Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture wrap-up

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e cari tutti,
questa e-mail dell'egregio Hans von Baeyer mi ha stimolato a segnalare,
ancora una volta, quanto sia stato anticipatore il mio pensiero
scientifico-economico sull'importanza della legge dell'informazione a
partire, ad es.,dagli inizi degli anni Ottanta. Sia chiaro, non rivendico
nè presumo niente, bensì da poverino esponenziale come mi auto-definisco
sento tutto il piacere bambino di portare alla Vostra conoscenza che sul
processo di tras-in-form-azione ho scritto e pubblicato più di una dozzina
di libri. Qualcuno di essi l'ho inviato al carissimo Pedro che mi auguro
continui a tenermi non solo nella mente, ma anche nel cuore.
Grazie e saluti augurali nel nome del Signore mio e di tutti,  credenti e
 non credenti.
Francesco Rizzo, già professore di Economia e organizzazione aziendale
nella Facoltà di Ingegneria di Catania.


2014/1/18 Hans von Baeyer 

> Dear Friends: In keeping with the message of my lecture, that knowledge of
> the world is based on the ensemble of individual experiences, more than on
> assumed objective, actual properties of an external reality, I will tell
> you about my experiences of writing and discussing the New Year Lecture. I
> enjoyed the entire process enormously, and wish once more to applaud Pedro
> for inventing this new tradition!
>
> Even as I started this email I learned something that piqued my interest.
>  Gregory Bateson was quoted: "Kant argued long ago that this piece of chalk
> contains a million potential facts (Tatsachen) but that only a very few of
>  these become truly facts by affecting the behavior of entities capable of
>  responding to facts."  Google.de informed me that Tatsache is probably an
> 18th century translation of the English "matter of fact". "Tat" is a deed,
> a "factum", something done or performed, while "Sache" means a thing or a
> matter.  This tenuous etymology connects factuality with action rather than
> with some intrinsic essence. Kant's words "affecting", "behavior" and
> "responding" are QBist to the core. More and more I realize that philosophy
> matters. Chris Fuchs, the chief spokesman for QBism, is among the rare
> physicists who give credit to philosophers for the contributions they make
> to natural science.  In return he hopes that they will listen to physicists
> who bring news from the furthest reaches of nature.
>
> My most intense experience in connection with the New Year Lecture was the
> writing of it.  The first challenge was brevity: "The letter I have
> written today is longer than usual because I lacked the time to make it
> shorter" quipped Blaise Pascal. In order to introduce QBism to you, I had
> to explain the Q and the B.  How to do that within the allotted length?
>  The distinction between Bayesian and frequentist probability is an old
> subject among mathematicians, so I was able to steal from them. ("Schreiben
> ist Borgen", writing is borrowing, according to the aphorist G.C.
> Lichtenberg.) But in order to talk about the Q, I had to show succinctly
> what's so special about quantum mechanics. At this point I was considerably
> aided by the GHZ prediction and its fairly recent corroboration, because,
> unlike all previous experiments, GHZ is a one-shot deal, rather than a
> subtle statistical effect. Like finding a single white raven to falsify the
> claim that "all ravens are black."  But even so, although I could easily
> demonstrate the WRONG classical prediction, I was not able to show those of
> you who are not trained in theoretical physics how the correct quantum
> mechanical prediction for GHZ comes about.  Unfortunately I would need a
> semester for that!  In any case, by keeping to the prescribed format of the
> lecture, I was able to clarify my own thinking and to streamline my
> presentation of the unfamiliar topic.
>
> My timing  was very fortunate in that two unusually accessible articles
> about QBism appeared in November and December 2013 -- both available for
> free at . (ID numbers  1311.5253v1 and 1312.7825.) What a
> welcome coincidence!  It reassured me that the topic I had chosen for my
> lecture is emerging from its niche in quantum foundations research and
> slowly seeping out into the broader community.
>
> From the subsequent discussion I discovered several important things that
> are new to me.  I learned that there is the possibility, by means on
> non-Kolmogorovian probabilities, to avoid the troublesome certainty of
> probability 0 and 1 -- in particular via Logic in Reality.  I learned about
> the interesting concept of "feed-forward", in contrast to feedback, which
> corrects for disruptions of a system BEFORE the disrupting influence ki

Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e cari tutti,
mi permetto di segnalarVi che la mia "Nuova economia" è basata sul
 processo di tras-in-form-azione. Si cfr. a tal proposito, fra i tanti
altri:
-Rizzo F., ""Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia o l'economia
della scienza", FancoAngeli, Milano 1999;
-Rizzo F., "Nuova economia. Felicità del lavoro creativo e della
conservazione della natura. Infelicità della speculazione finanziaria",
Aracne editrice, Roma, 2013;
-Rizzo F., "Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della
scienza. Un salto nel cielo", Aracne editrice, Roma 2014.
Ho dedicato mezzo secolo di ricerca per ri-comprendere e ri-significare la
scienza economica. Quello che scrivo non  è una presunzione.
Auguri per un'intensa ripresa e grazie.
Francesco Rizzo.



2014-06-05 14:25 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear FISers,
>
> Among the many interesting themes where the information science
> perspective may provide useful orientations, cities are one of the most
> singular. A recent work by Michel Batty on the New Science of Cities (2013,
> MIT) makes a lot of connections with our oft discussed info topics. A
> Communication Theory of Urban Growth was developed by Richard Meier (1962);
> a fluxes perspective was already attempted by Patrick Geddes (1949). In
> essence I have found that the idea of information flows and material flows
> as catching and intertwining each other, with their highly different
> regimes, heterogeneity and energy contents, appears as an important focus
> in order to better understand the globalized city. Scaling is one of the
> essential concepts...
>
> I am not aware that scaling has been applied to the informational analysis
> itself (obviously it is the cornerstone of self-similarity). What I mean is
> that a micro-level of communication analysis may be quite different from
> the meso-level, and the from macro-level. Thinking in the human case
> (biologically it could make sense too) the micro level is dominated by
> syntaxis, by a Shannonian type of analysis on messages emitted from a
> sourced to a receiver. The meso level contains meaning, value (fitness),
> purpose, and in general it implies the communication associated to the
> behavioral episodes and living rhythms of individuals. While in the macro
> level, many individuals' actions, works, products, etc. are aggregated into
> fluxes or flows, basically of two kinds those devoted to the material
> (self-production) and those carrying the info stuff devoted to
> communication; then it invites analysis of network science, operations
> research, economic efficiency, etc., and of course the direct flow
> perspective as Bejan and Peder (2011) have attempted in one of the most
> interesting theories on self-constructing flow systems. Depending on the
> information perspective in which we observe human communication, we will
> need one or another lens to better make sense of what is happening.
>
> My impression is that a more mature info science could be quite helpful in
> this new field of urban development science --most people nowadays are
> living in cities. Top down planning will fail if it is does not match with
> the bottom up processes, both in communication and self-production aspects.
> Keeping an adequate social flow of information, a well-mixed regime of
> communication, is the essence of democracy. The contemporary "epidemics of
> loneliness" for instance may be due among other social and demographic
> causes to failures in bureaucratic high level planning...
>
> best ---Pedro
>
> PS. After the nasty computer crash months ago, we should try to enliven
> the list--shouldn't we?
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City. Trans-in-form-action

