Re: [Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Mark, 

 

Whether there are five, four, or six momenta is an empirical issue. The crux is 
the specification of an operationalization. Otherwise, this remains pure 
speculation or what you call “ontology”. 

 

The Leiden Rankings, for example, distinguish six broad fields. Other 
categorizations remain possible. Of course, “fields” are not “momenta” J.

 

Best,

Loet

 

 

PS. I hope, Pedro, that this is the one that I could still do at the end of 
this week. L.

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

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

  l...@leydesdorff.net ;  
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,   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&hl=en

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark johnson
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 5:59 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

 

Dear FIS colleagues,

I'm curious about why the discussion about momenta matters. Does it matter 
because we believe it is important to determine the boundaries of specific 
discourses? Does that matter because we fear incoherence or confusion in our 
discussion if we don't demarcate boundaries? And yet the determination of 
discourse boundaries throws in more complexity into the debate: The coherent 
discourse we might hope for runs away from us as we try to grasp it.

What assumptions are we making in asserting momenta? What might it preclude? It 
seems to me that a moment-orientation carries a philosophical realist undertone 
(I'm familiar with it from Bhaskar's critical realism - this looks similar to 
his dialectical MELDA formulation - difficult to get into but insightful) There 
is an assumption about observers, and there is an assumption about natural 
necessity - what speculative realists call 'correlationism'. 

It seems that it matters more to academics than to ordinary people that deep 
ontological issues should be decided upon. Science, after all, depends on 
continual critical questioning about nature. Yet most sensible non-academic 
people might prefer to have a drink with friends than hurt their brains:  might 
they take a more pragmatic view that such matters of deep ontology are 
essentially undecidable? Or that their deep social (love) relationships really 
matter beyond everything else?

Before embarking on schematising momenta, perhaps it would be useful to think 
about what matters in this. Fundamentalism is an ever present risk for all 
academics. And additionally, information has a bearing on both matter and 
mattering after all...

Best wishes,

Mark

  _  

From: Stanley N Salthe  
Sent: ‎30/‎10/‎2015 13:24
To: Marcus Abundis  ; fis 
 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

Marcus wrote:

– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of localities. 
I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that “localizing 
hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1) passive descriptions 
of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as a different locality 
than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human semiotics+acts). One 
might even then add 3) biological processes mediating between 1 & 2.  All 
represent essentially different systems of meaning, no? But then, the Five 
(suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3 in different ways, as I 
read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different localized traits seems to me 
as a possible useful path. Thoughts?

Marcus -- The momenta as given my Pedro:philosophy, biomolecular, 
multicellular, sociality, information do not make up a logical hierarchy, 
either subsumptive nor compositional. One possible, idealistic, reading is in 
subsumption:

{mind {microbiology {macrobiology {sociality {conceptualization}

STAN

 

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loet, thanks for your note (Sat Oct 24) . . . an interesting twist on things I 
had not been considering.

 

John, re (Tue Oct 27) “rigorous connections using the entropy concept . . . 
most people don't understand entropy . . . So I haven't published”

– This interests me, as my own work heads in a general “entropic” direction.

 

Pedro, Steve & Stan – re various notes on Locality, Five Momenta and Hierarchy.

– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of localities. 
I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that “localizing

Re: [Fis] Five Momenta

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

Dear Francesco.
It was a misunderstanding.
The word "weak" in frase " 4th and 5th momenta are weak in FIS
discussions." has a quantitative (not qualitative) meaning.
In statistical context "weak" means "few times".
It is not my intention to qualify the discussions, I want to count them. :-)

You will see when I publish the results.

All the best.
Moisés


2015-10-29 11:52 GMT-02:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:

