Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?; towards a calculus of redundancy

2017-01-10 Thread Loet Leydesdorff
Toward a Calculus of Redundancy:   
The feedback arrow of expectations in knowledge-based systems

Loet Leydesdorff, Mark W. Johnson, Inga Ivanova 

(Submitted on 10 Jan 2017; https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.02455 )

 

Whereas the generation of Shannon-type information is coupled to the second law 
of thermodynamics, redundancy--that is, the complement of information to the 
maximum entropy--can be increased by further distinctions: new options can 
discursively be generated. The dynamics of discursive knowledge production thus 
infuse the historical dynamics with a cultural evolution based on expectations 
(as different from observations). We distinguish among (i) the communication of 
information, (ii) the sharing of meaning, and (iii) discursive knowledge. 
Meaning is provided from the perspective of hindsight as feedback on the 
entropy flow and thus generates redundancy. Specific meanings can selectively 
be codified as discursive knowledge; knowledge-based reconstructions enable us 
to specify expectations about future states which can be invoked in the 
present. The cycling among the dynamics of information, meaning, and knowledge 
in feedback and feedforward loops can be evaluated empirically: When mutual 
redundancy prevails over mutual information, the sign of the resulting 
information is negative indicating reduction of uncertainty because of new 
options available for realization; innovation can then be expected to flourish. 
When historical realizations prevail, innovation may be locked-in because of 
insufficient options for further development. 

 

* Comments are very welcome in this stage

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

  l...@leydesdorff.net ;  
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Associate Faculty,   SPRU, University of Sussex; 

Guest Professor   Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor,   ISTIC, Beijing;

Visiting Professor,   Birkbeck, University of London; 

  
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

 

From: Terrence W. DEACON [mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2017 8:15 PM
To: John Collier
Cc: l...@leydesdorff.net; Dai Griffiths; Foundations of Information Science 
Information Science
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?

 

Leot remarks:

 

"... we need a kind of calculus of redundancy."

 

I agree whole-heartedly. 

 

What for Shannon was the key to error-correction is thus implicitly normative. 
But of course assessment of normativity (accurate/inacurate, useful/unuseful, 
significant/insignificant) must necessarily involve an "outside" perspective, 
i.e. more than merely the statistics of sign medium chartacteristics. 
Redundancy is also implicit in concepts like communication, shared 
understanding, iconism, and Fano's "mutual information." But notice too that 
redundancy is precisely non-information in a strictly statistical understanding 
of that concept; a redundant message is not itself "news" — and yet it can 
reduce the uncertainty of what is "message" and what is "noise." It is my 
intuition that by developing a formalization (e.g. a "calculus") using the 
complemetary notions of redundancy and constraint that we will ultimately be 
able formulate a route from Shannon to the higher-order conceptions of 
information, in which referential and normative features can be precisely 
formulated. 

 

There is an open door, though it still seems pretty dark on the other side. So 
one must risk stumbling in order to explore that space.

 

Happy 2017, Terry

 

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, John Collier  wrote:

Dear List,

 

I agree with Terry that we should not be bound by our own partial theories. We 
need an integrated view of information that shows its relations in all of its 
various forms. There is a family resemblance in the ways it is used, and some 
sort of taxonomy can be constructed. I recommend that of Luciano Floridi. His 
approach is not unified (unlike my own, reported on this list), but compatible 
with it, and is a place to start, though it needs expansion and perhaps 
modification. There may be some unifying concept of information, but its 
application to all the various ways it has been used will not be obvious, and a 
sufficiently general formulation my well seem trivial, especially to those 
interested in the vital communicative and meaningful aspects of information. I 
also agree with Loet that pessimism, however justified, is not the real 
problem. To some extent it is a matter of maturity, which takes both time and 
development, not to mention giving up cherished juvenile enthusiasms.