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Joseph,
grazie per le Tue parole. All'inizio degli anni Ottanta ho introdotto il
concetto-processo di informazione (azione del dare o prendere forma nel
tempo) In "Economia dei beni culturali"(1983), divenuto "Economia del
patrimonio architettonico-ambientale" nel 1989 (FrancoAngeli, Milano), in
cui fra l'altro definisco i beni culturali neg-entropici. Inoltre ho
impiegato la parola composta tras-in-form-azione (azione del dare o
prendere forma nel tempo che non può non tras-formarsi) alla città durante
lo svolgimento del corso di economia urbana e regionale nella Facoltà di
Architettura di Palermo, nell'A.a. 1984-85. Ma quel che conta di più è
l'avere concepito l'attività di produzione economica (in senso generale)
come un processo di tras-informazione i cui "input" (materia, energia e
informazione) e "output" (materia, energia e informazione) sono
neg-entropia ed entropia. Quindi la mia teoria del valore (che non vale
solo per l'economia in senso stretto) può definirsi- in modo semplice-
combinazione creativa di energia e informazione e, in modo più complesso,
triangolo dei tre surplus o neg-entropie: termodinamici o naturali,
eco-biologici e storico-culturali. Sicché la teoria del valore-utilità
marginale degli economisti neoclassici è sorpassata e da buttare alle
ortiche. Difatti la "Nuova economia" è in-centrata sull'episteme
psico-fisica,semiotico-ermeneutica e biologico-tecnologica. Insomma, penso
davvero  di avere inventato una nuova scienza dell'economia o  economia
della scienza. Per questo appena Pedro ha ri-parlato di informazione  sono
stato stimolato a mandare il messaggio precedente.
Ribadisco, però, che non intendo menare alcun vanto.
Cordiali saluti.
Francesco Rizzo.



2014-06-06 9:49 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner :

>  Dear Francesco,
>
> Thank you for a most interesting overview of your work. What I would be
> most interested in would be a summary of the real processes underlying
> "trans-in-form-action" and its relation to information - and
> "trans-information". The use of the prefix 'trans-' in transdisciplinarity
> is intended (by Nicolescu) to refer to something that lies within, between
> and beyond specific disciplines. Another non-trivial use of 'trans-' was
> made by Pedro.
>
> (Some 14 years ago, I defined 'trans-creation' as the creation of artistic
> documents or objects with some social relevance, that is, to the common
> good. It is important to understand, in this connection, how information
> carries such relevance.)
>
> If you prefer to answer in Italian rather than English, unless there is
> someone else in the group with Italian-language skills, I would undertake
> to make a rough translation (or edit a machine-translation).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Joseph
>
> (Joseph E. Brenner, Ph.D.)
> VP-Inter-and Transdisciplinarity, International Society for Information
> Science)
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Pedro C. Marijuan 
> *Cc:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 05, 2014 4:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City
>
> Caro Pedro e cari tutti,
> mi permetto di segnalarVi che la mia "Nuova economia" è basata sul
>  processo di tras-in-form-azione. Si cfr. a tal proposito, fra i tanti
> altri:
> -Rizzo F., ""Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia o l'economia
> della scienza", FancoAngeli, Milano 1999;
> -Rizzo F., "Nuova economia. Felicità del lavoro creativo e della
> conservazione della natura. Infelicità della speculazione finanziaria",
> Aracne editrice, Roma, 2013;
> -Rizzo F., "Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza
> della scienza. Un salto nel cielo", Aracne editrice, Roma 2014.
> Ho dedicato mezzo secolo di ricerca per ri-comprendere e ri-significare la
> scienza economica. Quello che scrivo non  è una presunzione.
> Auguri per un'intensa ripresa e grazie.
> Francesco Rizzo.
>
>
>
> 2014-06-05 14:25 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :
>
>> Dear FISers,
>>
>> Among the many interesting themes where the information science
>> perspective may provide useful orientations, cities are one of the most
>> singular. A recent work by Michel Batty on the New Science of Cities (2013,
>> MIT) makes a lot of connections with our oft discussed info topics. A
>> Communication Theory of Urban Growth was developed by Richard Meier (1962);
>> a fluxes perspective was already attempted by Patrick Geddes (1949). In
>> essence I have found that the idea of information flows and material flows
>> as catching and intertwining each other, w

Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City. Trans-in-form-action

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Joseph,
vedo che il mio ultimo messaggio è stato un poco raffazzonato. In ogni caso
non penso che sia possibile soddisfare la Tua  legittima curiosità mediante
brevi scritti. Ed è per questo che inizialmente mi sono permesso di
suggerire la lettura di tre libri. Naturalmente, mi farò risentire anche
per motivare, se serve, il perché "entropia" significa dis-informazione e
"neg-entropia" informazione. Interessante è a questo proposito la lettura
di "Che cos'è la vita?" di Erwin Schrodinger (con due puntini sopra la o).
Grazie soprattutto per la Tua verve critica che apprezzo molto.
Saluti.
Francesco.


2014-06-07 8:53 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner :

>  Dear Francesco and All,
>
> Here is a rough version of Francesco's comment. I think it deserves
> further critical comments, for example, on the way it relates information
> and cultural value and the co-generation of entropy and negentropy, usually
> implicit but not spelled out.
>
> Thanks for your words. In the early eighties I introduced the concept of
> information-process (the action of giving or taking form in time). In "The
> Economics of Cultural Heritage" (1983), which became "Economics of an
> “architectural-environmental heritage," in 1989 (Franco Angeli, Milan ),
> in which, inter alia, I define a negentropic cultural value. I also applied
> to the city, during a course on urban and regional economics at the Faculty
> of Architecture of Palermo, in 1984-85, the compound word
> trans-form-in-action (action of giving or taking form over time that can
> /not/ not trans-form) to the city, But what matters most is to have
> conceived the activity of economic production (in general) as a process of
> trans-information whose "input" (matter, energy and information) and
> "output" (matter, energy and information) are both negentropy and entropy.
> So my theory of value (which applies not only to the economy in the strict
> sense) can be defined in simple-combination of creative energy and
> information and, in a more complex triangle of the three surpluses of
> negentropy: thermodynamic or natural, eco-biological and
> cultural-historical. So, the marginal utility theory of value of
> neoclassical economists is outdated and (should be) thrown to the winds. In
> fact, the "new economy" is a psycho-physical, semiotic-hermeneutic and
> biological technology sub-episteme. In summary, I really think a new
> science of economics or economics of science has been invented. For Pedro’s
> re-discussion of information encouraged me to send the above message
> (without wishing to take any undue credit for myself).
>
>
> Best,
>
> Joseph
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Joseph Brenner 
> *Cc:* Pedro C. Marijuan  ; fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Sent:* Friday, June 06, 2014 12:37 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City.
> Trans-in-form-action
>
> Caro Joseph,
> grazie per le Tue parole. All'inizio degli anni Ottanta ho introdotto il
> concetto-processo di informazione (azione del dare o prendere forma nel
> tempo) In "Economia dei beni culturali"(1983), divenuto "Economia del
> patrimonio architettonico-ambientale" nel 1989 (FrancoAngeli, Milano), in
> cui fra l'altro definisco i beni culturali neg-entropici. Inoltre ho
> impiegato la parola composta tras-in-form-azione (azione del dare o
> prendere forma nel tempo che non può non tras-formarsi) alla città durante
> lo svolgimento del corso di economia urbana e regionale nella Facoltà di
> Architettura di Palermo, nell'A.a. 1984-85. Ma quel che conta di più è
> l'avere concepito l'attività di produzione economica (in senso generale)
> come un processo di tras-informazione i cui "input" (materia, energia e
> informazione) e "output" (materia, energia e informazione) sono
> neg-entropia ed entropia. Quindi la mia teoria del valore (che non vale
> solo per l'economia in senso stretto) può definirsi- in modo semplice-
> combinazione creativa di energia e informazione e, in modo più complesso,
> triangolo dei tre surplus o neg-entropie: termodinamici o naturali,
> eco-biologici e storico-culturali. Sicché la teoria del valore-utilità
> marginale degli economisti neoclassici è sorpassata e da buttare alle
> ortiche. Difatti la "Nuova economia" è in-centrata sull'episteme
> psico-fisica,semiotico-ermeneutica e biologico-tecnologica. Insomma, penso
> davvero  di avere inventato una nuova scienza dell'economia o  economia
> della scienza. Per questo appena Pedro ha ri-parlato di informazione  sono
> stato stimolato a mandare il messaggio precedente.
> Ribadisc

Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City. Trans-in-form-action

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Joseph,
desidero precisare che la parola composta che io uso è tras-in-form-azione,
non trans-informazione. Questo per evitare almeno un equivoco.
Buona domenica.
Francesco.


