Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear John and Stan,
What is cause, and what is result? This is the question.
If we not assume information and informational processes as secondary effect 
from activity of living mater,  it is not possible to proof anything and we 
have to believe that proposed models maybe are truth. We have to trust to 
Author but not to experiments. 
Information has to be included not in the beginning of the hierarchy – at least 
in the middle where living mater appear.
Sorry that my post was apprehended as careless!
Friendly regards
Krassimir





From: Stanley N Salthe 
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM
To: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Krassimir -- ???  I fail to understand your assertion.  This (and any 
hierarchy) is a logical formulation, allowing us to allocate influences from 
various aspects of nature in an orderly manner. 

So, please explain further your careless assertion!

STAN 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:

  Dear John and Stan,
  Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
  But this is believe, not science.
  Sorry, nothing personal!
  Friendly regards
  Krassimir




  From: John Collier 
  Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
  To: Stanley N Salthe ; fis 
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

  Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:







  It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.

  Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.



  John



  From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
  Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
  To: fis
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!



  Pedro -- Your list:



  physical, biological, social, and Informational



  is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:



  {informational {physicochemical {biological {social



  STAN



  On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
 wrote:

  Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of 
the border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

  best ---Pedro

  Ken Herold wrote:

  FIS:

  Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?

  Ken

  -- 
  Ken Herold
  Director, Library Information Systems
  Hamilton College
  198 College Hill Road
  Clinton, NY 13323
  315-859-4487
  kher...@hamilton.edu 



  -- 
  -
  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 X
  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




--
  ___
  Fis mailing list
  Fis@listas.unizar.es
  http://listas.uniza

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro John e cari Tutti,
a conforto dell'e-mail inviata questa mattina, ricordo che all'INTERNO dei
buchi neri si avrebbe una minore entropia (o una maggiore neg-entropia)
rispetto alla maggiore entropia (o una maggiore neg-entropia) ESTERNA.
Tutto ciò deve essere bilanciato da una maggiore INFORMAZIONE interna.
Quindi i buchi neri "evaporano" INFORMAZIONE. L'asimmetria tra entropia
ESTERNA e INTERNA è proprio la causa di questa produzione di INFORMAZIONE.
Non ho parlato di "orizzonte degli eventi" per essere (più) schematico e
semplice.
Scusate.
Francesco.

2015-06-13 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Collier :

>  Dear Joseph, List,
>
>
>
> I am running past my allotment, so I will shut up after this for a while.
> (I have to go to California for a workshop in any case, and won’t have much
> internet access for the two days I am traveling.)
>
>
>
> The “it from bit” view was developed (after its origins for other reasons
> I will come to) partly to pose questions about black holes that cannot be
> posed in terms of energy. It also applies to any horizon, including event
> and particle horizons. Whatever the answer, it permits well-posed questions
> that have not been able to be posed in other terms, at least so far.
>
>
>
> The “it from bit” view is independent of, but strongly recommends a
> computational view. I have argued for a transfer of information view of
> causation on independent philosophical grounds as a development of
> Russell’s at-at view of causation. The two approaches converge nicely.
>
>
>
> My understanding of the “it from bit” view does not require a binary logic
> of causation, but emergence of information comes from bifurcations (Layzer,
> Frautschi, Collier, among others). So that is another happy convergence of
> two approaches. I see no reason why trifurcations and other higher order
> splits might not be possible, if unlikely. This is an empirical question,
> but makes no difference to the underlying mathematics, which takes base 2
> logarithms by convention, for convenience. I don’t see this issue as
> empirical in itself, but the convenience has some empirical force.
>
>
>
> The stronger “it from bit” view that applies to everything was due
> originally to Wheeler, not any of the physicists mentioned so far, and
> supported by Gell-Mann. Their reason is that empirical values in quantum
> mechanics often have been shown to arise from asymmetries, and they assume
> this will continue (proton spin is one notable current problem, but the
> problem is being pursued by this method, to the best of my understanding).
> My former student Scott Muller was able to show that asymmetries in a
> system assign a unique information content in the it from bit sense. In any
> case, the view has an empirical motivation, and has produced empirically
> satisfying results, if not universally so far.
>
>
>
> With all due respect, Joseph, the scientists I have mentioned have been
> motivated by empirical issues (problems), not dogma, but you are not
> working on empirical problems. I have argued that the approach is motivated
> primarily by empirical issues, and it is simply wrong to attribute it to
> “authority”, since anyone in principle has access to the empirical issues
> and can make their own proposals. I have not seen these forthcoming for the
> issues involved.
>
>
>
> I will shut up now.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Joseph
> Brenner
> *Sent:* June 13, 2015 10:16 AM
> *To:* fis
> *Subject:* [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Joseph Brenner 
>
> *To:* fis 
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:13 AM
>
> *Subject:* Fw: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I completely agree with Krassimir's position and on the importance of the
> issue on which it taken. Neither he nor I wish to say that there cannot be
> models and insights for science in religious beliefs, such as the Kabbala,
> but then John's diagram would be more appropriate if it had *En Sof* at
> the center rather than It-from-Bit.
>
>
>
> The statement "It-from-Bit is just information", further,
> requires analysis: do we 1) accept this as dogma, including the implied
> limitation of information to separable binary entities? or 2) assume that
> the universe is constituted by complex informational processes, in which
> the term 'It-from-Bit' is misleading at best, and should be avoided?
>
>
>
> I feel particularly uncomfortable when dogmatic computational views such
> as those of Lloyd and Davies are presented as authoritative without
> comment, except by appeal to the authority of 'some physicists'. Those
> FISers who would like to see a reasonably considered rebuttal might look at
> my article in *Information*: "The Logic of the Physics of Information".
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Krassimir 