 

I might add that 

Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Hector Zenil
There is no way I could trust such a proof as it would completely rely on
the very particular and certainly arbitrary axiomatic theory in which such
a proof could be produced (there is no way we can take the 'universe' as
being operating on theories of relativity and quantum field, for
example). It makes little to no sense to rely on a mathematical proof or to
even give it more credit than some empirical evidence. I, myself, feel
pretty safe with the arguments provided so far (I do not pretend anyone
else to do so, perhaps you don't, but my understanding is that the people
that know and certainly would be concerned, are satisfied enough), of
course as long as the calculations were correct, i.e. that if nature does
not produce such black holes, CERN would therefore not produce them in the
same circumstances and at lower energies. For certain there will be still
people that feel unsafe and I think that is also good, always some
dissension helps to get things right and force the other side to be even
more convincing. What I definitely would think is definitely wrong, is that
a mathematical proof can give any definite proof of the real world. I once
worked in an animal behaviour lab where they wanted me to prove theorems
about animal behaviour and I told them they were insane =)

All Best,

- Hector

P.s. Notice I am a mathematician by training, so I am not suggesting at all
to throw away maths, but I think some people clearly overestimate the power
of maths or math theories as if axioms were physical 'trues', when they are
merely mathematical assumptions. Similar to people that have proven the
Church thesis in the negative because they have created a theoretical model
that computes beyond the Turing limit, the problem is not that one, the
problem is to show it can be implemented and one can actually compute with
such models.






---
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
delete the message.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear Terry and FISers,
>
> I know that there is probably theoretical “no proof” or guarantee in the
> mathematical sense, but this should not mean that irresponsible experiments
> can be carried out on a large scale like Tesla did them a century ago. What
> you suggest about “experiments of nature” sounds reasonable. Hawking's
> argument is also good. But he was also wrong a couple of times.  What you
> say about maths is also true, but the issue is more about the moral and
> methodology of science. We cannot afford doing Frankenstein experiments on
> this small Earth. Do we know the consequences of all these experiments for
> our ecology? Polynesia is still suffering the French H-bomb tests in the
> 1950s: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/french-nuclear-tests-
> polynesia-declassified. As I told Lou, if the experiments were made in
> another remote galaxy, I would not have a problem as an observer. But they
> are made here, under our feet, and there is no guarantee that they cannot
> go wrong. We cannot escape anywhere. Again, this has nothing to do with the
> statistics of airplane or lift crashes. The entire human civilisation of
> 100.000 years can disappear within a minute. Maybe not with this
> experiment, but with the next one. Of course, this could happen also with
> an asteroid or  a comet hit, or a series of volcano eruptions and
> earthquakes, but don’t we have other,  more important problems to solve
> here on Earth?
>
> All the best.
>
> Plamen
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Terrence W. DEACON 
> wrote:
>
>> Mathematic analysis seldom provides "proof" of any physical theory or
>> prediction. This is of course why we do empirical experiments. So being
>> unpersuaded by either side's theoretical analysis and prior to running the
>> actual experiment on the LHC, what is the best approach? I think that there
>> is another option than simply avoiding performing any such experiment until
>> reaching mathematical certainty. I am much more persuaded by the results of
>> "experiments of nature" than by anyone's calculations. And there is ample
>> evidence from the results of such "experiments" that the predicted
>> catastrophic consequences will not occur (because they have not, despite
>> millions of replications). I quote again from
>>
>> http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc
>>
>> "Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the
>> earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."  Prof. Steven Hawking,
>> Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
>>
>> "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the
>> moon with more energy and have not produced a black 

Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
Dear Terry and FISers,

I know that there is probably theoretical “no proof” or guarantee in the
mathematical sense, but this should not mean that irresponsible experiments
can be carried out on a large scale like Tesla did them a century ago. What
you suggest about “experiments of nature” sounds reasonable. Hawking's
argument is also good. But he was also wrong a couple of times.  What you
say about maths is also true, but the issue is more about the moral and
methodology of science. We cannot afford doing Frankenstein experiments on
this small Earth. Do we know the consequences of all these experiments for
our ecology? Polynesia is still suffering the French H-bomb tests in the
1950s:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/french-nuclear-tests-polynesia-declassified
. As I told Lou, if the experiments were made in another remote galaxy, I
would not have a problem as an observer. But they are made here, under our
feet, and there is no guarantee that they cannot go wrong. We cannot escape
anywhere. Again, this has nothing to do with the statistics of airplane or
lift crashes. The entire human civilisation of 100.000 years can disappear
within a minute. Maybe not with this experiment, but with the next one. Of
course, this could happen also with an asteroid or  a comet hit, or a
series of volcano eruptions and earthquakes, but don’t we have other,  more
important problems to solve here on Earth?

All the best.