2014-06-07 12:05 GMT+02:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:

> Caro Joseph,
> vedo che il mio ultimo messaggio è stato un poco raffazzonato. In ogni
> caso non penso che sia possibile soddisfare la Tua  legittima curiosità
> mediante brevi scritti. Ed è per questo che inizialmente mi sono permesso
> di suggerire la lettura di tre libri. Naturalmente, mi farò risentire anche
> per motivare, se serve, il perché "entropia" significa dis-informazione e
> "neg-entropia" informazione. Interessante è a questo proposito la lettura
> di "Che cos'è la vita?" di Erwin Schrodinger (con due puntini sopra la o).
> Grazie soprattutto per la Tua verve critica che apprezzo molto.
> Saluti.
> Francesco.
>
>
> 2014-06-07 8:53 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner :
>
>  Dear Francesco and All,
>>
>> Here is a rough version of Francesco's comment. I think it deserves
>> further critical comments, for example, on the way it relates information
>> and cultural value and the co-generation of entropy and negentropy, usually
>> implicit but not spelled out.
>>
>> Thanks for your words. In the early eighties I introduced the concept of
>> information-process (the action of giving or taking form in time). In "The
>> Economics of Cultural Heritage" (1983), which became "Economics of an
>> “architectural-environmental heritage," in 1989 (Franco Angeli, Milan ),
>> in which, inter alia, I define a negentropic cultural value. I also applied
>> to the city, during a course on urban and regional economics at the Faculty
>> of Architecture of Palermo, in 1984-85, the compound word
>> trans-form-in-action (action of giving or taking form over time that can
>> /not/ not trans-form) to the city, But what matters most is to have
>> conceived the activity of economic production (in general) as a process of
>> trans-information whose "input" (matter, energy and information) and
>> "output" (matter, energy and information) are both negentropy and entropy.
>> So my theory of value (which applies not only to the economy in the strict
>> sense) can be defined in simple-combination of creative energy and
>> information and, in a more complex triangle of the three surpluses of
>> negentropy: thermodynamic or natural, eco-biological and
>> cultural-historical. So, the marginal utility theory of value of
>> neoclassical economists is outdated and (should be) thrown to the winds. In
>> fact, the "new economy" is a psycho-physical, semiotic-hermeneutic and
>> biological technology sub-episteme. In summary, I really think a new
>> science of economics or economics of science has been invented. For Pedro’s
>> re-discussion of information encouraged me to send the above message
>> (without wishing to take any undue credit for myself).
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> *From:* Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Joseph Brenner 
>> *Cc:* Pedro C. Marijuan  ;
>> fis@listas.unizar.es
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 06, 2014 12:37 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City.
>> Trans-in-form-action
>>
>> Caro Joseph,
>> grazie per le Tue parole. All'inizio degli anni Ottanta ho introdotto il
>> concetto-processo di informazione (azione del dare o prendere forma nel
>> tempo) In "Economia dei beni culturali"(1983), divenuto "Economia del
>> patrimonio architettonico-ambientale" nel 1989 (FrancoAngeli, Milano), in
>> cui fra l'altro definisco i beni culturali neg-entropici. Inoltre ho
>> impiegato la parola composta tras-in-form-azione (azione del dare o
>> prendere forma nel tempo che non può non tras-formarsi) alla città durante
>> lo svolgimento del corso di economia urbana e regionale nella Facoltà di
>> Architettura di Palermo, nell'A.a. 1984-85. Ma quel che conta di più è
>> l'avere concepito l'attività di produzione economica (in senso generale)
>> come un processo di tras-informazione i cui "input" (materia, energia e
>> informazione) e "output" (materia, energia e informazione) sono
>> neg-entropia ed entropia. Quindi la mia teoria del valore (che non vale
>> solo per l'economia in senso stretto) può definirsi- in modo semplice-
>> combinazione creativa di energia e informazione e, in modo più complesso,
>> triangolo dei tre surplus o neg-entr

Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City. Trans-in-form-action

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Rafael,
grazie per la precisazione che mi riporta ad uno scritto ("Economia della
felicità o dell'infelicità. Analisi critica della teoria delle
valutazioni", seconda edizione, Aracne editrice, Roma 2011) del 1977 in cui
per la prima volta affronto il problema entropico o meno degli equilibri o
dei dis-equilibri economici. Comunque, ripeto ancora che io non parlo di
trans-in-form-azione, bensì di tras-in-form-azione.
Ricambio i saluti augurali di cui ad una certa età abbiamo bisogno per
ritornare continuamente al nostro futuro, dato che è sempre bello
continuare a fare un'esperienza di condivisione empatica.
Francesco.




2014-06-08 16:05 GMT+02:00 Rafael Capurro :

>  Caro Francesco,
> your trans-in-form-azione echoes my paths of thinking
> http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/113/116
> that started in 1976 http://www.capurro.de/info.html when
> 'in-form-azione' was a very alien word for philosophers
> auguri
> Rafael
>
> Caro Joseph,
> desidero precisare che la parola composta che io uso è
> tras-in-form-azione, non trans-informazione. Questo per evitare almeno un
> equivoco.
> Buona domenica.
> Francesco.
>
>
> 2014-06-07 12:05 GMT+02:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Caro Joseph,
>> vedo che il mio ultimo messaggio è stato un poco raffazzonato. In ogni
>> caso non penso che sia possibile soddisfare la Tua  legittima curiosità
>> mediante brevi scritti. Ed è per questo che inizialmente mi sono permesso
>> di suggerire la lettura di tre libri. Naturalmente, mi farò risentire anche
>> per motivare, se serve, il perché "entropia" significa dis-informazione e
>> "neg-entropia" informazione. Interessante è a questo proposito la lettura
>> di "Che cos'è la vita?" di Erwin Schrodinger (con due puntini sopra la o).
>> Grazie soprattutto per la Tua verve critica che apprezzo molto.
>> Saluti.
>> Francesco.
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-07 8:53 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner :
>>
>>  Dear Francesco and All,
>>>
>>> Here is a rough version of Francesco's comment. I think it deserves
>>> further critical comments, for example, on the way it relates information
>>> and cultural value and the co-generation of entropy and negentropy, usually
>>> implicit but not spelled out.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your words. In the early eighties I introduced the concept of
>>> information-process (the action of giving or taking form in time). In "The
>>> Economics of Cultural Heritage" (1983), which became "Economics of an
>>> “architectural-environmental heritage," in 1989 (Franco Angeli, Milan ), in
>>> which, inter alia, I define a negentropic cultural value. I also applied to
>>> the city, during a course on urban and regional economics at the Faculty of
>>> Architecture of Palermo, in 1984-85, the compound word trans-form-in-action
>>> (action of giving or taking form over time that can /not/ not trans-form)
>>> to the city, But what matters most is to have conceived the activity of
>>> economic production (in general) as a process of trans-information whose
>>> "input" (matter, energy and information) and "output" (matter, energy and
>>> information) are both negentropy and entropy. So my theory of value (which
>>> applies not only to the economy in the strict sense) can be defined in
>>> simple-combination of creative energy and information and, in a more
>>> complex triangle of the three surpluses of negentropy: thermodynamic or
>>> natural, eco-biological and cultural-historical. So, the marginal utility
>>> theory of value of neoclassical economists is outdated and (should be)
>>> thrown to the winds. In fact, the "new economy" is a psycho-physical,
>>> semiotic-hermeneutic and biological technology sub-episteme. In summary, I
>>> really think a new science of economics or economics of science has been
>>> invented. For Pedro’s re-discussion of information encouraged me to send
>>> the above message (without wishing to take any undue credit for myself).
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>>  - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
>>>   *To:* Joseph Brenner 
>>> *Cc:* Pedro C. Marijuan  ;
>>> fis@listas.unizar.es
>>> *Sent:* Friday, June 06, 2014 12:37 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City.
>>> Trans-in-form-action
>>>
>>>  Caro Joseph,
>>> grazie per 

Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
seguo, per quel che capisco, il dibattito che si sviluppa.V'ha chi tende a
impostarlo sul piano pratico, tecnologico e ingegneristico e chi invece
predilige i suoi aspetti teorico-filosofici e scientifici in senso classico
e tradizionale. La mia esperienza di economista che ha lavorato nelle
Facoltà di Architettura e Ingegneria mi spinge a ritenere  che la legge
fondamentale della tecno-scienza e della conoscenza relative alle prassi
esistenziali e ai domini cognitivi sia la legge dell'Informazione. Nella
"Nuova economia" che ho elaborato hanno un ruolo paradigmatico
fondamentale: episteme, teoria del valore (tendente a determinare le
ragioni dello scambio tra venditori e compratori), sistemi complessi e
ad-attivi non sempre integrabili (matematicamente), processi di
trasinformazione. Desidero rassicurare coloro che fanno fatica a
considerare opportuno approfondire gli aspetti filosofici della scienza
economica che  sono tra quelli (non molti per la verità) che hanno
criticato l'aberrante teoria neoclassica o marginalistica e previsto sin da
"Il giudizio di valore" (!971) la crisi speculativo-finanziaria nella quale
siamo caduti senza, ancora, potercene liberare. Al solito, non penso
lontanamente di  assumere atteggiamenti arroganti e presuntuosi. Io sono un
"poverino esponenziale" che ha scoperto tante cose senza averne merito,
anche perché credo che la teoria sia la più pratica  e più semplice della
pratiche.
Un abbraccio augurale, soprattutto per i giovani e/o per quelli che sono
ricchi di anni di giovinezza nel Signore.
Francesco Rizzo.


2014-07-15 20:27 GMT+02:00 Srinandan Dasmahapatra :

> Hi all,
>
> My take is that measure theory and sigma algebra had to be introduced by
> folks like Kolmogorov, Lebesgue,etc to sort out issues of counting that
> involves discrete and continuous variables in event space. However, that is
> not what is required to address information as processed in physical and
> biological processes. It's more to do with the basic tenets of what can be
> distinguished by a process. The availability of colour is of little use to
> the colour blind.  Transfer of momentum upon collision of particles is
> surely a casual process, but to determine the state, whether the substance
> is a gas or a liquid, that bears no information.
>
> The example of wavelength limited information points to a short distance
> cutoff  that's discrete.
>
> Causality is generic. Useful information is quite contextual and specific.
> Finding the relevant variables for description of the world (contextually
> defined) is always the nub.
>
> Regarding Bialek's book, there are a large number of examples, ranging
> from b visual systems responding to single photons, to fly embryos laying
> down precise spatial boundaries for protein expression that can be counted
> as a bit count even though the morphogen can be viewed as a continuous
> signal.
>
> Cheers,
> Sri
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: John Collier
> Date:15/07/2014 06:19 (GMT+00:00)
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es,"Pedro C. Marijuan"
> Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation
>
> Dear fis members,
>
> I don't think that granularity per se is a
> necessary basis for the application of
> information theory to analog channels. In some
> cases it might be, and I agree that studying the
> relations between analog (continuous) and digital
> (discrete) processes is likely to be both
> interesting and productive. However the bandwidth
> of an analog channel typically can be defined
> even if there is no discreteness, for example if
> the information bearing process consists of waves
> so that the information bearing capacity is
> limited by the wavelength. Virtually all physical
> processes are cyclical in some way and thus have
> a limited bandwidth. A countercase would be a
> collision between particles that carries momentum
> from one to another. I can't think offhand right
> now (I just woke up), but I suspect that even in
> such cases there is a finite amount of
> information transferred. In any case, Shannon
> discussed the bandwidth of continuous process channels. It is worth
> looking at.
>
> John
>
> At 10:28 PM 2014-07-14, Srinandan Dasmahapatra wrote:
> >I think I agree with Joseph Brenner
> >here.  Analogue computing is linked to real
> >processes, while living beings find ways of
> >transducing information out of dynamical states.
> >The graininess that information theories rely on
> >to define measures may be directly linked
> >to  physical limits in the information carriers
> >(such as photons) or they might be limitations
> >of the processing organism, extracting the
> >sufficien

Re: [Fis] call for vienna 14

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Pedro e tutti,
l'informazione è la legge delle leggi fondamentali su cui si reggono la
natura, l'universo, l'esistenza dell'uomo, degli animali e delle piante e
la conoscenza umana. L'informazione è solo e sempre un'azione che tende a
dare forma agli esseri viventi, alle idee dell'uomo e alle cose del mondo.
Quel che varia è la misura o metrica attraverso cui si quantifica nei
diversi ambiti o sistemi (naturali o termodinamici, biologici,
fisico-matematici, semiotico-semantici ed ermeneutici) in cui si verifica.
L'informazione è ordine o bellezza (estetica) buona e giusta (etica),
legale, vera e utile. Quindi svolge una funzione paradigmatica ed
epistemologica insostituibile. Questo è il framework su cui si basa la
"Nuova economia" la cui teoria del valore dipende dalla combinazione
creativa di energia e informazione.E siccome l'energia è un'informazione
naturale, come l'informazione è un'energia culturale, la fonte del valore
della vita o della vita del valore è esclusivamente informazione o
neg-entropia. Questo è quel che penso da trent'anni a questa parte,  sia
per "la scienza dell'economia sia per l'economia della scienza",
sottotitolo di "Valore e valutazioni", una delle mie opere.
Vi saluto con riguardo.
Francesco Rizzo.


2014-07-24 11:47 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear Wolfgang,
>
>
> Regarding the call for Vienna 2014, I think that the present text forms a
> consistent unity, and that a slight rewording on the "focus" paragraph may
> be enough:
>
> "Thus the focus needs to be twofold:
>
> – on the impact of the sciences of information: how can we improve the
> design and implementation of applications such that they allow for more
> social autonomous usages and for the advancement of a viable and
> sustainable information society?
>
> – on the foundations of the sciences of information: how can we improve
> the concepts we use for the study of information, at all levels (from the
> physical and computational to the biological and social), such that we open
> new vistas on the analysis of contemporary problems?"
>
> best wishes
>
> --Pedro
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] information.energy

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
permettetemi di ribadire che:
-il concetto-processo di informazione vale per tutti gli esseri viventi
(umani, animali e vegetali) e per tutto ciò che è stato creato o si è
formato e continua a crearsi e formarsi anche ad opera dell'uomo
(concepimento di bambini, buchi neri, pensiero, poesia, musica, arte,
prodotti industriali, innovazioni tecno-scientifiche, montagne, stelle,
galassie, etc.);
- l'energia libera o neg-entropia non è altro  che informazione (frutto
della separazione delle molecole di un gas calde e veloci da un lato e
fredde e lente dall'altro lato che determinano il gradiente termico; invece
l'energia degradata o entropia non è altro che dis-informazione o
deformazione dovuta alla confusione o equilibrio molecolare; quindi le
distinzioni tra diversi tipi e categorie di informazione (naturale o
termodinamica, genetica, matematica, semantica) si debbono o possono  fare,
ma non intaccano l'unicità epistemica e concettuale dell'informazione;
- la triade semiotica "significazione, informazione e comunicazione" è
fondamentale per il nostro dibattito, ma è la comunicazione a implicare
un'interazione tra chi trasmette o enuncia segni linguistici e chi li
riceve o accoglie sulla base di uno o più codici.
So di essere schematico e frammentario, ma non mi manca l'umiltà per
ricevere critiche, suggerimenti ed osservazioni integrative e/o correttive.
Grazie e saluti.
Francesco Rizzo.



