[Fis] Paradigmatic diversity

[Robin Faichney]

I hope this doesn't seem arrogant, but I feel it appropriate to
reiterate and emphasize some recent themes:

There is only one ruler in each domain, but there are many domains. A
mechanistic (in the broadest, perhaps fashionable sense) understanding
at one level or set of levels does not necessarily conflict with a
human-centric understanding at a different level or set. Being humans,
after all, there is nothing more natural to us than an anthropocentric
stance. But it should be recognised for what it is, and not extended
to inappropriate realms. The distinction between arts and humanities
on one side and sciences on the other is no longer as clear as it once
seemed, but it cannot just be dropped and forgotten altogether. The
horse must be chosen to suit the course. There is no single almighty
king, thank god!

-- 
Robin Faichney


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

Re: [Fis] FW: The Information Flow

[Karl Javorszky]

Step Two of *Learn to Count in Twelve Easy Steps*

*What happened previously:*

Step 1.:

We have introduced additional describing aspects of the logical sentence
a+b=c. Next to a,b,c, we also make use of u=b-a, k=b-2a, t=2b-3a, q=a-2b,
s=17-(a+b|c), w=2a-3b. For a graphical presentation, see:
http://32o2m99e.utawebhost.at/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=130:01engraph&catid=9:angol&lang=en

Discussion of Step 1:

Joe from Switzerland writes : [this approach]...  potentially quite
dangerous. Alfred Korzybski (*Science and *Society) had an "easy" theory of
the mind "that a high-school student could learn", and it led to
scientology.

Answer:

Leaving the orthodox way can well end in sectarian extremism. The approach
of the Twelve Easy Steps is insofar subversive that it disobeys Teacher’s
instruction: “Thou shalt not look into (a1-b1)-(a2-b2) if a1+b1=c=a2+b2 and
a1#a2”. Where this might end is indeed unpredictable.

*Step 2:*

Today we introduce the set of additions we shall use. We generate the 136
smallest pairs of a,b and their aspects {a,b,c,k,u,t,q,s,w}.

Reason why:

We demonstrate properties of the individual before the background of the
multitude. To be able to do so, we need a multitude. This is the reason for
which we create the multitude.

Why not less:

We see that Nature uses two sets of information carriers that come both in
triplets of four units. Therefore, we need 4 basic units. We see that the
basis of counting is related to the expression 2*i**2, and this gives
2*4**2=32.

Why not more:

We shall introduce the terms “sequential” and “contemporary” in Step 6. We
shall see in Step 10 that congruence between sequenced and contemporaneous
states will become inexact above n=136.

Data set:

The data set we use can be downloaded from:
http://32o2m99e.utawebhost.at/index.php?option=com_atrendez&view=table1&lang=en

Remark: The column “Permutáció” (permutation) shows the sequence of the
arguments used at the creation of the table. Its necessity will be
discussed in Step 10. Presently: disregard.


2012/11/19 Robert Ulanowicz 

> Quoting John Collier :
>
> "As I have tried to argue above, to avoid reductionism in reality as
> opposed to in logic and mathematics I think we need the additional
> condition of dissipation (what I call nonHamiltonian mechanics
> elsewhere -- the usual condition of conservation breaks down due to
> the loss of free energy to the system)."
>
> John,
>
> Your point underscores my earlier one. Dissipation is emblematic of
> entropic processes -- which make ours an open world. There's no
> wishing that away!
>
> Bob
>
> ___
> 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