> Caro Moises Andrè e Cari Tutti,
> resto sorpreso del fatto che si ritenga debole la discussione sulle
> scienze sociali. Soprattutto in questi ultimi anni ho comunicato di avere
> inventato una "Nuova economia" basata proprio sulla terna semiotica della
> significazione, dell'informazione e della comunicazione. Addirittura il Fis
> dibattito serrato  e avvincente sul processo di tras-informazione o sul
> triangolo dei tre surplus (neg-entropia naturale e termodinamica,
> ecobiologica e semiotico-semantica) si ritrova su Internet(google). Mentre
> una dozzina di volte, se non di più, ho dichiarato che la mia teoria del
> valore si fonda sulla legge dell'informazione. Per non parlare dei miei
> numerosissimi libri che ho citato. L'unica attenuante nei confronti di chi
> esprime giudizi così ingiusti è che io uso la lingua italiana. Ma di questo
> non mi vergogno nè mi vanto;. è sempre goliardico il mio modo di
> partecipare alla discussione cercando di tener conto delle altre scienze e
> del loro linguaggio per quanto m'è possibile e riconoscendo la dignità
> scientifica di molti dei Vostri interventi.
> Saluti.
> Francesco Rizzo.
>
> 2015-10-29 10:45 GMT+01:00 Moisés André Nisenbaum <
> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br>:
>
>> Hi, Pedro.
>> Hi, FISers.
>>
>> I understand that Pedro proposed a discussion about the discussions, and
>> I think it is very necessary.
>> There are more than contents in this list, the structure and directions
>> of the discussions are also important. After all, one of the main
>> objectives of Information Science is to analyze Scientific Communications
>> (I consider FIS messages informal scientific communications). So, I am very
>> interested in this "pause" to discuss discussions.
>>
>> Permit to make an analogy. The term "momentum" is used in Physics to
>> express the amount of movement (*p* = m.*v*). Velocity (*v*)
>> representing not only speed but also direction and mass representing the
>> inertia. To change the momentum, you will need force (*F* = d*p*/dt), so
>> it is to change the momentum of a discussion. Depending on the inertia of
>> discussion, it can be difficult. As Pedro said, the momenta must be
>> "aligned": same direction --> more impulse --> we can go farther in less
>> time.
>> So, Pedro classified the discussions in five momenta (categories or tags):
>> 1) Philosophy
>> 2) Biomolecular (primordials of life and cellular organization)
>> 3) Organismic and the Neuronal (evolutionary outcomes)
>> 4) Human Sociality (up to social complexity)
>> 5) Communication and Information
>>
>> Pedro is claiming that 4th and 5th momenta are weak in FIS discussions.
>> I am doing now a little essay tagging the messages of the last discussion
>> "Information and Locality". I will count them and see if this unbalanced
>> momenta is true.
>> Soon I will publish here the results.
>>
>> All the best.
>> Moisés
>>
>>
>> 2015-10-20 13:31 GMT-02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :
>>
>>> Dear FISers,
>>>
>>> In response to the recent philosophical exchanges, and curiously waiting
>>> to see how Steven solves his final posts (Benjamin Peirce is such an
>>> unjustly forgotten figure, not to speak about his arch-famous son), let me
>>> try some new "tangent" on the ongoing debate... I see but five different
>>> and interrelated "momenta" that should be aligned for the hypothetical
>>> advancement of the common info field.  The first one corresponds to
>>> philosophy, as the critical playground where dissatisfaction with the
>>> existing views should conduce to attempting more congenial new ways of
>>> thinking. Unsolved problems of the sciences, when they are general and
>>> affect several disciplines, easily generate philosophical debate--which can
>>> be helpful to suggest new inroads. Saying clearly "nope" to some
>>> philosophical and para-philosophical schools is quite valuable although it
>>> easily generates irritation and obfuscation in the concerned parties (that
>>> ingredient of "piquancy" also enlivens the debates).
>>>
>>> The second momentum would correspond to the biomolecular (primordials of
>>> life and cellular organization). The third momentum would wrap around the
>>> organismic and the neuronal (the evolutionary outcomes of multicellular
>>> life up to advanced nervous systems). I think they are so obvious that do
>>> not deserve further comment.
>>>
>>> The fourth momentum involves the roots of human sociality, up to the
>>> historical development of social complexity. And the fifth momentum belongs
>>> to the contemporary revolution around communication, 

Re: [Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

[Mark johnson]

Dear FIS colleagues,

I'm curious about why the discussion about momenta matters. Does it matter 
because we believe it is important to determine the boundaries of specific 
discourses? Does that matter because we fear incoherence or confusion in our 
discussion if we don't demarcate boundaries? And yet the determination of 
discourse boundaries throws in more complexity into the debate: The coherent 
discourse we might hope for runs away from us as we try to grasp it.

What assumptions are we making in asserting momenta? What might it preclude? It 
seems to me that a moment-orientation carries a philosophical realist undertone 
(I'm familiar with it from Bhaskar's critical realism - this looks similar to 
his dialectical MELDA formulation - difficult to get into but insightful) There 
is an assumption about observers, and there is an assumption about natural 
necessity - what speculative realists call 'correlationism'. 

