Re: [Fis] Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Sungchul Ji
Hi FISers,


If the "information periodic table" approach  to  Information Science is right, 
which was described on this list a few days ago, the following  predictions may 
be made:


(1)  Just as there are a finite number of elements in the chemical periodic 
table that account for all the meteral objects in the Universe, so there may be 
a finite number(~ 10^2 ?)  of  token informations in the information periodic 
table that serve as the ontological basis for all the informations in the 
mental Universe.


(2) Again, just as quantum physicists recognize two kinds of attributes of  
quantum objects (also called quons or wavicles), i.e., 'static' attributes and 
'dynamic' attributes, the former being constant in time and 
observer-independent, while  the latter being time- and observer-dependent [1], 
so perhaps  information scientists  may find it necessary to recognize  two  
aspects of information -- (i) 'static' information, and (ii) 'dynamic' 
information, the former being absolute and observer-independent (also called 
'objective information' ?), while the latter is relative and observer-dependent 
(also called 'subjective information' ?).


(3)  The famous 'complementarity' principle of Bohr, the Heisenberg principle, 
and the quantum wave functions do not apply to  the static attributes of quons 
but only to their dynamic attributes [1].


(4)  There are many dual aspects of information frequently discussed in the 
field of information science, e.g., "it from bit", "static vs. dynamic",  
"objective vs. subjective:, "medium vs. message", and "signifier vs. signified" 
(see Table 1).  According to the  triadic metaphysics of Peirce [2] (as I 
understand it),  all these dualities are just the prescinded (i.e., to detach 
for the convenience of thought) aspect of the ultimate reality which is 
irreudicibly triadic [3].


(5)  As you may recall, the periodic table of information was based on the 
three nodes, A, B and C, of the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) network.  It 
is interesting to note that the three categories appearing in the first row of 
Table 1 below are related to these nodes and in fact can be viewed as their 
tokens:


f   
 g

  Firstness  --->  Secondness  ---> Thirdness

 |  
   ^
 |  
   |
 |  
   |
 |___|

h


Figure 1. The isomorphism between the Peircean categoris and the ITR 
(Irreducible Triadic Relation) network.


   f = manifestation/reification; g = habit formation; h = 
correspondence/information flow



(6)  In conclusion, it may turn out that all these discussions on the concept 
of information that we are having on this list and elsewhere may turn out to be 
mere tips of enormous iceberg we call "information".



All the best.


Sung





Table 1.  The postulate that Peirce’s metaphysics [2] is a theory of 
everything.  Red = Type;  Green = Tokens

Peirce’s metaphysics

Firstness

Secondness

Thirdness

1.  Quantum mechanics

Static information

Measurement/Data

Dynamic information
(Quantum mechanical information ?)

2.  Wheeler’s theory

Ultimate Reality (?)

It

Bit

3.  Cognitive science

Objective information (?)

Sign (?)

Subjective information (?)

4.  McLuhan

Ontology

Medium/Sign

Message

5.  Saussure’ semiology

Signified

Signfier

 ?

6.  Peirce’s semiotics

Object

Sign

Interpretant

7.  Periodic  table theory of information

Time-invariant information


Data/Sign (?)

Time-dependent  information





References:

[1] Herbert, N. (1987). Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics and 
Excursion into  Metaphysics . . . . Anchor Books, New York.  pp. 46, 99-100, 
102, 168, 193.
[2]  Categories (Peirce).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Peirce)
[3] Ji, S. (2017).  The Cell Language  Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter.  
World Scientific, New Jersey.  Section 10.20.


From: Fis  on behalf of Bob Logan 

Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:39 PM
To: Arturo Tozzi
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Heretic

Dear Arturo - I enjoyed your expression of your opinion  because of its 
directness and honesty even though I do not quite agree with everything you 
said. I enjoyed it because it provoked the following thoughts.

Yes you are right there seems to be a variety of opinions as to just what 
information is. All of them are correct and all of them are wrong including 
mine which I will share with you in a moment. They are 

[Fis] Neither Ghost Nor Machine: The emergence and nature of selves

2017-10-05 Thread Jeremy Sherman
Hi all,

For 20 years I've collaborated with Terry Deacon on his approach to
information. This week, my new book distilling it is published with
Columbia University Press.