Plamen






On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Terrence W. DEACON 
wrote:

> Mathematic analysis seldom provides "proof" of any physical theory or
> prediction. This is of course why we do empirical experiments. So being
> unpersuaded by either side's theoretical analysis and prior to running the
> actual experiment on the LHC, what is the best approach? I think that there
> is another option than simply avoiding performing any such experiment until
> reaching mathematical certainty. I am much more persuaded by the results of
> "experiments of nature" than by anyone's calculations. And there is ample
> evidence from the results of such "experiments" that the predicted
> catastrophic consequences will not occur (because they have not, despite
> millions of replications). I quote again from
>
> http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc
>
> "Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the
> earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."  Prof. Steven Hawking,
> Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
>
> "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the
> moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed
> up the moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes."
>  Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago
>
> Math is not the ultimate arbiter. But if we didn't have this empirical
> background it would have been a good reason to seek out empirical
> counter-examples before running our own test. Of course this sort of
> caution was not heeded when we tested nuclear weapons.
>
> — Terry
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
> plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, these are only citations. What if all of them are wrong?
>> What if the data that were measured are incorrect?
>> We have had this many times in human history. Titanik was considered
>> unsinkable.
>> Bismark too. But both went down to the seaground.
>> Where is the mathematical proof or the computer simulation?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Plamen
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:32 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> "The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that
>>> word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have
>>> thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of
>>> the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and
>>> contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis."
>>>
>>> Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University,
>>>
>>> Prof. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute
>>> of Technology,
>>>
>>> Prof. Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard
>>> University
>>>
>>> "The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is
>>> absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of
>>> times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."
>>>
>>> Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge
>>> University
>>>
>>> "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the
>>> moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed
>>> up the moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes."
>>>
>>> Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of 

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
Dear Louis, Pedro and FISers,

I have been knowing Otto for about a litle less than 10 years now.
What I have learned from him is that he has a very subtle sense of humor
and wisdom.
What I conclude about this issue with CERN's LHC is that he wishes nothing
more/less than an a priori theoretical proof that the black hole
experiments will not lead to a collaps of the Earth.
He would be more than happy if somebody provides this proof and his
concerns about our future appear ungrounded, so that the experiments can
continue without any fear about the possible end of humanity. But as he
said, nobody has done this until now. Nobody has taken these concerns
seriously. The key question for us is why do we allow such experiments
without having such a proof? Why do we play with fire in our own kitchen
without being sure that we can deal with its breakout? If the accident
occurs, then it will be too late to prevent the danger, unless we have a
time machine, which is not the case at the moment, I am afraid.

So, I think that Otto's appeal can be considered as a challenge not less
important than the one with the proof of Fermat's last theorem.
While there was no danger from keeping this problem unsolved for 300+
years, we may have a real problem now.
So, why not trying to administer science for being performed in a
reasonable way: to not place the horses (experimental science) before the
cabin (theoretical science) - which is the case with LHC?
Otto only wishes to say: "We should not do such experients, until we have a
theoretical proof or at least to have a computer simulation demonstrating
that the chance of having such a disaster is diminishing." And even if this
is the case, we should carry a referendum over 4+ billion people on Earth
on wether to allow such experiments or not. They are not only an issue ofr
a government or of an over-excited community of physicists. Please correct
me if I am wrong, Otto.

I hope this helps.

All the best.

Plamen





On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Louis H Kauffman  wrote:

> Dear Folks,
> It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning Professor
> Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
> It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or
> false.
> It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is correctly
> alligned to physical prediction.
> Note also that a reaction such as
> "THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND SAVING
> A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”.
> Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in the
> form of taking a given conclusion for granted
>  and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an opinion.
>
> By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political state
> of the world.
>
> This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of the
> possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.
>
> At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall read
> and look forward to making further comments next week.
> Best,
> Lou Kauffman
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
> wrote:
>
> From Alex Hankey
>
>  Mensaje reenviado 
> Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
> Fecha: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
> De: Alex Hankey  
> Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
> 
>
> THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND SAVING
> A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.
>
> On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
>
>> Dear FISers,
>>
>> Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
>> I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
>> But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
>> counter-arguments...
>>
>> Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
>> --Pedro
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com]
>> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
>> *Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
>> *Asunto:* NY session
>> --
>>
>> *A Curious Story*
>>
>> Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany
>>
>> Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then make
>> it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I can save
>> your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond by
>> saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist
>> bible.
>>
>> It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic
>> person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb about to
>> be planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the
>> other hand, it could also be that you, the 

[Fis] Game over! A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread tozziarturo