2014-08-04 16:21 GMT+02:00 Stanley N Salthe :

> Bob -- Note that I was pointing out "a sense" in which information implies
> something different from energy -- especially in the context of dialectics,
> which is the basis of Joseph's approach. There can be no 'precipitated'
> energy (matter) without some kind of form, realizing one or some
> constraints, but the concept of information (its history) tends to imply
> interaction.
>
> STAN
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Robert E. Ulanowicz 
> wrote:
>
>> > Stanley N Salthe 
>> > 9:32 AM (0 minutes ago)
>> > to Joseph
>> > Joseph -- Commenting on:
>> > ...
>>
>> > Is there not also a sense that information implies more than one entity
>> > (sender-receiver, object-interpreter)? That too would tend to align with
>> > the idea of energy being primary.
>>
>>
>> But Stan, you were one of the first to recognize the broader nature of
>> information as constraint. It is also inherent in structure (Collier's
>> "enformation"). Hence, wherever inhomogeneities exist, so does information
>> -- an argument for a common origin. Bob
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
il 4 agosto ho scritto alcune cose che stranamente non sono state
considerate né positivamente né negativamente. Mentre sul concetto processo
di tras-in-form-azione o trans-in-form-azione sì è discusso abbastanza.
Forse troppo. Tra le cose già scritte il 4 agosto vi è il
rapporto-equivalenza energia/informazione implicito nel meccanismo del
diavoletto di Maxwell da me accennato. Perché non se ne parla? Potrebbe
essere utile farlo.
Saluti cordiali.
Francesco Rizzo.


2014-08-21 15:59 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner :

>  Dear Mark and All,
>
> I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he
> repeats his view, with which I agree, that  Energy is a kind of
> information and information is a kind of energy.
>
> My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking
> at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the
> universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how
> the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive
> property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive
> property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves
> appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector
> and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this
> approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories
> based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers.
>
> I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more
> fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share
> properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical
> interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as
> in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise.
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Burgin, Mark 
> *To:* Joseph Brenner 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
> Quintuples?
>
> Dear Joseph and Colleagues,
> An answer to "the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or
> energy is more fundamental" is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of
> information. The answer is a little bit unexpected:
> Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy.
> It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories
> based on sophisticated mathematics.
>
>  Sincerely,
> Mark Burgin
>
>
>
> On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>
> Dear Krassimir and Colleagues,
>
> I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement. As
> I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, based on
> symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the dynamics of
> complex information processes and their value (valence). It suffers from
> the same problems as that of Peirce and of set-theoretic approaches,
> namely, a certain arbitrariness in the selection and number of independent
> elements and their grounding in nature (or rather absence of grounding).
>
> If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not have a
> theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a 'better', more
> complete theory? This opens the possibility of an infinite regress, but
> that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the theory is, to a
> certain extent, defining its content.
>
> The /development/ of any GIT should, from the beginning I think, recognize
> the existence in real time, so to speak, of any new suggestions in the
> context of other recent contributions of a different form, such as those of
> Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon, Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several
> of these already permit a more directed discussion of the perhaps badly
> posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental.
> Otherwise, all that work will need to be done at the end. In any case, the
> GIT itself, to the extent that it could be desirable and useful, would also
> have to have some dynamics capable of accepting theories of different
> forms. 20th Century physics sought only identities throughout nature and
> the balance is now being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity
> of theories of information in mind is the most worthwhile strategy.
>
> One of the values of Krassimir's approach is that it recognizes the
> existence of some of these more complex questions that need to be
> answered. I simply suggest that process language and a recognition of
> dynamic interactions (e.g., between 'internal' and 'external') could be

Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti e Caro Krassimir, anche per la qualità del Tuo stile,
mi rendo conto delle difficoltà che Vi provoco. Ma non è certo per mancanza
di rispetto che uso la lingua italiana. Anche se avessi una maggiore e
migliore conoscenza dell'inglese, non riuscirei mai a comunicarvi tutto ciò
che il mio pensiero pensante produce con un linguaggio diverso dal mio.
Continuerò a seguire la discussione-dibattito a cui date luogo e non vi
costringerò più a leggere versi in lingua italiana. Nel salutarVi Tutti, Vi
ringrazio per quel che mi avete insegnato  e m'insegnerete ancora.
Francesco Rizzo.


2014-08-25 15:51 GMT+02:00 Stanley N Salthe :

> Bob wrote:
>
> Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like
> Helmholz & Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to
> information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the
> exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules
>
> S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy.
>
>
> I happen to be a radical who feels that the term "energy" is a construct
> with little ontological depth.
>
> S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth!
>
> It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping
> nonetheless).
> It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer & Joule
> simply
> gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant.
>
> S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it.
>
>  *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work
> functions I
> just mentioned.
>
> S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit.  That is, the
> local world -- the world of input and dissipation.  I think the information
> problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of
> any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key
> local phenomenon that needs to be understood.
>
> STAN
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier  wrote:
>
>> Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by
>> Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about
>> biology is the only sensible notion of energy.
>>
>> There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s)
>> between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only
>> minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am
>> retired.
>>
>> John
>>
>> At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Joseph,
>>>
>>> Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like
>>> Helmholz & Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to
>>> information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the
>>> exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules.
>>>
>>> I happen to be a radical who feels that the term "energy" is a construct
>>> with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of
>>> course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the
>>> Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer & Joule simply gave us the conversion
>>> factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always
>>> in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just
>>> mentioned.
>>>
>>> Well, enough heresy for one night!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bob U.
>>>
>>> > Dear Mark and All,
>>> >
>>> > I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he
>>> > repeats his view, with which I agree, that  Energy is a kind of
>>> > information and information is a kind of energy.
>>> >
>>> > My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by
>>> looking
>>> > at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of
>>> the
>>> > universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at
>>> how
>>> > the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive
>>> > property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an
>>> intensive
>>> > property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves
>>> > appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by
>>> vector
>>> > and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this
>>> > approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced

Re: [Fis] Fis Digest 6(7) On "bookkeeping" in Nature

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
le parole di Malcom Dean sono buone o belle e giuste. La mia "Nuova
economia", basata su questa concezione paradigmatica , si ritrova in tutti
i miei libri, fra i quali:
- Rizzo F., "Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia o l'economia
della scienza", FrancoAngeli, Milano 1999;
- Rizzo F., "Nuova economia. Felicità del lavoro creativo e della
conservazione della natura. Infelicità della speculazione finanziaria e
dell'inquinamento ambientale", Aracne editrice, Roma 2013;
- Rizzo F., "Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza
della scienza. Un salto nel cielo", Aracne editrice, Roma 2014.
Saluti amichevoli.
Francesco Rizzo

2014-09-16 21:38 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Dean :

>
> The "bookkeeping" approach is nicely presented in Mirowski's (1991) book:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=rmVhZnHId-oC
> More Heat Than Light:
> Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics
> Philip Mirowski
> <http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Philip+Mirowski%22&source=gbs_metadata_r&cad=10>
> Cambridge University Press, 1991 ISBN 0521426898, 9780521426893
>
> In my view, one should avoid, or at least be aware of, using one paradigm
> to mend the failings of another. The Darwinian literature is full of this,
> appealing now and then to one or another science when pure Selectionism is
> clearly inadequate.
>
> Rather, I believe that paradigms should be deployed in parallel, as a
> check on each other, to the extent possible.
>
> Authors with a biological background tend to present Information as an
> add-on to bio-chemistry or ecology. These are partial theories of
> Information, possibly useful to researchers in those fields, but avoiding
> the implications of a truly universal theory of Information.
>
> Malcolm Dean
>
> ___
> 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] "The Travellers"