*Neither Ghost Nor Machine: the emergence and nature of selves*

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neither-ghost-nor-machine/9780231173339

30% discount with the promo code: cup30

I've been further distilling our approach in short videos.

*Book summary*

https://youtu.be/8JwefpId97Y

*What is trying and how did it start?*

https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U_id=VtSOU9ewlGI


*What is value and how did it start?*
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U_id=cr7ZNLLltQ4

*What is mind and how did it start?*

https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U_id=VJ5kXPrjXxc

Deacon's approach is easy to misunderstand. Given widely-, and deeply-held
assumptions, it's also way too easy to dismiss. My distillations are a new
way to get clear about what he's actually proposing.

Best,

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


Re: [Fis] Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Stanley N Salthe
Bob -- Your classification of information-related concepts:

• Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or
organization, the basic atoms of information,

• Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives
it context and significance,

• Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve
one's objectives, and

 • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's values
and within a larger social context

slightly reworked, can be understood as a development using a subsumptive
hierarchy:

{facts {data -->information {knowledge {understanding}

with {lower {higher}}

STAN

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Bob Logan 
wrote:

> Dear Arturo - I enjoyed your expression of your opinion  because of its
> directness and honesty even though I do not quite agree with everything you
> said. I enjoyed it because it provoked the following thoughts.
>
> Yes you are right there seems to be a variety of opinions as to just what
> information is. All of them are correct and all of them are wrong including
> mine which I will share with you in a moment. They are right in that they
> describe some aspect of the notion of information and they are all wrong
> because they are attempting to be precise and that is not possible. All
> words including the word ‘information’ are metaphors and a metaphor cannot
> be right or wrong - it can only be illuminating if inspired or irrelevant
> if too narrow. I am afraid caro Arturo that there cannot be a scientific
> definition of ‘information’ because definitions cannot be falsified and as
> Karl Popper once suggested for a proposition to be scientific it has to be
> falsifiable. Of course this is Popper’s definition of science so some may
> disagree. So I am with you so far. But where I have to disagree is when you
> call the activity of trying to define information a useless activity. I
> think it is useful if only for us to see the various dimensions of this
> notion.
>
> Now as promised my thoughts re: what is information? In fact I have
> written a whole book on the subject which I invite all FISers to read free
> of charge as it is available in an open access format at
> demopublishing.com
> The availability of the book for free is part of an experiment in which I
> wanted to explore if a book could be a two-way form of communication
> between an author and his or her readers. So FISers please help yourself to
> my book and if you do please honour me with a comment or two as the Web
> site you access the book at also has provisions for you feedback. PS - The
> book is also available in hard copy from Amazon.
>
> So now for my definition of information as can be found in the book.
>
> • Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or
> organization, the basic atoms of information,
>
> • Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives
> it context and significance,
>
> • Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve
> one's objectives, and
>
>  • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's
> values and within a larger social context
>
> In the book I also quote T. S. Eliot whose lines of poetry provide another
> perspective on wisdom, knowledge and information
>
> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? ­– TS Eliot
>
> My definition of information as well as that of TS Eliot does not
> encompass the notion of physicists who talk about information in terms of
> Wheeler’s "it from bit” idea.
> For me inanimate objects have no information because they have no choice.
> They slavishly follow the laws of physics. Only biological, living
> organisms have information because they have choice and information is that
> which allows them to make their choices. And information is that which they
> perceive through their senses from the simplest bacteria to us humans that
> ee cummings described as "fine specimen(s) of hypermagical
> ultraomnipotence”   So this is my second notion of what is ‘information’.
>
> Even a book is not a form of information. It is the record of information 
> created by its author and it is a medium that allows its readers to recreate 
> that original information of its author. From a McLuhan perspective we could
>
> also ask is information the medium or the message. McLuhan would say they are 
> the same since he said 'the medium is the message'. And he would also agree 
> that it is the reader that recreates information when the book
>
> is read since he also said “the user is the content”.
>
> Since composing this response a post from Lars-Göran Johansson appeared with 
> which I am in agreement
>
> Best wishes to all - Bob Logan
>
>
>
> __
>
> Robert K. Logan
> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
> Fellow University of St. Michael's College
> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
> 