"The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but 
in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly 
considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any 
concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much 
evidence and scientific analysis."
Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University,
Prof. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology,
Prof. Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University
"The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely 
safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in 
the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."
Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
"Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the moon 
with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the 
moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes."
Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago
"I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC 
producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no 
scientific basis whatever for such wild speculations."
Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, Former Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Oxford 
University
"There is no risk [in LHC collisions, and] the LSAG report is excellent."
Prof. Lord Martin Rees, UK Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society 
of London
"Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read LSAG report where all 
possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions at the 
LHC  cannot lead to a catastrophic consequences."
Academician V.A. Rubakov, Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, and Russian 
Academy of Sciences
"We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any 
concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could 
possibly be produced at the LHC."
R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external members of the CERN Scientific Policy 
Committee, including Prof. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics.
http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc



--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android martedì, 10 gennaio 2017, 06:09PM +01:00 da 
Louis H Kauffman  lou...@gmail.com :

>Dear Folks,
>It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning Professor 
>Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
>It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or false.
>It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is correctly 
>alligned to physical prediction.
>Note also that a reaction such as 
>"THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND SAVING A 
>LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”.
>Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in the form 
>of taking a given conclusion for granted
> and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an opinion. 
>
>By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political state of 
>the world.
>
>This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of the 
>possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.
>
>At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall read and 
>look forward to making further comments next week.
>Best,
>Lou Kauffman
>
>
>>On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > 
>>wrote:
>>From Alex Hankey
>> Mensaje reenviado 
>>Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
>>Fecha:  Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
>>De:  Alex Hankey  
>>Para:  PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
>>
>>THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN
PERMANENTLY AND SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.
>>
>>On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO
  CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ  < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > wrote:
>>>Dear
FISers,
>>>
>>>Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017
  sessions.
>>>I really hope that this Curious Story is just that,
  a curiosity.
>>>But in science we should not look for hopes but for
  arguments and counter-arguments...
>>>
>>>Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New
  Year!
>>>--Pedro
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>De: Otto E.
  Rossler [ oeros...@yahoo.com ]
>>>Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de enero de
  2017 17:51
>>>Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
>>>Asunto:  NY session
>>>--
>>>
>>>A Curious Story
>>> 
>>>Otto E. Rossler, University
  of Tübingen, Germany
>>>
>>>Maybe I am the only one who
  finds it curious. Which fact would then
   

[Fis] Fwd: Re: A Curious Story (L. Kauffman)

2017-01-10 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

 Mensaje reenviado 
Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Fecha:  Sun, 8 Jan 2017 10:36:07 -0600
De: Louis H Kauffman 
Para:   PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
CC: fis@listas.unizar.es 



Dear Pedro,
Ok. Can we have the text of Professor Rossler’s proof that these 
mini-black holes


  * cannot Hawking evaporate
  * grow exponentially inside matter?


It would be very interesting to debate the details.

I find on the web:
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf

http://www.science20.com/big_science_gambles/blog/interview_professor_otto_rössler_takes_lhc-31449 



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html

http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf

Best,
Lou Kauffman


On Jan 5, 2017, at 5:06 AM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
> wrote:


Dear FISers,

Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and 
counter-arguments...


Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
--Pedro




*De:*Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com ]
*Enviado el:*miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
*Para:*PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
*Asunto:* NY session
--

*A Curious Story*
Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany

Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then 
make it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I 
can save your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and 
you respond by saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken from 
the Buddhist bible.
It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic 
person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb 
about to be planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to 
worry. On the other hand, it could also be that you, the manager, are 
a bit high at the moment so that you don't fully appreciate the offer 
made to you. How serious is my offer herewith made to you today?
I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no 
counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized proof 
of danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black holes 
officially attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two radically 
new properties:


  * they cannot Hawking evaporate
  * they grow exponentially inside matter

If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing 
ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva 
means that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and 
grow there exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole 
after several of undetectable growth. Therefore the current attempt of 
CERN's to produce them near Geneva is a bit curious.
What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one 
finds it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor informs 
the candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the following 
words “You are bound to laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never 
understood the punchline. I likewise cannot understand why a never 
refuted proof of the biggest danger of history leaves everyone 
unconcerned. Why NOT check an unattended piece of luggage on the 
airport called Earth?
To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason 
that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof would thus 
alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are 
thus my last hope that you might be able to explain the punch line to 
me: “Why is it that it does not matter downstairs that the first floor 
is ablaze?” I am genuinely curious to learn why attempting planetocide 
is fun.  Are you not?