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari tutti,
secondo me, il concetto o significato dell'informazione è l'assunzione o il
prendere forma di tutti e di tutto. Vi sono tanti tipi di informazione che
usano unità di misure diverse e talvolta contrastanti. Ad es,
l'informazione matematica si misura in bit di entropia. Nell'informazione
naturale o termodinamica l'entropia coincide con la degradazione energetica
o deformazione (dis-informazione). ma non v'è contraddizione:il significato
è sempre lo stesso, l'unità di misura è diversa. D'altra parte perché
l'informazione matematica acquisti un significato semantico è necessario un
s-codice che impoverisce l'informazione matematica e rende possibile un
significato semiotico-culturale e storico-sociale.Il valore dei beni
(economici) è funzione della loro informazione."La moneta è il segno del
valore" (Marx). La forma del valore o il valore della forma è fondamentale
e fondante. La triade semiotica è costituita da: significazione,
informazione e comunicazione di cui si avvalgano l'esistenza e la
conoscenza in generale.
So di procurarvi qualche fastidio linguistico che potete evitare facendo
finta di non  avere ricevuto alcun messaggio.
Intanto, grazie e un abbraccio per tutti.
 Francesco Rizzo.

2014-10-27 7:12 GMT+01:00 John Collier :

> Folks,
>
> I agree with Pedro that the meaning issue is important. After trying to
> give a coherent account within established information theory for a number
> of years (starting with "Intrinsic Information" in 1990) I came to the
> conclusion that information theory was not enough, and admitted that at the
> Biosemiotics Gathering in Tartu about ten years ago. I now believe that
> semiotics is the way to go to understand meaning, and that information
> theory alone is inadequate to the task.
>
> Of course information theory could be extended, but I think the correct
> extension is semiotics. As Pedro said, we have not got agreement in many
> years. I think it is time to give it up and move into semiotics if we want
> to fully understand information. In direct opposition to Pedro's appeal to
> the Travellers metaphor, I think that history has shown that semiotics is
> distinct from information theory, and that information theory should
> restrict itself to the grounds that it has already accomplished. Oddly,
> Pedro seems to be saying that information theory includes meaning in
> exactly the opposite way to the way that gypsies do not historically
> include Travellers. So I don't get his argument.
>
> I believe that without an explicit theory of signs, we cannot hope to get
> a theory of meaning from the idea of information alone. I would not be
> upset if I were proven wrong.
>
> My best,
> John
>
>
> At 02:35 PM 2014-10-23, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
>
>> Dear FIS colleagues,
>>
>> Regarding the theme of physical information raised by Igor and Joseph,
>> the main problematic aspect of information (meaning) is missing there.
>> One can imagine that as two physical systems interact, each one may be
>> metaphorically attributed with meaning respect the changes experimented.
>> But it is an empty attribution that does not bring any further
>> interesting aspect. Conversely we see "real" elaboration of meaning in
>> the cellular structures of life, particularly in brains, and we see in
>> our societies how scientific, technological, and economic advancements
>> are bringing together more and more flows of information around (social
>> complexity and information completely dovetail, and that's a very
>> important feature). Together with physical information (information
>> theory, logics, symmetry, etc.) each one of those realms has something
>> important to tell us regarding the unifying perspective necessary to
>> make sense of the different approaches to information: we have to
>> carefully listen to all of them. Thus, at the time being, the mission of
>> information science --or FIS at least-- would remind "The Travellers",
>> those people in the UK and Ireland, pretendedly "gypsies", who live a
>> nomadic life camping from site to site...  It may look unfortunate for
>> the disciplinarily specialized parties, but  we cannot settle any
>> permanent info camp --seemingly for quite a long time.
>>
>> best --Pedro
>>
>> -
>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
>> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
>> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
>> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
>> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
>> pcmarijuan.i...@ar

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
Krassimir Markov ha ragione. L'informazione è un processo spazio-temporale
statico-dinamico. Un'opera d'arte o un bene culturale è nello stesso tempo
informato e informatore.Per questo è meglio parlare di tras-informazione.
La Neuroinformation è la più alta e completa forma di tras-informazione
emo-ra-zionale (intelligenza razionale e intelligenza emotiva). Essa si
articola in : significazione, informazione, comunicazione. Triade semiotica
indispensabile per comprendere e interpretare ogni  esistenza e ogni
conoscenza del mondo fisico, psichico e metafisico. Qualunque scienza
naturale o umana o sociale non può farne a meno.
Grazie e auguri per Carolina Isiegas.
Francesco Rizzo.


2014-12-04 15:57 GMT+01:00 Krassimir Markov :

>   Dear Bob,
> I think, there is no conflict between two points of view – information may
> be a process and it may be a static depending of what kind of reflection it
> is.
> For instance, we reflect the world around:
> - as static - by photos, art images, sculptures, etc.;
> - as dynamic - by movies, theater plays, ballet, etc.;
> - and, at the end, by both types – by static text which creates dynamical
> imaginations in our consciousness.
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
>
> PS: This is my second post for this week. So, I say: Goodbye to the next
> one!
>
>
>
>  *From:* Bob Logan 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:54 PM
> *To:* Joseph Brenner 
> *Cc:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?
>
> Dear all - I support Joseph's remarks and would suggest that information
> in general is a process that unfortunately is formulated as a noun.
> Inspired by Bucky Fuller's I think I am a verb I suggest that "Information
> is a verb" It is a verb because it describes a process. Although that
> solves one problem we need to be able to describe a set of signs that have
> the potential to initiate the process of informing through interpretation.
> I would not suggest we create another word but recognize that the word
> information has many meanings and that when it is describing a process it
> has a verb-like quality to it and when it describes a set of sign that have
> the potential to be interpreted and hence become information it is acting
> as a noun. I would also suggest that a simple definition of the term
> information is not possible because its meaning is so context dependent.
> This is true of all words but even more so for information. For those that
> agree with my sentiments the above is information and for those that do not
> it is nonsense. My best wishes to both groups,  Bob Logan
>  __
>
> Robert K. Logan
> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
> http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On 2014-12-04, at 6:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>
>  Dear Dr. Isiegas,
>
> I will add my support to the extended concept of information that inheres
> in the work of Robert Ulanowicz and John Collier. I would just add that I
> like to call it information-as-process, to call attention to its
> 'structure' being dynamic, with individual neurones involved in a cyclic
> (better spiral or sinusoidal) movement between states of activation and
> inhibition. I have ascribed an extension of logic to this form of
> alternating actual and potential states in complex processes at all levels
> of reality.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph B.
>
> - Original Message - From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" 
> To: "Carolina Isiegas" 
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?
>
>
> Dear Dr. Isiegas:
>
> I envision neuroinformation as the mutual information of the neuronal
> network where synaptic connections are weighted by the frequencies of
> discharge between all pairs of neurons. This is directly analogous to a
> network of trophic exchanges among an ecosystem, as illustrated in
> <http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/SymmOvhd.PDF>.
>
> Please note that this measure is different from the conventional
> sender-channel-receiver format of communications theory. It resembles more
> the "structural information" inhering in the neuronal network. John
> Collier (also a FISer) calls such information "enformation" to draw
> attention to its different nature.
>
> With best wishes for success,
>
> Bob Ulanowicz
>
> Dear list,
>
>
>I have been reading during the last year all these interesting
>
> exchanges. Some of them terrific discussions! Given my scientific
>
>

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e cari Tutti,
anche e soprattutto il Natale, è una lieta novella, un'INFORMAZIONE bella e
buona. Difatti Gesù Cristo ha preso la "forma" di carne dell'uomo, senza
perdere quella divina. Per tutti, credenti e non credenti o ritenuti tali.
D'altra parte, se Dio esiste, come esiste,  esiste per tutti, che noi lo
vogliamo o meno. Quindi colgo l'occasione per rivolgerVi un AUGURIO di
A.more, U.ni-versale, G.rande, U.nico,
R.adioso,I.nter-nazionale,O.nto-logico.
Un abbraccio da estendere alle Vostre famiglie.
Francesco Rizzo.

