[Fis] The good old Sumerians and how we can improve on them
*Properties of Places and of Objects* *We have seen in this chatroom that there is recognisance of the need to come up with something dramatically new and innovative in the field of information theory, but also, that having been educated in a specific fashion, it is not easy to think new thoughts.* *So, if you kindly allow, I shall wrap the new concept in such ideas and words which are not yet filled up and reserved with abstract meanings. This is a technique which was used by Swift, as he discussed he relationships between rulers and ruled, and by Lewis Carroll, when discussing some logical syllogisms, to mention but two of the classical writers. Some say that Aesop’s and La Fontaine’s fables are also among the didactic fairy tales.* 1. *What are the objects we abstract from: what the Sumers did* *We are in Sumer, listening to the discussions among the king(s), princes and wealthy courtiers. They decide that they will invent now the positional algorithm, meaning that where a symbol is placed has as much influence over the meaning of the resulting logical statement as which symbol it is. (Simplified example: if A means 1, B means 2, C means 3, the invention of the day is that ABA means: 121 and not: 1 furthermore 2 furthermore 1. The example is simplified: they did not use the decimal system. Look up Wikipedia for a more exact explanation of the principle.)* *What are the objects that the scientists have agreed on to use as things that can have places? Not every one of them had camels, not every one of them had date trees, not every one of them had bushels of wheat. What each of them had was a harem with at least – say – 60 ladies in each of the harems.* *Now they had a set of objects the individual properties of which could be dismissed; what can be agreed on is then: only the number and therefore the position of the objects: herewith delivering a solid epistemological basis for: so many identical objects to the left (or right) of it, so many places to count. This results in the property of the i-th lady to have the property of lady number i. * *It is not the job of the narrator to speculate about the experiences of the reader with a large number of ladies, but in those long bygone days there could have been agreement among the wealthy and speculative-minded Sumerians, that this method saves a lot of discussions on who is the prima donna and why. * *The de-individuation of the individual objects comes as a side-effect of assigning places as individuating properties to objects. Lady X is that lady who comes the 4th night hence and that week where ladies ABACBAC follow each other is different to that week where ladies BCAACBC offer their charms.* *To be able to actually use the positional assignment based counting, it is necessary to go through 3 steps of abstraction:* *a) **De-individuate the objects by assigning one absolute ranking to them across all harems (women nr. 1: women represented by symbol A, women nr. 2: women represented by symbol B, etc.);* *b) **Individuate the places by enumerating them 1, 2, 3, …. This they were able to do, because they have discovered the rules connecting the 28 nights of the moon and some particularities of women and the 12 months and the year: that is, they were able to enumerate in a temporal sequence, which they then transferred to a linear (geometric) sequence;* *c) **Individuate the permutation based on a sample with replacement, which is the method what we use till today to arrive at a picture of a number. (We draw any of the symbols A,B,C,… and put it on place 1, then we draw again from the same universe, obviously having replaced the element we had drawn before, so it is again available. This 2nd element we put on place 2. Then again we draw an element, again doing so as if there was an endless supply of symbols, thinking ourselves to have replaced the sample drawn. This fallacy of our imagination will entertain us much when discussing the genetic information stricture.)* 1. *What we can improve on the Sumers: what they had no way of doing* *Had the Sumers been of such gentle and wise disposition as we are, they had done the following (also, they would have needed paper, pencil and computers):* 1. *We establish the maximal number of describing aspects of the objects* *We of course know that of a limited number of different objects, only a limited number of distinct logical sentences can be said (after a while, one will start repeating oneself. The maximal number of distinct descriptions of a set containing n objects – as can be read off OEIS/A242615 – is the number of partitions of n, raised to the power of the logarithm of the number of partitions of n. For all practical purposes, one will establish this upper limit by calculating n!, building ln(n!) and creating sqr(ln(n!)). This is the number of independent describing dimensions and agrees for n<136 quite exactly to ln(p(n)), where p(n) = number of partitions of
Re: [Fis] Fw: PRINCIPLES OF IS. The Pre-Science of Information