For J.O.R.
---



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


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


[Fis] Fwd: Re: A Curious Story (J. Brenner)

2017-01-10 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan


 Mensaje reenviado 
Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Fecha:  Sun, 8 Jan 2017 10:32:50 +0100
De: Joseph Brenner 
Responder a:Joseph Brenner 
Para: 	PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ , 
fis@listas.unizar.es




Dear All,
Happy New Year indeed! Let us all 'hope' (here OK) that 2017 does not 
turn into 1984. . .

Regarding the proposed discussion topic, I have two suggestions:
1) everyone should read, at least, the excellent and recent (Dec., 2016) 
Wikipedia article on Small Black Holes, so that we can share a minimum 
background (sic);
2) Otto should please tell us his theory of why miniature black holes 
from any source should not Hawking evaporate after exhausting the matter 
within a Fermi distance, thus eliminating the possibility of further growth.

'Cheers',
Joseph

   - Original Message -
   *From:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
   
   *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es 
   *Sent:* Thursday, January 05, 2017 12:06 PM
   *Subject:* [Fis] A Curious Story

   Dear FISers,

   Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
   I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
   But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
   counter-arguments...

   Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
   --Pedro



   
   *De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com]
   *Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
   *Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
   *Asunto:* NY session
   --

   *A Curious Story*
   Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany

   Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then
   make it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I
   can save your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and
   you respond by saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken
   from the Buddhist bible.
   It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a
   lunatic person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a
   time-bomb about to be planted into it. In that case, there would be
   no reason to worry. On the other hand, it could also be that you,
   the manager, are a bit high at the moment so that you don't fully
   appreciate the offer made to you. How serious is my offer herewith
   made to you today?
   I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no
   counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized
   proof of danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black
   holes officially attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two
   radically new properties:

 * they cannot Hawking evaporate
 * they grow exponentially inside matter

   If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing
   ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva
   means that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and
   grow there exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole
   after several of undetectable growth. Therefore the current attempt
   of CERN's to produce them near Geneva is a bit curious.
   What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one
   finds it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor
   informs the candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the
   following words “You are bound to laugh but you have flunked the
   test.” I never understood the punchline. I likewise cannot
   understand why a never refuted proof of the biggest danger of
   history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an unattended
   piece of luggage on the airport called Earth?
   To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very
   reason that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof
   would thus alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my
   dear reader, are thus my last hope that you might be able to explain
   the punch line to me: “Why is it that it does not matter downstairs
   that the first floor is ablaze?” I am genuinely curious to learn why
   attempting planetocide is fun.  Are you not?

   For J.O.R.
   ---



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

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


Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
How many readers recall the fear that preceded the first test of a fission
bomb, and then later of a fusion bomb, that such an explosion could ignite
the earth's atmosphere? Sound familiar?
I can even recall the reasoning that led some to argue that reaching the
speed of sound in the atmosphere would  cause any object (aircraft) to
shatter as though striking an immovable solid object.

I don't mention these cases to say that one should always ignore such
worries, but rather to explore the abductive and statistical reasoning
processes that we often use to make such decisions.
This is loosely related to the reasoning that causes lottery ticket
purchases to soar as both the probability of winning plummets as the prize
value grows. The psychology is well studied and yet the empirical science
side of this issue is not. We have a very minimal understanding of how to
assess the "probable significance" of alternative unproved theoretical
predictions. This is of course an issue of understanding the referential
and normative aspects of information.

— Terry


On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 3:06 AM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:

> Dear FISers,
>
> Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
> I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
> But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
> counter-arguments...
>
> Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
> --Pedro
>
>
>
> --
> *De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com]
> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
> *Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
> *Asunto:* NY session
> --
>
> *A Curious Story*
>
> Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany
>
> Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then make
> it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I can save
> your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond by
> saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist
> bible.
>
> It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic
> person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb about to
> be planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the
> other hand, it could also be that you, the manager, are a bit high at the
> moment so that you don't fully appreciate the offer made to you. How
> serious is my offer herewith made to you today?
>
> I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no
> counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized proof of
> danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black holes officially
> attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two radically new properties:
>
>
>- they cannot Hawking evaporate
>- they grow exponentially inside matter
>
>
> If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing
> ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva means
> that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and grow there
> exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after several of
> undetectable growth. Therefore the current attempt of CERN's to produce
> them near Geneva is a bit curious.
>
> What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one finds
> it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor informs the
> candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the following words “You
> are bound to laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never understood the
> punchline. I likewise cannot understand why a never refuted proof of the
> biggest danger of history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an
> unattended piece of luggage on the airport called Earth?
>
> To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason
> that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof would thus
> alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are thus
> my last hope that you might be able to explain the punch line to me: “Why
> is it that it does not matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I
> am genuinely curious to learn why attempting planetocide is fun.  Are you
> not?
>
> For J.O.R.
> ---
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Fwd: Re: A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