2014-12-05 19:53 GMT+01:00 Guy A Hoelzer :

>  Hi All,
>
>  Like many here, I am very interested in the notion of neuroinformation
> and the contrast between information as static pattern or temporal
> process.  I want to suggest a way to think of the static and process views
> of information as identical concepts.  I take the static view to be
> something like the existence of a physical gradient or contrast in state
> between proximate spaces.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that all
> such gradients will tend to bread down (disorganize) over time.  Therefore,
> maintenance of static information requires a process.  This idea could
> apply nicely to neuroinformation.  For example, memories can fade if they
> are not accessed occasionally.  From this point of view, static contrasts
> and the processes that maintain them cannot be separated, much like pattern
> and process cannot be separated in the dissipative systems of Prigogine.
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Guy
>
> Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
> Department of Biology
> University of Nevada Reno
>
> Phone:  775-784-4860
> Fax:  775-784-1302
> hoel...@unr.edu
>
>  On Dec 4, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:
>
>   Dear Bob,
> I think, there is no conflict between two points of view – information may
> be a process and it may be a static depending of what kind of reflection it
> is.
> For instance, we reflect the world around:
> - as static - by photos, art images, sculptures, etc.;
> - as dynamic - by movies, theater plays, ballet, etc.;
> - and, at the end, by both types – by static text which creates dynamical
> imaginations in our consciousness.
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
>
> PS: This is my second post for this week. So, I say: Goodbye to the next
> one!
>
>
>
>  *From:* Bob Logan 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:54 PM
> *To:* Joseph Brenner 
> *Cc:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?
>
>  Dear all - I support Joseph's remarks and would suggest that information
> in general is a process that unfortunately is formulated as a noun.
> Inspired by Bucky Fuller's I think I am a verb I suggest that "Information
> is a verb" It is a verb because it describes a process. Although that
> solves one problem we need to be able to describe a set of signs that have
> the potential to initiate the process of informing through interpretation.
> I would not suggest we create another word but recognize that the word
> information has many meanings and that when it is describing a process it
> has a verb-like quality to it and when it describes a set of sign that have
> the potential to be interpreted and hence become information it is acting
> as a noun. I would also suggest that a simple definition of the term
> information is not possible because its meaning is so context dependent.
> This is true of all words but even more so for information. For those that
> agree with my sentiments the above is information and for those that do not
> it is nonsense. My best wishes to both groups,  Bob Logan
>  __
>
>   Robert K. Logan
> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
>  http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On 2014-12-04, at 6:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>
>  Dear Dr. Isiegas,
>
> I will add my support to the extended concept of information that inheres
> in the work of Robert Ulanowicz and John Collier. I would just add that I
> like to call it information-as-process, to call attention to its
> 'structure' being dynamic, with individual neurones involved in a cyclic
> (better spiral or sinusoidal) movement between states of activation and
> inhibition. I have ascribed an extension of logic to this form of
> alternating actual and potential states in complex processes at all levels
> of reality.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph B.
>
> - Original Message - From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" 
> To: "Carolina Isiegas" 
> Cc: 
> Se

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

[Francesco Rizzo]

P.s.: Scusate, bisogna togliere la virgola (,) dopo la parola Natale.
Francesco.

2014-12-08 7:36 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:

> Caro Pedro e cari Tutti,
> anche e soprattutto il Natale, è una lieta novella, un'INFORMAZIONE bella
> e buona. Difatti Gesù Cristo ha preso la "forma" di carne dell'uomo, senza
> perdere quella divina. Per tutti, credenti e non credenti o ritenuti tali.
> D'altra parte, se Dio esiste, come esiste,  esiste per tutti, che noi lo
> vogliamo o meno. Quindi colgo l'occasione per rivolgerVi un AUGURIO di
> A.more, U.ni-versale, G.rande, U.nico,
> R.adioso,I.nter-nazionale,O.nto-logico.
> Un abbraccio da estendere alle Vostre famiglie.
> Francesco Rizzo.
>
> 2014-12-05 19:53 GMT+01:00 Guy A Hoelzer :
>
>>  Hi All,
>>
>>  Like many here, I am very interested in the notion of neuroinformation
>> and the contrast between information as static pattern or temporal
>> process.  I want to suggest a way to think of the static and process views
>> of information as identical concepts.  I take the static view to be
>> something like the existence of a physical gradient or contrast in state
>> between proximate spaces.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that all
>> such gradients will tend to bread down (disorganize) over time.  Therefore,
>> maintenance of static information requires a process.  This idea could
>> apply nicely to neuroinformation.  For example, memories can fade if they
>> are not accessed occasionally.  From this point of view, static contrasts
>> and the processes that maintain them cannot be separated, much like pattern
>> and process cannot be separated in the dissipative systems of Prigogine.
>>
>>  Regards,
>>
>>  Guy
>>
>> Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
>> Department of Biology
>> University of Nevada Reno
>>
>> Phone:  775-784-4860
>> Fax:  775-784-1302
>> hoel...@unr.edu
>>
>>  On Dec 4, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:
>>
>>   Dear Bob,
>> I think, there is no conflict between two points of view – information
>> may be a process and it may be a static depending of what kind of
>> reflection it is.
>> For instance, we reflect the world around:
>> - as static - by photos, art images, sculptures, etc.;
>> - as dynamic - by movies, theater plays, ballet, etc.;
>> - and, at the end, by both types – by static text which creates dynamical
>> imaginations in our consciousness.
>> Friendly regards
>> Krassimir
>>
>> PS: This is my second post for this week. So, I say: Goodbye to the next
>> one!
>>
>>
>>
>>  *From:* Bob Logan 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:54 PM
>> *To:* Joseph Brenner 
>> *Cc:* fis@listas.unizar.es
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?
>>
>>  Dear all - I support Joseph's remarks and would suggest that
>> information in general is a process that unfortunately is formulated as a
>> noun. Inspired by Bucky Fuller's I think I am a verb I suggest that
>> "Information is a verb" It is a verb because it describes a process.
>> Although that solves one problem we need to be able to describe a set of
>> signs that have the potential to initiate the process of informing through
>> interpretation. I would not suggest we create another word but recognize
>> that the word information has many meanings and that when it is describing
>> a process it has a verb-like quality to it and when it describes a set of
>> sign that have the potential to be interpreted and hence become information
>> it is acting as a noun. I would also suggest that a simple definition of
>> the term information is not possible because its meaning is so context
>> dependent. This is true of all words but even more so for information. For
>> those that agree with my sentiments the above is information and for those
>> that do not it is nonsense. My best wishes to both groups,  Bob Logan
>>  __
>>
>>   Robert K. Logan
>> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
>> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
>>  http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
>> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
>> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On 2014-12-04, at 6:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Dr. Isiegas,
>>
>> I will add my support to the extended concept of information that inheres
>> in the work of Robert Ulanowicz and John Collier. I would just add that

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Section 4/Re: Steps to a theory of reference & significance