Re: [Fis] Fw: PRINCIPLES OF IS. The Pre-Science of Information

2017-10-05 Thread Terrence W. DEACON
Dear all,

I am in agreement with Joseph's suggestion that our discussions of the
foundations of information could be understood as pre-science. Efforts such
as the list of principles proposed by Pedro offer a useful focus of
discussion for working toward a more solid "foundation" precisely because
it helps elicits responses that exemplify the fault lines in our community.
These are not merely points of disagreement but also theoretical boundaries
that need to be clearly identified if we want to seriously map this still
ambiguous conceptual territory. Claims that this issue has been settled or
that there are irresolvable issues involved or that the whole conceptual
territory is useless are unhelpful. We just need to get explicit about our
differences and what motivates them.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Joseph Brenner 
wrote:

> Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,
>
>
>
> In the 2 weeks I have been away, an excellent discussion has
> self-organized as Pedro noted. Any preliminary comments and criticisms of
> Pedro’s 10 Principles I could make now can refer to this. I would have said
> first that Pedro is to be thanked for this construction. Preparing a list
> of principles involves defining not only the content but also the number,
> order and relation between the entries. Zou, Stan and Ted in particular
> have recognized the existence of the list as such and the work involved.
>
>
>
> My own view is that we are all currently involved in reworking the
> Foundations of Information Science. These Foundations are not themselves
> science, but they look forward to the increased understanding of
> Information Science as Terry suggests. I propose the term “Pre-Science” for
> this process activity, a pun on the word ‘prescience’ whose normal
> definition is foreknowledge or foresight. The people who tend to make
> mistakes in this effort will be those who claim that any simple concept or
> set of concepts can do the job itself, supported by claims to authorities
> such as Peirce. Sets of *principles*, on the other hand, are tools more
> difficult to use but they permit directed consideration of several
> perspectives at the same time.
>
>
>
> Principles are the basis for an interpretation of what is in the physical
> and biological processes that are the proper subjects for non-computational
> Information Science, without – yet – providing any explanations. Now this
> is a lot more philosophical that may have been expected when the discussion
> started. However, today, unlike when Pedro and his colleagues started out,
> we have the Philosophy of Information of Luciano Floridi and Wu Kun to work
> with, as well as my logic. I am surprised that no-one has yet referred to
> Floridi or Wu.
>
>
>
> Going back over the postings to-date, I have noted a few which seem
> constitutive of a ‘Pre-Science’ of Information: Emmanuel’s ‘duality’,
> Stan’s hierarchies; Michel Godron’s and John Torday’s bridges to biology,
> Pedro’s reworking of communication, *etc*. I will resist comments that
> the concepts of Pre-Science are to be thrown out as part of non-science or
> ‘just’ philosophy. As Koichiro clearly said on 20.09, information can, and
> in my view is already, bringing in something new empirically to questions
> of space and time.  In the Pre-Science of Information, ideally, it should
> be possible to retain mechanism *and* materialism or realism;
> computationalism *and *non- or natural computationalism; information as a
> physical *reality* and a non-physical *appearance*.
>
>
>
> I look forward with great interest to the lines of development of this
> thread.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Pedro C. Marijuan 
> *To:* 'fis' 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 2:13 PM
> *Subject:* [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 multifarious in appearance
> and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What could be the
> specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms
> for conceptual development, these information principles would appear as a
> sort of "portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines
> in the different organization layers, but at the same time they should try
> to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the
> information world.
> And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too
> optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a 

Re: [Fis] Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Bob Logan
Dear Arturo - I enjoyed your expression of your opinion  because of its 
directness and honesty even though I do not quite agree with everything you 
said. I enjoyed it because it provoked the following thoughts.

Yes you are right there seems to be a variety of opinions as to just what 
information is. All of them are correct and all of them are wrong including 
mine which I will share with you in a moment. They are right in that they 
describe some aspect of the notion of information and they are all wrong 
because they are attempting to be precise and that is not possible. All words 
including the word ‘information’ are metaphors and a metaphor cannot be right 
or wrong - it can only be illuminating if inspired or irrelevant if too narrow. 
I am afraid caro Arturo that there cannot be a scientific definition of 
‘information’ because definitions cannot be falsified and as Karl Popper once 
suggested for a proposition to be scientific it has to be falsifiable. Of 
course this is Popper’s definition of science so some may disagree. So I am 
with you so far. But where I have to disagree is when you call the activity of 
trying to define information a useless activity. I think it is useful if only 
for us to see the various dimensions of this notion.