From Alex Hankey

 Mensaje reenviado 

Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Fecha:  Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
De: Alex Hankey 
Para:   PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 



THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND 
SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.


On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
> wrote:


   Dear FISers,

   Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
   I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
   But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
   counter-arguments...

   Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
   --Pedro



   
   *De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com ]
   *Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
   *Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
   *Asunto:* NY session
   --

   *A Curious Story*
   Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany

   Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then
   make it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I
   can save your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and
   you respond by saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken
   from the Buddhist bible.
   It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a
   lunatic person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a
   time-bomb about to be planted into it. In that case, there would be
   no reason to worry. On the other hand, it could also be that you,
   the manager, are a bit high at the moment so that you don't fully
   appreciate the offer made to you. How serious is my offer herewith
   made to you today?
   I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no
   counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized
   proof of danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black
   holes officially attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two
   radically new properties:

 * they cannot Hawking evaporate
 * they grow exponentially inside matter

   If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing
   ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva
   means that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and
   grow there exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole
   after several of undetectable growth. Therefore the current attempt
   of CERN's to produce them near Geneva is a bit curious.
   What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one
   finds it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor
   informs the candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the
   following words “You are bound to laugh but you have flunked the
   test.” I never understood the punchline. I likewise cannot
   understand why a never refuted proof of the biggest danger of
   history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an unattended
   piece of luggage on the airport called Earth?
   To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very
   reason that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof
   would thus alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my
   dear reader, are thus my last hope that you might be able to explain
   the punch line to me: “Why is it that it does not matter downstairs
   that the first floor is ablaze?” I am genuinely curious to learn why
   attempting planetocide is fun.  Are you not?

   For J.O.R.
   ---




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




--
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD(M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789


2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, 
Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy 

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


Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Louis H Kauffman
Dear Pedro,
Ok. Can we have the text of Professor Rossler’s proof that these mini-black 
holes
> cannot Hawking evaporate 
> grow exponentially inside matter?
It would be very interesting to debate the details.

I find on the web:
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf 


http://www.science20.com/big_science_gambles/blog/interview_professor_otto_rössler_takes_lhc-31449
 


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2650665/Legal-bid-to-stop-CERN-atom-smasher-from-destroying-the-world.html
 


http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf
 


Best,
Lou Kauffman


> On Jan 5, 2017, at 5:06 AM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear FISers,
> 
> Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
> I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
> But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and 
> counter-arguments...
> 
> Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
> --Pedro
> 
> 
> 
> De: Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com ]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
> Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
> Asunto: NY session
> --
> 
> A Curious Story
>  
> Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany
> 
> Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then make it 
> even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I can save your 
> house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond by saying 
> “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist bible. 
>  
> It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic person 
> claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb about to be 
> planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the 
> other hand, it could also be that you, the manager, are a bit high at the 
> moment so that you don't fully appreciate the offer made to you. How serious 
> is my offer herewith made to you today?
>  
> I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no counter-proof 
> in the literature to my at first highly publicized proof of danger. I was 
> able to demonstrate that the miniature black holes officially attempted to be 
> produced at CERN do possess two radically new properties: 
> 
> they cannot Hawking evaporate 
> they grow exponentially inside matter
>  
> If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing ultra-slow 
> miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva means that the 
> slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and grow there exponentially 
> to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after several of undetectable 
> growth. Therefore the current attempt of CERN's to produce them near Geneva 
> is a bit curious. 
>  
> What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one finds it 
> curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor informs the candidate 
> about the outcome of the oral exam with the following words “You are bound to 
> laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never understood the punchline. I 
> likewise cannot understand why a never refuted proof of the biggest danger of 
> history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an unattended piece of 
> luggage on the airport called Earth?  
>  
> To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason that 
> everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof would thus alleviate but 
> a single person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are thus my last hope 
> that you might be able to explain the punch line to me: “Why is it that it 
> does not matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I am genuinely 
> curious to learn why attempting planetocide is fun.  Are you not?
> 
> For J.O.R.
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es 
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> 
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] List problems

2017-01-10 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear FISers,

The problems with the spam filters continue. My own message with the 
Lecture was delayed 3 days.

