travels and after returning in Sofia more than a month I had no internet and
stationary phone connections – gipsy people stole the main cable and phone
company had to rebuild the phone permanent way.
I have many to say in our discussion about information and if it will be no too
late and interesting for the FIS group, after 10 of January I will prepare my
next contribution.
Be Happy and Health in the New Year ! The rest is in our hands and bank
accounts – Let they be always full !
Friendly regards
Krassimir
From: karl javorszky
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:11 PM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Karl is all right, too...but] Msg From QTQ
Dear Qiao Tian-qing,
(I hope that this address is both respectful and friendly).
Thank you for an interesting statement and the opportunity to discuss in a
deeper fashion the term "information". Our differences are not unbridgeable:
you say that the term "information" can not be given a precise ontological
meaning.
I say that the term "information" can very well be given a precise - exact,
numerically stable - ontological meaning and formal definition, but this work
is long, complicated, tedious, full of details and decisions.
The tool at your disposal - the set of 136 variants of a+b=c, being ordered in
any of 72 defined fashions - shows the logical skeleton of the interdependence
of "what" and "where". This is but a first step (discovery) along a long road
of improved methods of additions. One may compare the small tool to the first
primitive X-ray machine of Roentgen. One recognises that something
revolutionary is on offer, which may change a whole science forever. The
concept - the basic idea - is absolutely new and creative. It is true that
utilisation needs lots of agreements (e.g. which way is upside down, how do we
interpret the grey shades, how do we influence the transparency of tissue, e.g.
by injecting contrast substances, etc.), and is therefore long, complicated and
full of necessities of agreements, e.g. relating to the taxonomy.
In the case of the improved methods of addition (where one considers more
aspects of the addition than heretofore), it is e.g. obvious that the tool
allows referencing to "forces" as mathematical facts. The long and complicated
discussion begins now about which kind of readings of the Table is equivalent
to "gravitation", which to "weak" and which to "strong" interaction, and which
readings we call recognising the "magnetic" and which the "electric" fields.
But this task is equivalent to searching for agreement, which shade of the
X-ray is showing cartilago and which osteoporosis. No one would argue that it
is conceptually impossible to catalogise the parts of the body, even if it
appears to be a long and complicated process towards agreements.
So, I may insist on my statement, that the term "information" can well be
filled up with - ontological - meaning, where each and every meaning is
attached to one specific reading of the Addition Table. This is of course a
long and complicated process, because we have first to agree, what is a
relevant reading and therefore which readings are irrelevant. Among the
irrelevant readings there are some that can become relevant. In that moment, it
will become "information" actualised=relevant.
It is a pleasure to work through this long and complicated intellectual
exercise with partners in discussion like you. Thank you again.
Karl
2011/1/3 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
FIS Friends, first of all, Happy New Year! Herewith a delayed message from
QTQ that was answering a previous posting from Karl. I cannot help but saying
that in the history of some sciences (remarkably Thermodynamics) clearly
stating WHAT CANNOT BE DONE was extremely fruitful for the disciplinary
development --i.e., "what cannot be defined", in the present case. ---Pedro
-------- Mensaje original -------- Asunto: Karl is all right, too. but
Fecha: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 22:04:28 +0800
De: whhbs...@sina.com
Para: Pedro C. Marijuan mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Dear Pedro
Karl is all right, too, because he said, The term 'information' can well be
defined by stringent logical-mathematical methods. It will, however, need
agreement on the classification of the kinds of information.
The present fact is: the concept of information has become a
self–contradictory and common term used confusedly, universally. Therefore,
nowadays we will surely get into trouble if we try to give a philosophical or
scientific definition of information. It is impossible to state the precise
ontological meaning for “information”, just as one language, English or
Esperanto, is unable to unify 4300 languages in the world.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Qiao Tian-qing
--------------------------------
QTQ
--
-------------------------------------------------
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 mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