It seems that it matters more to academics than to ordinary people that deep 
ontological issues should be decided upon. Science, after all, depends on 
continual critical questioning about nature. Yet most sensible non-academic 
people might prefer to have a drink with friends than hurt their brains:  might 
they take a more pragmatic view that such matters of deep ontology are 
essentially undecidable? Or that their deep social (love) relationships really 
matter beyond everything else?

Before embarking on schematising momenta, perhaps it would be useful to think 
about what matters in this. Fundamentalism is an ever present risk for all 
academics. And additionally, information has a bearing on both matter and 
mattering after all...

Best wishes,

Mark


-Original Message-
From: "Stanley N Salthe" 
Sent: ‎30/‎10/‎2015 13:24
To: "Marcus Abundis" <55m...@gmail.com>; "fis" 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

Marcus wrote:
– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of localities. 
I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that “localizing 
hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1) passive descriptions 
of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as a different locality 
than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human semiotics+acts). One 
might even then add 3) biological processes mediating between 1 & 2.  All 
represent essentially different systems of meaning, no? But then, the Five 
(suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3 in different ways, as I 
read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different localized traits seems to me 
as a possible useful path. Thoughts?
Marcus -- The momenta as given my Pedro:philosophy, biomolecular, 
multicellular, sociality, information do not make up a logical hierarchy, 
either subsumptive nor compositional. One possible, idealistic, reading is in 
subsumption:
{mind {microbiology {macrobiology {sociality {conceptualization}
STAN



On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote:

Loet, thanks for your note (Sat Oct 24) . . . an interesting twist on things I 
had not been considering.



John, re (Tue Oct 27) “rigorous connections using the entropy concept . . . 
most people don't understand entropy . . . So I haven't published”
– This interests me, as my own work heads in a general “entropic” direction.


Pedro, Steve & Stan – re various notes on Locality, Five Momenta and Hierarchy.
– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of localities. 
I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that “localizing 
hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1) passive descriptions 
of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as a different locality 
than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human semiotics+acts). One 
might even then add 3) biological processes mediating between 1 & 2.  All 
represent essentially different systems of meaning, no? But then, the Five 
(suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3 in different ways, as I 
read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different localized traits seems to me 
as a possible useful path. Thoughts?


Re Chatin – an interesting article, to be sure, but for the reasons Joesph 
points out (and more) I agree with his posted thoughts.


Finally, in following the posted notes, I find this “discussion about 
discussion“ instructive.








___
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] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

[Stanley N Salthe]

Marcus wrote:

– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of
localities. I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that
“localizing hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1)
passive descriptions of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as
a different locality than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human
semiotics+acts). One might even then add 3) biological processes mediating
between 1 & 2.  All represent essentially different systems of meaning, no?
But then, the Five (suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3
in different ways, as I read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different
localized traits seems to me as a possible useful path. Thoughts?

Marcus -- The momenta as given my Pedro:philosophy, biomolecular,
multicellular, sociality, information do not make up a logical hierarchy,
either subsumptive nor compositional. One possible, idealistic, reading is
in subsumption:

{mind {microbiology {macrobiology {sociality {conceptualization}

STAN

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Loet, thanks for your note (Sat Oct 24) . . . an interesting twist on
> things I had not been considering.
>
> John, re (Tue Oct 27) “rigorous connections using the entropy concept . .
> . most people don't understand entropy . . . So I haven't published”
> – This interests me, as my own work heads in a general “entropic”
> direction.
>
> Pedro, Steve & Stan – re various notes on Locality, Five Momenta and
> Hierarchy.
> – I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of
> localities. I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that
> “localizing hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1)
> passive descriptions of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as
> a different locality than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human
> semiotics+acts). One might even then add 3) biological processes mediating
> between 1 & 2.  All represent essentially different systems of meaning, no?
> But then, the Five (suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3
> in different ways, as I read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different
> localized traits seems to me as a possible useful path. Thoughts?
>
> Re Chatin – an interesting article, to be sure, but for the reasons Joesph
> points out (and more) I agree with his posted thoughts.
>
> Finally, in following the posted notes, I find this “discussion about
> discussion“ instructive.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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