Further responses by Joseph, Lou, Terry and others have not appeared yet.
I am talking with the University of Zaragoza officers in charge of the 
server...

It is appalling that we have to suffer all these incidents

Sorry about that.
--Pedro

PS. Please, send all your messages with copy to me.

--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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


Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?

2017-01-10 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
Leot remarks:

"... we need a kind of calculus of redundancy."

I agree whole-heartedly.

What for Shannon was the key to error-correction is thus implicitly
normative. But of course assessment of normativity (accurate/inacurate,
useful/unuseful, significant/insignificant) must necessarily involve an
"outside" perspective, i.e. more than merely the statistics of sign medium
chartacteristics. Redundancy is also implicit in concepts like
communication, shared understanding, iconism, and Fano's "mutual
information." But notice too that redundancy is precisely non-information
in a strictly statistical understanding of that concept; a redundant
message is not itself "news" — and yet it can reduce the uncertainty of
what is "message" and what is "noise." It is my intuition that by
developing a formalization (e.g. a "calculus") using the complemetary
notions of redundancy and constraint that we will ultimately be able
formulate a route from Shannon to the higher-order conceptions of
information, in which referential and normative features can be precisely
formulated.

There is an open door, though it still seems pretty dark on the other side.
So one must risk stumbling in order to explore that space.

Happy 2017, Terry

On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:02 AM, John Collier  wrote:

> Dear List,
>
>
>
> I agree with Terry that we should not be bound by our own partial
> theories. We need an integrated view of information that shows its
> relations in all of its various forms. There is a family resemblance in the
> ways it is used, and some sort of taxonomy can be constructed. I recommend
> that of Luciano Floridi. His approach is not unified (unlike my own,
> reported on this list), but compatible with it, and is a place to start,
> though it needs expansion and perhaps modification. There may be some
> unifying concept of information, but its application to all the various
> ways it has been used will not be obvious, and a sufficiently general
> formulation my well seem trivial, especially to those interested in the
> vital communicative and meaningful aspects of information. I also agree
> with Loet that pessimism, however justified, is not the real problem. To
> some extent it is a matter of maturity, which takes both time and
> development, not to mention giving up cherished juvenile enthusiasms.
>
>
>
> I might add that constructivism, with its positivist underpinnings, tends
> to lead to nominalism and relativism about whatever is out there. I believe
> that this is a major hindrance to a unified understanding. I understand
> that it appeared in reaction to an overzealous and simplistic realism about
> science and other areas, but I think it through the baby out with the
> bathwater.
>
>
>
> I have been really ill, so my lack of communication. I am pleased to see
> this discussion, which is necessary for the field to develop maturity. I
> thought I should add my bit, and with everyone a Happy New Year, with all
> its possibilities.
>
>
>
> Warmest regards to everyone,
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Loet
> Leydesdorff
> *Sent:* December 31, 2016 12:16 AM
> *To:* 'Terrence W. DEACON' ; 'Dai Griffiths' <
> dai.griffith...@gmail.com>; 'Foundations of Information Science
> Information Science' 
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
>
>
>
> We agree that such a theory is a ways off, though you some are far more
> pessimisitic about its possibility than me. I believe that we would do best
> to focus on the hole that needs filling in rather than assuming that it is
> an unfillable given.
>
>
>
> Dear Terrence and colleagues,
>
>
>
> It is not a matter of pessimism. We have the example of “General Systems
> Theory” of the 1930s (von Bertalanffy  and others). Only gradually, one
> realized the biological metaphor driving it. In my opinion, we have become
> reflexively skeptical about claims of “generality” because we know the
> statements are framed within paradigms. Translations are needed in this
> fractional manifold.
>
>
>
> I agree that we are moving in a fruitful direction. Your book “Incomplete
> Nature” and “The Symbolic Species” have been important. The failing options
> cannot be observed, but have to be constructed culturally, that is, in
> discourse. It seems to me that we need a kind of calculus of redundancy.
> Perspectives which are reflexively aware of this need and do not assume an
> unproblematic “given” or “natural” are perhaps to be privileged
> nonetheless. The unobservbable options have first to be specified and we
> need theory (hypotheses) for this. Perhaps, this epistemological privilege
> can be used as a vantage point.
>
>
>
> There is an interesting relation to Husserl’s *Critique of the European
> Sciences* (1935): The failing (or forgotten) dimension is grounded in
> “intersubjective intentionality.” Nowadays, we would call this “discourse”.
> How are 

Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?