Now as promised my thoughts re: what is information? In fact I have written a 
whole book on the subject which I invite all FISers to read free of charge as 
it is available in an open access format at demopublishing.com
The availability of the book for free is part of an experiment in which I 
wanted to explore if a book could be a two-way form of communication between an 
author and his or her readers. So FISers please help yourself to my book and if 
you do please honour me with a comment or two as the Web site you access the 
book at also has provisions for you feedback. PS - The book is also available 
in hard copy from Amazon.

So now for my definition of information as can be found in the book.
• Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or 
organization, the basic atoms of information, 

• Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives it 
context and significance,

• Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve one's 
objectives, and

 • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's values and 
within a larger social context 


In the book I also quote T. S. Eliot whose lines of poetry provide another 
perspective on wisdom, knowledge and information

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? ­– TS Eliot

My definition of information as well as that of TS Eliot does not encompass the 
notion of physicists who talk about information in terms of Wheeler’s "it from 
bit” idea. 
For me inanimate objects have no information because they have no choice. They 
slavishly follow the laws of physics. Only biological, living organisms have 
information because they have choice and information is that which allows them 
to make their choices. And information is that which they perceive through 
their senses from the simplest bacteria to us humans that ee cummings described 
as "fine specimen(s) of hypermagical ultraomnipotence”   So this is my second 
notion of what is ‘information’.
Even a book is not a form of information. It is the record of information 
created by its author and it is a medium that allows its readers to recreate 
that original information of its author. From a McLuhan perspective we could 
also ask is information the medium or the message. McLuhan would say they are 
the same since he said 'the medium is the message'. And he would also agree 
that it is the reader that recreates information when the book 
is read since he also said “the user is the content”. 
Since composing this response a post from Lars-Göran Johansson appeared with 
which I am in agreement
Best wishes to all - Bob Logan


__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Fellow University of St. Michael's College
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/people/homepages/logan/












On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:49 PM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:

 Messaggio inoltrato  Da: tozziart...@libero.it 
 A: Alex Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com 
 Data: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM +02:00 
Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] Heretic

Dear Prof. Hankey,
I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in 
particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.  
The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.  


--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com 
:

Dear Professor Tozzi, 

Might I suggest 

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear FIS Colleagues,

There is no problem with heretics in this list. They are very welcome as 
they make us think on our favorite ideas in a different way or even from 
an opposed angle. We must always maintain the scholarly tone, that's the 
only condition! (well, apart from the "two messages per week" sacred 
rule)... From the many --exciting-- recent exchanges, let me pick from 
Lars: /"assuming that Information is a property, an entity is not 
necessary. We can proceed with scientific research, using any 
information concept we think useful, without assuming it refers to 
anything."/ Something similar but perhaps less clearly formulated was in 
my proposal of the indefinability of information and the reference to 
notions such as "propagating influence" and "distinction on the adjacent."


Therefore I friendly disagree with Yixin below: /"//the definition of 
information is the real foundation of information science//"/, although 
I acknowledge the value and interest of his whole approach from the 
background of formal/computational approaches to our problem/field. 
Somehow, defining information universally is like looking for the "red 
herring", but it doesn't mean that we must condemn the term to 
obscurity. We can develop the foundations of information science without 
that definition, and indeed the advancement during last ten years has 
been promising.


My personal strategy, beyond the 10 public points I formulated, consists 
on theoretical/empirical work about "informational entities". Those 
entities, the existence of which depends on a special relationship with 
the environment, are able to continuously distinguish - say - energy 
flows from information flows, intertwining both kinds of flows with 
their own survival and maintenance processes. An excellent parallel can 
be made with Harold Morowitz on the energy flow and Geoffrey West on 
scaling entities. The former for the micro-perspective (& ecological 
perspective) and the latter for the macro-perspective on the 
organizational dynamics of cells, organisms, enterprises, cities...


