[Fis] Pedro's 10 Theses

2017-09-16 Thread Stanley N Salthe
Here I indicate my understanding of Pedro's statements on information
STAN

10 PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE

1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.

   S: I have information as a perceptible result of interaction,
which may be embodied in matter and/or energy


Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows.

   S: Agreed


3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be  processed

(either computationally or non-computationally).

   S: If an interaction has an effect, that effect can be converted
to other embodiments, resulting in informing


4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production

processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying

energy flows.

   S: Life, as an information-guided local process-embodiment,
transforms other forms by extracting usable energy and materials from them.


5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie

the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.

  S: Information, as such, has no scale restriction. However,
informed processes in living systems proceed independently at many scales.


6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication

exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social

nature."

  S: Informing has been constructed as a basic tool among humans.


7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient

knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by

applying rigorous methodologies.

  S: Among humans information is used to construct and effect
technologies.


8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially

overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies."

  S: Humans have methods for sharing information.


9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous

actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and

disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna.

  S: Methods of sharing information among humans have become
developed as discourses


10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information

and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound

consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social

governance.

   S: Information Science proposes to embody a special
understanding of informational transactions as an acknowledged discourse.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

2017-09-16 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Tutti,
per com-prendere l'esistenza e la conoscenza  esiste un'unica legge: quella
dell'informazione. Materia, energia, spazio, tempo, etc., non sono altro
che informazione materiale, informazione energetica, informazione spaziale,
informazione temporale, etc. Sono pervenuto anch'io (ma non siamo in molti)
a questa non definitiva o non immutabile conclusione attraverso
l'elaborazione della NUOVA ECONOMIA della conoscenza o la conoscenza della
NUOVA ECONOMIA contenuta in tanti miei libri e ultimamente in:
"Una nuova avventura tra l'idolatria del denaro e lo spirito dell'amore con
com-passione o viscerale emo-ra-zionalità", Aracne editrice, Roma, 2017.
Sono stato sempre consapevole di essere un "poverino esponenziale", ma con
la mia tenace volontà e non smettendo mai la mia attività di ricerca e di
studio ho com-preso ciò che sembra(va) in-com-prensibile, ma niente è
incomprensibile a questo mondo basta avere un'immaginazione creativa e non
poca umiltà.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco Rizzo

2017-09-16 13:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson :

> Dear Arturo, all,
>
> First of all, thank you to Pedro for exciting the list again - I was
> missing it!
>
> I have sympathy with Arturo's position, not because I am a
> mathematician (I'm not), but because I get tired of the "posturing"
> that qualitative positions produce among academics. I work in
> education, and education theory is full of this. Chomsky had a go at
> Zizek and much postmodern social theory for this very reason:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0. He's got a point hasn't
> he?
>
> One of the exciting aspects of quantum mechanics is that some of what
> we intuitively know about social life seems to be mirrored in the
> quantum world and is expressible in mathematics. That this has some
> empirical foundation upon which scientists can agree presents the
> prospect of a deeper rethinking of a logic which might encompass a
> broader spectrum of life and lived experience. This is not a new
> dream: it is very similar to aims of the early cyberneticians who met
> in the Macy hotel in the late 1940s.
>
> However, progress towards this is hampered by a number of things.
> 1. The splits between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, and
> between quantum mechanics and relativity seem to arise from
> irreconcilable originating perspectives. A colleague of mine at
> Liverpool, Peter Rowlands has been hammering away at this for over 30
> years (see https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Physical-Law-
> Peter-Rowlands/dp/9814618373/ref=sr_1_1?s=books=UTF8&
> qid=1505562032=1-1=peter+rowlands+physical+law),
> establishing a coherent mathematical description which unites
> classical and quantum mechanics - but of course, such attempts often
> meet with incomprehension by the physics community who have
> established careers on the back of existing paradigms. There is a
> human problem in addressing the physics problem!
>
> 2. The nature of mathematics and number itself is a question. It's a
> very ancient question - I was delighted and surprised to learn that
> John Duns Scotus worked out a logic of "superposition" in the 13th
> century (he called it "synchronic contingency") see
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-John-Duns-Scotus/dp/0748624627.
> Maths is a discourse, like physics and sociology. If there wasn't
> coordination between mathematicians about the symbols they use and
> their meaning, there would be no maths. Curiously, neither would there
> be maths if all the mathematicians in world perfectly agree on all
> symbols and meaning! (there'd be nothing to talk about).
>
> 3. given point 2, to put maths before information is to invite the
> challenge that maths is information (as discourse), and without
> information there is no maths!
>
> However, can we do better than "posturing". Yes, I think we can, and
> this may well involve new empirical practices, but this requires a new
> shared perspective. Maybe our approaching quantum computers will give
> us this by making the weirdness of superposition, entanglements and
> the inherent dynamic symmetry of the quantum world part of everyday
> life...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
> On 15 September 2017 at 14:16, tozziart...@libero.it
>  wrote:
> > Dear FISers,
> > I'm sorry for bothering you,
> > but I start not to agree from the very first principles.
> >
> > The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is
> > mathematics.
> > Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
> > Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through
> > entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
> >
> > And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is
> > subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been
> > already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that
> > information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both
> > 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

2017-09-16 Thread Mark Johnson
Dear Arturo, all,

First of all, thank you to Pedro for exciting the list again - I was missing it!

I have sympathy with Arturo's position, not because I am a
mathematician (I'm not), but because I get tired of the "posturing"
that qualitative positions produce among academics. I work in
education, and education theory is full of this. Chomsky had a go at
Zizek and much postmodern social theory for this very reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0. He's got a point hasn't
he?