2017-01-10 Thread John Collier
Dear List,

I agree with Terry that we should not be bound by our own partial theories. We 
need an integrated view of information that shows its relations in all of its 
various forms. There is a family resemblance in the ways it is used, and some 
sort of taxonomy can be constructed. I recommend that of Luciano Floridi. His 
approach is not unified (unlike my own, reported on this list), but compatible 
with it, and is a place to start, though it needs expansion and perhaps 
modification. There may be some unifying concept of information, but its 
application to all the various ways it has been used will not be obvious, and a 
sufficiently general formulation my well seem trivial, especially to those 
interested in the vital communicative and meaningful aspects of information. I 
also agree with Loet that pessimism, however justified, is not the real 
problem. To some extent it is a matter of maturity, which takes both time and 
development, not to mention giving up cherished juvenile enthusiasms.

I might add that constructivism, with its positivist underpinnings, tends to 
lead to nominalism and relativism about whatever is out there. I believe that 
this is a major hindrance to a unified understanding. I understand that it 
appeared in reaction to an overzealous and simplistic realism about science and 
other areas, but I think it through the baby out with the bathwater.

I have been really ill, so my lack of communication. I am pleased to see this 
discussion, which is necessary for the field to develop maturity. I thought I 
should add my bit, and with everyone a Happy New Year, with all its 
possibilities.

Warmest regards to everyone,
John

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: December 31, 2016 12:16 AM
To: 'Terrence W. DEACON' ; 'Dai Griffiths' 
; 'Foundations of Information Science Information 
Science' 
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?

We agree that such a theory is a ways off, though you some are far more 
pessimisitic about its possibility than me. I believe that we would do best to 
focus on the hole that needs filling in rather than assuming that it is an 
unfillable given.

Dear Terrence and colleagues,

It is not a matter of pessimism. We have the example of “General Systems 
Theory” of the 1930s (von Bertalanffy  and others). Only gradually, one 
realized the biological metaphor driving it. In my opinion, we have become 
reflexively skeptical about claims of “generality” because we know the 
statements are framed within paradigms. Translations are needed in this 
fractional manifold.

I agree that we are moving in a fruitful direction. Your book “Incomplete 
Nature” and “The Symbolic Species” have been important. The failing options 
cannot be observed, but have to be constructed culturally, that is, in 
discourse. It seems to me that we need a kind of calculus of redundancy. 
Perspectives which are reflexively aware of this need and do not assume an 
unproblematic “given” or “natural” are perhaps to be privileged nonetheless. 
The unobservbable options have first to be specified and we need theory 
(hypotheses) for this. Perhaps, this epistemological privilege can be used as a 
vantage point.

There is an interesting relation to Husserl’s Critique of the European Sciences 
(1935): The failing (or forgotten) dimension is grounded in “intersubjective 
intentionality.” Nowadays, we would call this “discourse”. How are discourses 
structured and how can they be translated for the purpose of offering this 
“foundation”?

Happy New Year,
Loet

My modest suggestion is only that in the absence of a unifying theory we should 
not privilege one partial theory over others and that in the absence of a 
global general theory we need to find terminology that clearly identifies the 
level at which the concept is being used. Lacking this, we end up debating 
incompatible definitions, and defending our favored one that either excludes or 
includes issues of reference and significance or else assumes or denies the 
relevance of human interpreters. With different participants interested in 
different levels and applications of the information concept—from physics, to 
computation, to neuroscience, to biosemiotics, to language, to art, 
etc.—failure to mark this diversity will inevitably lead us in circles.

I urge humility with precision and an eye toward synthesis.

Happy new year to all.\

— Terry

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Dai Griffiths 
> wrote:

Thanks Stan,

Yes, it's a powerful and useful process.
My problem is that in this list, and in other places were such matters are 
discussed, we don't seem to be able to agree on the big picture, and the higher 
up the generalisations we go, the less we agree.

I'd like to keep open the possibility that we might be yoking ideas together 
which it may