The closest realm we can consider, and acknowledge almost completely at 
the molecular scale, is the living cell. That's the most strategic 
theater where we can define a series of essential concepts: first the 
information flow, then the signaling system, the life cycle, the 
cell-cell communication, the complexity growth, etc. etc. This was the 
origins of the genuine existential openness to tiny informational 
signals from the environment. I bet that there is something fundamental 
to learn about this bio-informational way of existence that can be 
usefully carried on to physical quarters and also to the social. There 
is a common informational philosophy of organization, e.g. reminding 
Joseph Brenner's LIR, that at the time being we don't recognize 
basically for two reasons: first the dogmas around the reductionist 
physical approach (the imperialism of physics), and second the relative 
poverty  of theoretical biology (the Darwinian organizational 
blindness)... Anyhow , in a few weeks I will publish a rather complete 
description of the prokaryotic information flow. I hope it will 
stimulate reflections from other FIS parties. As I have often cited 
Michael Conrad in this list: /"when we look at a biological system, we 
are looking at the face of the underlying physics of the universe"./


Best--Pedro


El 05/10/2017 a las 12:03, 钟义信 escribió:

Dear friends,

The debate on the definition of information is of significance because 
the definition of information is the real foundation of information 
science. It is noticed that many contravercies in information science 
either in the past or at present time are more or less related to the 
different understandings of the concept of information.


It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of 
information, related and also different to each other. The first one 
is the information presented by the objects existed in 
environment_before the subject's perceiving_ and the second one is the 
information _perceived and understood by the subject._ The first one 
can be termed the object information and the second one the perceived 
information. The latter is perceived by the subject from the former.


The object information is just the object's "state of the object and 
the pattern with which the state varyies". _No meaning and no utility 
at the stage_.


The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject 
from the object information. So, it should have the form component of 
the object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the 
object (semantic information), and the utility component of the object 
with respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). _Only at 
this stage, the "meaning" comes out_.


What is new, we discovered that the meaning (semantic information) is 
the 'function' of the union of the syntactic information and the 
pragmatic information. 

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread 钟义信
Dear friends,The debate on the definition of information is of significance because the definition of information is the real foundation of information science. It is noticed that many contravercies in information science either in the past or at present time are more or less related to the different understandings of the concept of information.It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information, related and also different to each other. The first one is the information presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the subject from the former.The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the pattern with which the state varyies". No meaning and no utility at the stage.The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from the object information. So, it should have the form component of the object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage, the "meaning" comes out.What is new, we discovered that the meaning (semantic information) is the 'function' of the union of the syntactic information and the pragmatic information. This can be understood as the definition of the meaning/semantic information and the relation among them. In othr words, "meaning (semantic information)" cannot be understood arbitrarily.Comments are welcome.--Prof. Y. X. Zhong (钟义信)Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China

- 回复邮件 -发信人:Lars-Göran Johansson收信人:foundationsofinformationscienceinformationscience 时间:2017年10月05日 16时45分39秒主题:Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]:  HereticDear allIt seems to me that the heat in the debate about the definition of the concept of Information is fuelled by deep metaphysical feelings: different people have different views about what is REALLY Information. Metaphysical debates can never be resolved. May I suggest that we agree on this: there are several different concepts, such as Shannon Information, Semantic Information, etc.. Each Information concept has its own distinct definition and each one may use whichever he/she finds useful.Whether any of these concepts refers to any real thing, INFORMATION, cannot be determined by any empirical research. The reason is that empirical research can sometimes decide the truth of a sentence, but never whether the predicate in that sentence refers to anything.Suppose we have found, empirically, that a sentence of the form ’ X is information’ where ’information’ has a clear definition. (Chose anyone you like.) The truth of this sentence entails that the object referred to by ’X’ must exist; this is a truth condition for any declarative sentence. But it does not follow that the predicate ’Information' refers to something. It suffice that the object X belongs to the extension of the predicate. This is the nominalist position.Since 1000 years the core debate in metaphysics has been whether there are universals, i.e., properties and relations. The debate aboutInformation is a debate about the existence of a property.I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is a property, an entithy, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific research, using any information concept we think useful, without assuming it refers to anything. Metaphysical issues can safely be put to rest.Lars-Göran Johansson4 okt. 2017 kl. 19:49 skrev tozziart...@libero.it: Messaggio inoltrato  Da:tozziart...@libero.itA: Alex Hankeyalexhan...@gmail.comData: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] HereticDear Prof. Hankey,I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.--Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidmercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankeyalexhan...@gmail.com:Dear Professor Tozzi,Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,as you evidently do not wish to participate in whatthe rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of 'information',and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally differentmathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.With all good wishes,Alex HankeyOn 4 October 2017 at 02:30,wrote:Dear FISers,After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term "information", one conclusion is 

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Lars-Göran Johansson
Dear all
It seems to me that the heat in the debate about the definition of the concept 
of Information is fuelled by deep metaphysical feelings: different people have 
different views about what is REALLY Information. Metaphysical debates can 
never be resolved. May I suggest that we agree on this: there are several 
different concepts, such as Shannon Information, Semantic Information, etc.. 
Each Information concept has its own distinct definition and each one may use 
whichever he/she finds useful.

