List, Joseph, Kassimir, Bob U:
(This is a continuation of my inquiry into role of universals in biological
After reflecting on the roots of your system of Logic of Reality as grounded
in potentiality and actuality I remain as puzzled as ever. These two terms are
widely used in philosophy and physics. Indeed, historically, it appears these
terms are translations from the Greek terms of Aristotle.
So, why am I puzzled? Because I do not find a path from these terms to the
terminology used by logicians. While logic itself is an utter disaster (in the
scientific sense of a unitary discipline) , one point that most authors agree
upon is a logical statement allows one to draw a conclusion. By extension, I
expect a system of logic would allow a systematic method for drawing
conclusions. Do you find this to be an unreasonable expectation?
What am I missing?
I suspect you are mis-reading the message that I seek to communicate.
Information interaction is exchanging of information models.
In other words, you and I do not share a common information model.
By citing Shannon, you suggest that the information model of Shannon is
sufficient for (mechanical?) communication.
But what is the notion of universality that you are pre-supposing? Is it
merely Euclidian mathematics?
My assertion is that one needs a nomino-realistic notion of information model
in order to encode biological communication. That is, the names are not
arbitrary abstractions but necessarily must be constructed from parts. The
logic for this assertion are physical principles - physical atomism and the
associated mathematics of physical conservation principles. In other words,
the arbitrary assignment of mathematical variables (names) will not generate a
logic of biological communication.
This conclusion is reached as a semiotic necessity - that is, the semiosis
intrinsic to a mutual shared information model that operates between
mathematics and physical atomism does NOT exist.
The antecedent model (information model) does not generate the consequent
model and hence no conclusions can be drawn. To make this point sharper, the
physics community in general rejected the notion of physical atoms prior to the
experimental and theoretical work between 1900 - 1930 (Rutherford, Bohr,
I note substantial parallelism between your views and those of my colleague,
Bob Ulanowicz, in the limited sense that engineering mathematics plays a
critical role in the structures of your arguments.
The concept of nomino-realism demands a richer mathematics, far richer than
the typical engineering mathematics.
The terms of this mathematics must be sufficiently rich to allow logicians to
construct names from the properties of the terms. That necessity is the basis
of the limitation of the classical mathematical views of universals, such as
variables and such mathematical structures as categories.
At the simple level of natural language communication, a speaker/listener of
Russian and a speaker/listener of Chinese (pre-supposing that both are
mono-linguistic) can not communicate because the encoding and decoding
processes are not mutual. This is a simple metaphor for the abstract concepts
that I seek to communicate in the more general representation of mathematical
symbols. When are they nominal? When are they realistic? And when must they
be both nominal and realistic? Biological communication requires BOTH!
On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:08 PM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:
1. Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of
communications (Jerry LR Chandler)
From: Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
Subject: [Fis] Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of communications
Date: December 5, 2013 11:08:23 PM CST
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Congratulations on a big step forward for FIS!
I am delighted to see this major philosophical step (from the term
'information' to the term 'communication' for Pedro as the leader of FIS.
The progressive step
FROM the philosophy of information as a form of physics / number
TO the recognition of communication as the basis purpose of information
is warmly welcomed here at the Headwater House.
In my view, a new direction has been established for FIS and I heartily
The next step for FIS is, in my opinion, to explore the relative.
In other words, what are the nature of the relatives in communication?
In this regard, I disagree strongly with Kassimir assertion that :
Communication is a process of exchanging of signals, messages with
different degree of complexity (Shannon).
Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific
only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio
molecules, cells, organs).
My rejection of