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[John Collier]

Dear Joseph, List,

I am running past my allotment, so I will shut up after this for a while. (I 
have to go to California for a workshop in any case, and won’t have much 
internet access for the two days I am traveling.)

The “it from bit” view was developed (after its origins for other reasons I 
will come to) partly to pose questions about black holes that cannot be posed 
in terms of energy. It also applies to any horizon, including event and 
particle horizons. Whatever the answer, it permits well-posed questions that 
have not been able to be posed in other terms, at least so far.

The “it from bit” view is independent of, but strongly recommends a 
computational view. I have argued for a transfer of information view of 
causation on independent philosophical grounds as a development of Russell’s 
at-at view of causation. The two approaches converge nicely.

My understanding of the “it from bit” view does not require a binary logic of 
causation, but emergence of information comes from bifurcations (Layzer, 
Frautschi, Collier, among others). So that is another happy convergence of two 
approaches. I see no reason why trifurcations and other higher order splits 
might not be possible, if unlikely. This is an empirical question, but makes no 
difference to the underlying mathematics, which takes base 2 logarithms by 
convention, for convenience. I don’t see this issue as empirical in itself, but 
the convenience has some empirical force.

The stronger “it from bit” view that applies to everything was due originally 
to Wheeler, not any of the physicists mentioned so far, and supported by 
Gell-Mann. Their reason is that empirical values in quantum mechanics often 
have been shown to arise from asymmetries, and they assume this will continue 
(proton spin is one notable current problem, but the problem is being pursued 
by this method, to the best of my understanding). My former student Scott 
Muller was able to show that asymmetries in a system assign a unique 
information content in the it from bit sense. In any case, the view has an 
empirical motivation, and has produced empirically satisfying results, if not 
universally so far.

With all due respect, Joseph, the scientists I have mentioned have been 
motivated by empirical issues (problems), not dogma, but you are not working on 
empirical problems. I have argued that the approach is motivated primarily by 
empirical issues, and it is simply wrong to attribute it to “authority”, since 
anyone in principle has access to the empirical issues and can make their own 
proposals. I have not seen these forthcoming for the issues involved.

I will shut up now.

Regards,
John

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: June 13, 2015 10:16 AM
To: fis
Subject: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!


- Original Message -
From: Joseph Brenner
To: fis
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:13 AM
Subject: Fw: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Dear Colleagues,

I completely agree with Krassimir's position and on the importance of the issue 
on which it taken. Neither he nor I wish to say that there cannot be models and 
insights for science in religious beliefs, such as the Kabbala, but then John's 
diagram would be more appropriate if it had En Sof at the center rather than 
It-from-Bit.

The statement "It-from-Bit is just information", further, requires analysis: do 
we 1) accept this as dogma, including the implied limitation of information to 
separable binary entities? or 2) assume that the universe is constituted by 
complex informational processes, in which the term 'It-from-Bit' is misleading 
at best, and should be avoided?

I feel particularly uncomfortable when dogmatic computational views such as 
those of Lloyd and Davies are presented as authoritative without comment, 
except by appeal to the authority of 'some physicists'. Those FISers who would 
like to see a reasonably considered rebuttal might look at my article in 
Information: "The Logic of the Physics of Information".

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message -
From: Krassimir Markov
To: John Collier ; Stanley N 
Salthe ; fis
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Dear John and Stan,
Your two hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
But this is belief, not science.
Sorry, nothing personal!
Friendly regards
Krassimir




From: John Collier
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe ; 
fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:

[cid:image001.png@01D0A5D6.D997C110]

It from bit i

[Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Joseph Brenner]

- Original Message - 
From: Joseph Brenner 
To: fis 
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:13 AM
Subject: Fw: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!