Whether any of these concepts refers to any real thing, INFORMATION, cannot be 
determined by any empirical research. The reason is that empirical research can 
sometimes decide the truth of a sentence, but never whether the predicate in 
that sentence refers to anything.
 Suppose we have found, empirically, that a sentence of the form ’ X is 
information’ where ’information’ has  a clear definition. (Chose anyone you 
like.) The truth of this sentence entails that the object referred to by ’X’ 
must exist; this is a truth condition for any declarative sentence. But it does 
not follow that the predicate ’Information' refers to something. It suffice 
that the object X belongs to the extension of the predicate. This is the 
nominalist position.
Since 1000 years the core debate in metaphysics has been whether there are 
universals, i.e., properties and relations. The debate about Information is a 
debate about the existence of a property.
I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should not 
assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is a 
property, an entithy, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific 
research, using any information  concept we think useful, without assuming it 
refers to anything.  Metaphysical issues can safely be put to rest.

Lars-Göran Johansson



4 okt. 2017 kl. 19:49 skrev tozziart...@libero.it:

 Messaggio inoltrato  Da: 
tozziart...@libero.it A: Alex Hankey 
alexhan...@gmail.com Data: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 
2017, 07:37PM +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] Heretic


Dear Prof. Hankey,
I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in 
particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.
The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.


--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankey 
alexhan...@gmail.com:

Dear Professor Tozzi,

Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,
as you evidently do not wish to participate in what
the rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.

As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of 
'information',
and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally different
mathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.

With all good wishes,

Alex Hankey


On 4 October 2017 at 02:30,  
> wrote:

Dear FISers,
After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term 
"information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique 
definition of information.

Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) 
empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".
For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense.

Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.  Therefore, 
my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that is so 
vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is 
information, if nobody knows what does it mean.

--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

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

Lars-Göran Johansson

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Tutti,
non v'ha niente a questo mondo che non abbia una FORMA che è il risultato
di un processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE secondo il quale ogni cosa data o
ogni data cosa prende FORMA in un dato tempo in cui si TRAS-IN-FORMA.
aumentando o diminuendo il livello o il grado o la qualità della FORMA.
Questo è l'unico modo per definire il concetto di INFORMAZIONE, la cui
misurazione dipende dal tipo di INFORMAZIONE (naturale o termodinamica,
genetica, matematica, semantica).
Dal valore della Forma o dalla Forma del valore dipende l'apprezzamento di
ogni bene o segno economico: questa è la teoria del valore della Nuova
Economia che credo, fino a prova contraria, di avere inventato o scoperto.
Chiedo scusa a Tutti per il mio messaggio espresso nella lingua italiana.
Con umiltà, Francesco Rizzo. Grazie.

2017-10-04 19:49 GMT+02:00 :

>  Messaggio inoltrato  Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: Alex
> Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com Data: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM
> +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] Heretic
>
> Dear Prof. Hankey,
> I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in
> particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.
> The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
> mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankey
> alexhan...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Dear Professor Tozzi,
>
> Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,
> as you evidently do not wish to participate in what
> the rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.
>
> As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of
> 'information',
> and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally different
> mathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.
>
> With all good wishes,
>
> Alex Hankey
>
>
> On 4 October 2017 at 02:30,  wrote:
>
> Dear FISers,
> After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the
> term "information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific,
> unique definition of information.
>
> Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just
> one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".
> For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
> Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian
> sense.
>
> Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.
> Therefore, my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your
> otherwise very valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
> It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that
> is so vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is
> information, if nobody knows what does it mean.
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
> ___
> 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 <+44%207710%20534195>
> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 <+91%2090080%2008789>
> 
>
> 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
>
>
> ___
> 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