Caro Pedro, ho inviato un brevissimo messaggio a John Collier, ma non è pervenuto. E' possibile sapere perché? Se non è possibile grazie lo stesso. Francesco P.s.:grazie. P.s.Caro John, hai detto in maniera semplice una grande verità. Tutta la conoscenza è basata sulla legge dell'informazione, quindi tutte le scienze non possono fare a meno della stessa legge con una definizione comune e misurazione diversa. Altrimenti, come ben dici, si crea solo confusione. Un abbraccio. Francesco P.s. L'ho inviato un paio di ore fa, ma non è arrivato a destinazione: forse per indirizzo sbagliato. 2017-11-06 16:06 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>: > Caro Pedro, > ho inviato un brevissimo messaggio a John Collier, ma non è pervenuto. E' > possibile sapere perché? Se non è possibile grazie lo stesso. > Francesco > > P.s.:grazie. > > P.s.Caro John, > hai detto in maniera semplice una grande verità. Tutta la conoscenza è > basata sulla legge dell'informazione, quindi tutte le scienze non possono > fare a meno della stessa legge con una definizione comune e misurazione > diversa. Altrimenti, come ben dici, si crea solo confusione. > Un abbraccio. > Francesco > P.s. L'ho inviato un paio di ore fa, ma non è arrivato a destinazione: > forse per indirizzo sbagliato. > > 2017-11-06 15:40 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan : > >> His server rejects quite many messages (from me too). Send to the list... >> Best --Pedro >> >> >> El 06/11/2017 a las 14:36, Francesco Rizzo escribió: >> >> Caro Pedro, >> ho inviato un brevissimo messaggio a John Collier, ma non è pervenuto. E' >> possibile sapere perché? Se non è possibile grazie lo stesso. >> Francesco >> >> P.s.Caro John, >> hai detto in maniera semplice una grande verità. Tutta la conoscenza è >> basata sulla legge dell'informazione, quindi tutte le scienze non possono >> fare a meno della stessa legge con una definizione comune e misurazione >> diversa. Altrimenti, come ben dici, si crea solo confusione. >> Un abbraccio. >> Francesco >> P.s. L'ho inviato un paio di ore fa, ma non è arrivato a destinazione: >> forse per indirizzo sbagliato. >> >> >> 2017-10-06 14:36 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan : >> >>> Dear Terry and FIS colleagues, >>> I think you make a good point. I was reminded on the problems my >>> research group has found in the development of our "Sociotype project", >>> cooperating with social science groups and psychologists. The lack of >>> communication in between those closer to formal fields or just within >>> natural sciences (our case) and the humanities and social science fields is >>> amazing. From my point of view they strongly defend some form of >>> "obscurity", in the sense that they do not accept but a total disciplinary >>> autonomy often ideologically rooted. Perhaps I am exaggerating, as the >>> intrinsic complexity of those matters is only amenable to "foundations" >>> from discoursive approaches... Well, in any case a metaphorical idea about >>> those principles of Information Science is that they can work as "posts" >>> where new electric lines may be tended, so that they can bring new light to >>> new pockets within those ultracomplex realms. The gap between >>> sceince-humanities might be well crossed by info science. >>> (Finally let me apologize for not having processed yet all the late >>> messages, I have a slow digestion) >>> Best--Pedro >>> >>> >>> El 05/10/2017 a las 19:21, Terrence W. DEACON escribió: >>> >>> 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
Re: [Fis] Fw: PRINCIPLES OF IS. The Pre-Science of Information
Caro Pedro, ho inviato un brevissimo messaggio a John Collier, ma non è pervenuto. E' possibile sapere perché? Se non è possibile grazie lo stesso. Francesco P.s.:grazie. P.s.Caro John, hai detto in maniera semplice una grande verità. Tutta la conoscenza è basata sulla legge dell'informazione, quindi tutte le scienze non possono fare a meno della stessa legge con una definizione comune e misurazione diversa. Altrimenti, come ben dici, si crea solo confusione. Un abbraccio. Francesco P.s. L'ho inviato un paio di ore fa, ma non è arrivato a destinazione: forse per indirizzo sbagliato. 2017-11-06 15:40 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan : > His server rejects quite many messages (from me too). Send to the list... > Best --Pedro > > > El 06/11/2017 a las 14:36, Francesco Rizzo escribió: > > Caro Pedro, > ho inviato un brevissimo messaggio a John Collier, ma non è pervenuto. E' > possibile sapere perché? Se non è possibile grazie lo stesso. > Francesco > > P.s.Caro John, > hai detto in maniera semplice una grande verità. Tutta la conoscenza è > basata sulla legge dell'informazione, quindi tutte le scienze non possono > fare a meno della stessa legge con una definizione comune e misurazione > diversa. Altrimenti, come ben dici, si crea solo confusione. > Un abbraccio. > Francesco > P.s. L'ho inviato un paio di ore fa, ma non è arrivato a destinazione: > forse per indirizzo sbagliato. > > > 2017-10-06 14:36 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan : > >> Dear Terry and FIS colleagues, >> I think you make a good point. I was reminded on the problems my research >> group has found in the development of our "Sociotype project", cooperating >> with social science groups and psychologists. The lack of communication in >> between those closer to formal fields or just within natural sciences (our >> case) and the humanities and social science fields is amazing. From my >> point of view they strongly defend some form of "obscurity", in the sense >> that they do not accept but a total disciplinary autonomy often >> ideologically rooted. Perhaps I am exaggerating, as the intrinsic >> complexity of those matters is only amenable to "foundations" from >> discoursive approaches... Well, in any case a metaphorical idea about those >> principles of Information Science is that they can work as "posts" where >> new electric lines may be tended, so that they can bring new light to new >> pockets within those ultracomplex realms. The gap between >> sceince-humanities might be well crossed by info science. >> (Finally let me apologize for not having processed yet all the late >> messages, I have a slow digestion) >> Best--Pedro >> >> >> El 05/10/2017 a las 19:21, Terrence W. DEACON escribió: >> >> 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
Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism
Hi Zueshan and FISers, I think it is a good idea to distinguish between two 'complementary' branches of informatics -- (i) pure (or Unified, Fundamental, etc.) and (ii) applied (or Branch, Special, Specialized, etc). This week I will post an example of the latter, using DNA as a model of defining what 'information' may be. This post will be entitled: Information in DNA: Letters, Words, Sentences, Texts, and Meanings and will combine my earlier paper (The Lingusitics of DNA: Words, Stences, Grammar, Phonetics and Sematics, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 870:411-417 (1999)) with the results of a recent paper by Sergey Petoukhov (The rules of long DNA-sequences and tetra-groups of oligonucleotides, https://scirate.com/arxiv/1709.04943). My current hypothesis is that what Petoukhov refers to as the tetra-groups may be what I call molecular words. All the best. Sung From: Fis on behalf of Xueshan Yan Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2017 10:11 PM To: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, It has passed 70 years since Wiener’s Cybernetics and Shannon’s Mathematical Theory of Communication, and 20 years since this FIS forum found. During this period, there are innumerable researchers tried to find this "primary concept" of information but without success. Thing, knowledge, data, difference, perception, reflection, uncertainty, entropy, and so on. Therefore, I hope your "We need other primary concepts which will permit us to define information and to prove all consequences." won't arouse the enthusiasm trying to find it more, it is an endless task to such efforts. My opinion is that we had better turn our major attention to the new search such as the general principle that Pedro started several weeks ago, and theorem, axiom, etc. or other aspects about Information Science. Definition is not the only way to build a science. I agree with the view that Brenner regard Information Science as a pre-science, and only in this way we can slowly advance it into a normal-science, if possible. Once we can put forward some basic knowledge such as the form of principle, theorem, axiom, etc., we need to illustrate them at once. This will immediately involves what you say: “Informatics lacks of well established primary concepts. The concept of information couldn't be primary because it couldn't be illustrated directly by real examples." In fact, standing on the position of Unified Information Science, all the general principle, theorem, axiom, etc. are very difficult to be illustrated, but they are rather easy to get the effective illustration in the Branch Informatics. In order to implement this strategy, the initial principle, theorem, axiom, etc. should also be based on Branch Informatics rather than Unified Information Science at first. Best wishes, Xueshan From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Krassimir Markov Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2017 9:07 PM To: Foundation of Information Science Subject: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism Dear Bruno and FIS Colleagues, Thank you very much for your useful remarks! This week I was ill and couldn’t work. Hope, the next week will be better for work. Now I want only to paraphrase my post about Idealism and Materialism: The first is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation exists. The second is founded on believing that the Intelligent Creation does not exist. Both are kinds of religions because they could not prove their foundations by experiments and real examples. The scientific approach does not believe in anything in advance. The primary concepts have to be illustrated by series of real examples. After that the secondary concepts have to be defined and all propositions have to be proved. Are the mathematicians materialists or idealists? Of course neither the first nor the second! Mathematics is an example of the scientific approach. Informatics lacks of well established primary concepts. The concept of information couldn’t be primary because it couldn’t be illustrated directly by real examples. We need other primary concepts which will permit us to define information and to prove all consequences. Friendly greetings Krassimir -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 12:30 PM To: Foundation of Information Science Subject: Re: [Fis] About 10 Principles Dear Krassimir, On 31 Oct 2017, at 15:07, Krassimir Markov wrote: > Dear FIS Colleagues, > > Many years ago, in 2011, I had written a special remark about > scientific and non-scientific approaches to try to understand the > world around. > The > letter of Logan Streondj returns this theme as actual today. > > The interrelations between scientific and non-scientific creating and > perceiving the data and models as well