Dear Colleagues,

I completely agree with Krassimir's position and on the importance of the issue 
on which it taken. Neither he nor I wish to say that there cannot be models and 
insights for science in religious beliefs, such as the Kabbala, but then John's 
diagram would be more appropriate if it had En Sof at the center rather than 
It-from-Bit.

The statement "It-from-Bit is just information", further, requires analysis: do 
we 1) accept this as dogma, including the implied limitation of information to 
separable binary entities? or 2) assume that the universe is constituted by 
complex informational processes, in which the term 'It-from-Bit' is misleading 
at best, and should be avoided?

I feel particularly uncomfortable when dogmatic computational views such as 
those of Lloyd and Davies are presented as authoritative without comment, 
except by appeal to the authority of 'some physicists'. Those FISers who would 
like to see a reasonably considered rebuttal might look at my article in 
Information: "The Logic of the Physics of Information".

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message - 
From: Krassimir Markov 
To: John Collier ; Stanley N Salthe ; fis 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!


Dear John and Stan,
Your two hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
But this is belief, not science.
Sorry, nothing personal!
Friendly regards
Krassimir




From: John Collier 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe ; fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:

 



 

It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.

Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.

 

John

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

 

Pedro -- Your list:

 

physical, biological, social, and Informational

 

is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:

 

{informational {physicochemical {biological {social

 

STAN

 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan  
wrote:

Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of the 
border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

best ---Pedro

Ken Herold wrote:

FIS:

Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?

Ken

-- 
Ken Herold
Director, Library Information Systems
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton, NY 13323
315-859-4487
kher...@hamilton.edu 



-- 
-
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 X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
--

[Fis] Fw: Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Colleagues,

I completely agree with Krassimir's position and on the importance of the issue 
on which it taken. Neither he nor I wish to say that there cannot be models and 
insights for science in religious beliefs, such as the Kabbala, but then John's 
diagram would be more appropriate if it had En Sof at the center rather than 
It-from-Bit.

The statement "It-from-Bit is just information", further, requires analysis: do 
we 1) accept this as dogma, including the implied limitation of information to 
separable binary entities? or 2) assume that the universe is constituted by 
complex informational processes, in which the term 'It-from-Bit' is misleading 
at best, and should be avoided?

I feel particularly uncomfortable when dogmatic computational views such as 
those of Lloyd and Davies are presented as authoritative without comment, 
except by appeal to the authority of 'some physicists'. Those FISers who would 
like to see a reasonably considered rebuttal might look at my article in 
Information: "The Logic of the Physics of Information".

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message - 
From: Krassimir Markov 
To: John Collier ; Stanley N Salthe ; fis 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!


Dear John and Stan,
Your two hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
But this is belief, not science.
Sorry, nothing personal!
Friendly regards
Krassimir




From: John Collier 
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe ; fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:

 



 

It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.

Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.

 

John

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

 

Pedro -- Your list:

 

physical, biological, social, and Informational

 

is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:

 

{informational {physicochemical {biological {social

 

STAN

 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan  
wrote:

Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of the 
border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

best ---Pedro

Ken Herold wrote:

FIS:

Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?

Ken

-- 
Ken Herold
Director, Library Information Systems
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton, NY 13323
315-859-4487
kher...@hamilton.edu 



-- 
-
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 X
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] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[John Collier]

Paul Davies believes in something like that. The other “it from bit”ers, no. So 
I don’t know why you say that, Krassimir. I took the structure below directly 
from uses that appear in scientific sources, not from some a priori 
consideration. Each nesting generates hypotheses that can be tested (and has). 
I find the unification, which involves similar methods at each nesting, 
attractive methodologically. Not everyone does. But I don’t think it is more 
than the sort of usual abductive inference that is common in science. The 
proof, of course, is in the productivity in producing testable and eventually 
tested hypotheses, not in any a priori belief.

John

From: Krassimir Markov [mailto:mar...@foibg.com]
Sent: June 12, 2015 11:19 PM
To: John Collier; Stanley N Salthe; fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Dear John and Stan,
Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
But this is believe, not science.
Sorry, nothing personal!
Friendly regards
Krassimir




From: John Collier
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe ; 
fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:

[cid:image001.png@01D0A5BE.4B3DB950]

It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.
Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.

John

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Pedro -- Your list:

physical, biological, social, and Informational

is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:

{informational {physicochemical {biological {social

STAN

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:
Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of the 
border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

best ---Pedro

Ken Herold wrote:
FIS:

Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?

Ken

--
Ken Herold
Director, Library Information Systems
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton, NY 13323
315-859-4487
kher...@hamilton.edu 
>


--
-
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 X
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


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