One of the exciting aspects of quantum mechanics is that some of what
we intuitively know about social life seems to be mirrored in the
quantum world and is expressible in mathematics. That this has some
empirical foundation upon which scientists can agree presents the
prospect of a deeper rethinking of a logic which might encompass a
broader spectrum of life and lived experience. This is not a new
dream: it is very similar to aims of the early cyberneticians who met
in the Macy hotel in the late 1940s.

However, progress towards this is hampered by a number of things.
1. The splits between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, and
between quantum mechanics and relativity seem to arise from
irreconcilable originating perspectives. A colleague of mine at
Liverpool, Peter Rowlands has been hammering away at this for over 30
years (see 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Physical-Law-Peter-Rowlands/dp/9814618373/ref=sr_1_1?s=books=UTF8=1505562032=1-1=peter+rowlands+physical+law),
establishing a coherent mathematical description which unites
classical and quantum mechanics - but of course, such attempts often
meet with incomprehension by the physics community who have
established careers on the back of existing paradigms. There is a
human problem in addressing the physics problem!

2. The nature of mathematics and number itself is a question. It's a
very ancient question - I was delighted and surprised to learn that
John Duns Scotus worked out a logic of "superposition" in the 13th
century (he called it "synchronic contingency") see
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-John-Duns-Scotus/dp/0748624627.
Maths is a discourse, like physics and sociology. If there wasn't
coordination between mathematicians about the symbols they use and
their meaning, there would be no maths. Curiously, neither would there
be maths if all the mathematicians in world perfectly agree on all
symbols and meaning! (there'd be nothing to talk about).

3. given point 2, to put maths before information is to invite the
challenge that maths is information (as discourse), and without
information there is no maths!

However, can we do better than "posturing". Yes, I think we can, and
this may well involve new empirical practices, but this requires a new
shared perspective. Maybe our approaching quantum computers will give
us this by making the weirdness of superposition, entanglements and
the inherent dynamic symmetry of the quantum world part of everyday
life...

Best wishes,

Mark

On 15 September 2017 at 14:16, tozziart...@libero.it
 wrote:
> Dear FISers,
> I'm sorry for bothering you,
> but I start not to agree from the very first principles.
>
> The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is
> mathematics.
> Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
> Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through
> entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
>
> And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is
> subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been
> already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that
> information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both
> relativity and quantum dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
> Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY
> physical context of matter and energy.
>
> Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on
> the basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes
> metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful
> possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math).
>
>
> Arturo Tozzi
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
>
> Messaggio originale
> Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
> A: "fis"
> Ogg: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple of
> previous comments may be in order.
> First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was motivated
> by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea of
> principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" (posthumously
> published in 1958). 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

2017-09-16 Thread Christophe Menant
Interesting points  Guy,
Let me proposed a few things that can come in addition.
“Fitness” could be worded “conformance to a demand”, or “satisfaction of a 
constraint”. And there we are talking about existing relations, like satisfying 
a ”stay alive” constraint for animals, a ”look for happiness “ one for humans 
and an “avoid obstacles “ one for a robot.
Also distinguishing between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ is indeed key.
I believe that we have first to agree that the concept of information exists by 
the meanings that can be associated to information. Humans have invented 1+1=2 
because 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples to avoid starving. The modeling of reality 
is not for free. Take away the concept of meaning, the one of information 
disappears. The relations between the two can be pretty complex but a thread is 
that meanings are the results of interpretation of information by agents.  So 
the concept of “meaning generation” by an agent submitted to an internal 
constraint, as already addressed in our FIS forum.
Best
Christophe



De : Fis  de la part de Guy A Hoelzer 

Envoyé : vendredi 15 septembre 2017 20:25
À : Foundations of Information Science Information Science
Cc : tozziart...@libero.it
Objet : Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

I agree with Arturo.  I understand information exclusively as matter and 
energy, and the diversity of their states through space/time.  What else it 
there?  The alternative would be to accept ‘information’ as merely an heuristic 
concept that helps us to communicate and make sense of our lives without the 
goal of identifying real phenomena.  I think the freedom to create and use such 
heuristic concepts is essential for many reasons, but we are constantly 
challenged as scientists with distinguishing between these terms and those we 
think and hope approximate real phenomena.  A grad student I worked with 
suggested the term “tool words” to label terms we recognize as mainly 
heuristic.  As an evolutionary biologist, I would suggest the term “fitness” 
has been a very useful heuristic term, but that “fitness” does not actually 
exist.  This statement might surprise or even put off many of my colleagues, 
which I think illustrates the problem caused by failing to make this 
distinction explicit.  As I have argued before, I think clearly distinguishing 
between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ would be a good first step in this 
direction.

Regards,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno

Phone:  775-784-4860
Fax:  775-784-1302



On Sep 15, 2017, at 6:16 AM, 
tozziart...@libero.it wrote:

Dear FISers,
I'm sorry for bothering you,
but I start not to agree from the very first principles.

The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is 
mathematics.
Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through 
entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).

And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is subjective 
and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been already tackled by 
the math of physics: science already predicts that information can be 
"subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both relativity and quantum 
dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY 
physical context of matter and energy.

Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on the 
basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes 
metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful 
possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math).



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/


Messaggio originale
Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
>
Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
A: "fis">
Ogg: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS

Dear FIS Colleagues,

As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple of 
previous comments may be in order.
First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was motivated by 
the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea of principle in 
Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" (posthumously published in 
1958). Our tentative information science seems to be very different from other 
sciences, rather