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
la strada indicata da Terrence W. Deacon è quella giusta per smatassare il
discorso che ha ripreso fiamma. Egli possiede la chiave per aprire la porta
o il ponte dell'Informazione: legge generale che vale per l'intera
esistenza e tutta la conoscenza. La distinzione tra processi biologici,
fisici e semiotici non regge. Per portare l'acqua al mulino di tutti è
necessario che ognuno, in modo local-globale o specifico-generale,
comunichi, narri e racconti quel che ha compreso e sperimentato nel proprio
campo di indagine e ricerca. Poi chi ha più sale condisce la minestra per
tutti. Unica è la meravigliosa armonia che governa il mondo. Unico è il
sapere che la coglie. Basta avere un poco di pazienza e sperare che la
scintilla della sintesi o della visione olistica emani dalla mente e dal
cuore di qualcuno o di più di uno. Per quel che mi riguarda, come detto in
altri messaggi, ho applicato e verificato questi elementi epistemologici e
suggerimenti logistici, metodologici e  procedurali nel campo della scienza
economica ed ho inventato o scoperto una "Nuova economia".
Ritengo poco intelligente dire che tanto ho appreso e tanto comunico con
grande umiltà e sempre pronto a ricredermi, aperto allo stupore delle cose
nuove che non finiscono mai di meravigliare. Questa è la vita degli uomini.
Questa  è la "ragione creativa" di Dio.
Un abbraccio affettuosissimo.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-01-12 22:39 GMT+01:00 Terrence W. DEACON :

> Dear Loet,
>
> Thanks for these comments. I very consciously avoided opening up my
> argument to include anything psychological for many of the reasons you
> cite as interesting and troublesome. But mainly because I wanted to
> avoid allowing tacit homuncular assumptions to do any of the
> explanatory work.  And because my primary aim is to argue that
> information in the full sense (involving reference and significance)
> need not be treated as taboo in the physical and natural sciences.
> Currently we talk about information in the shadow of a kind of tacit
> methodological dualism: think of the common use of the term
> 'mind-brain' that shows up in much modern consciousness talk. Such a
> move as I try to make here is essential if we are to legitimate
> biosemiotic and neurosemiotic sciences, for example. And although
> Shannonian-inspired approaches to issues of human communication—such
> as in the computational analysis of language structure—have yielded
> remarkable insights, they basically just treat reference and
> significance as unanalyzed givens and never addresses these issues
> directly. Teleo-semantic issues may not be seen even to be worth
> quibbling about in psychology but there are many in other domains who
> consider representational theories to be unscientific.
>
> So my goal in this case is quite modest, and yet perhaps also a bit
> foolhardy. I want to suggest a simplest possible model system to use
> as the basis for formalizing the link between physical processes and
> semiotic processes. Perhaps someday after considerably elaborating
> this analysis it could contribute to issues of the psychology of human
> interactions. I hope to recruit some interest into pursuing this goal.
>
> — Terry
>
> On 1/12/15, Loet Leydesdorff  wrote:
> > Dear Terry and colleagues,
> >
> >
> >
> > I read the discussion paper with interest. Much of it makes sense to me,
> > but I am not sure whether I follow everything. Thank you for this
> > contribution.
> >
> >
> >
> > My main interest is with the special case (p. 8) of non-passive
> information
> > media; particularly in the relation to psychological systems, and social
> > and cultural ones. In the latter, perhaps even more than the former, one
> > can begin to see the contextual conditions to interact among themselves;
> > for example, when expectations are expected such as in the double
> > contingency among reflexive persons. As Parsons expressed it: Ego expects
> > Alter to entertain expectations about Ego and Alter such as one’s own
> ones.
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that the systems then are layered: biological ones on top
> of
> > physical ones, but with a teleogical dimension of the entropy (or a
> > next-order loop, in other words); psychological ones on top of some
> > biological systems; and social and cultural ones processing exclusively
> in
> > terms of references (e.g., symbols). The time-subscripts of expectations
> > refer to a next moment in time (t+1). In the theory and computation of
> > anticipatory systems one finds the further distinctions between systems
> > which refer both to their own past and their own current or next state,
> and
> > systems which operate exclusively

Re: [Fis] THE NEW YEAR ESSAY Fis Digest, Vol 10, Issue 11 Mechanism and Model

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
nei miei numerosi libri, a partire da "Economia del patrimonio
architettonico-ambientale" (1983), ho sostenuto che la triade semiotica
significazione, informazione e comunicazione attraversa il mondo biologico,
fisico e sociale e viceversa il mondo biologico, fisico e sociale
attraversa la triade semiotica significazione, informazione e
comunicazione. Quindi non ha senso pensare che il mondo informativo sia
separato dagli altri mondi (cfr. Maturana e Varela). A seconda i processi
 o modelli dei suddetti mondi che si considerano si possono usare alcune o
tutte le categorie di informazioni possibili: genetica (genealogica),
termodinamica o naturale (entropico/neg-entropica), matematica
(entropico-cibernetica)  e semantica (storico-culturale o
significato-significante). Le stesse unità autopoietiche possono allentare
o ridurre la loro auto-referenzialità mediante l'informazione-comunicazione
che supera la rigidezza o la chiusura dei loro codici. Per questo in
"Valore e valutazioni" (1999) mi sono posto in una situazione intermedia
tra Maturana-Varela e Niklas Luhmann. Per comprendere meglio il mio
approccio è necessario: assegnare all'economia il ruolo di "scienza delle
scienze" che le conferiva  anche Ernst Mach; considerare l'informazione la
"legge delle leggi" di tutte le scienze dell'uomo e della natura.l
Un abbraccio affettuoso a Tutti, da un poverino esponenziale, quale sono.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-01-19 20:37 GMT+01:00 Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi <
bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com>:

> Josh Bacigalupi here, fellow pirate.  Thank you all for this thoughtful
> discussion.
>
> Work is a fundamental focus of Terry's project.  We can all agree that the
> creation of entropy is necessary to do work; such degradation of a gradient
> is a necessary precondition of work potential, but not just any work.  The
> specific kind of work that some self-entailed proto-cell does in its
> environment must be such that it increases the chances that such nascent
> agency will have increased the chances of its own propagation in that open
> system.  Terry calls this teleodynamic work.
>
> But this isn't even the most stringent requirement we place on ourselves.
> Not only must this work be relevant to its own persistence, *the
> constraints necessary to enact this specific dynamic must be able to
> persist for some finite time in the absence of any gradient what-so-ever.*
> In other words, Terry's hypothesized "autogen" is specifically conceived to
> retain the capacity to do self-efficacious work even after local chemical
> equalibrium has been attained.
>
> Once a gradient is again available, any viable autogen must be able to
> restart the very specific co-constraints of auto-catalysis and
> self-organized containment, a process that we suggest must be able to both
> self-repair and create new sets of co-constraint in wholly novel
> substrates.  This, in effect, spans the ontological gap from the vast
> majority of physico-chemical dynamics to the first distinct dynamic of a
> measurable medium of informational significance, whose benchmark of
> significance is the persistence of autogenic constraints.
>
> Although intriguing, we are skeptical when speculating about vastly more
> complex and likely intentional agents, like bacterium, or clearly
> intentional agents, like humans.  We suggest that focus on a priori
> intentional agency skips the distinct logical step from ubiquitous
> self-organizing dynamics, where rate of entropy production is increased
> (dissipating not only the external gradient but the internal organization
> itself), to the relatively rare "teleodynamics", where rate of entropy and
> work production are mitigated by the autogen's normative relation to its
> surroundings.
>
> Cheers,
> Josh
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Terrence W. DEACON 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joseph,
>>
>> Glad to have you join in. My goal is (paraphrasing Einstein) to
>> develop a model system that is as simple as possible but not too
>> simple to provide a foundation for formalizing the concepts of
>> reference and significance. If too simple, it would be helpful to know
>> what is specifically missing.
>>
>> In considering more complex model systems the critical constraint is
>> to avoid cryptically assuming a homuncular perspective that sneaks in
>> some undescribed mentality (often an external observational
>> perspective) to do the interpretive work and to define what
>> constitutes reference and significance. I am unwilling to use a
>> bacterium as my model, because we implicitly assume their end-directed
>> and sensing capacities without explaining them. Nor am I willing to
>>

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
non vi frastornate. Il pensiero pensante non lo ferma nessuno. Una legge
dell'informazione per tutto il sapere e l'intera  esistenza è possibile e
inevitabile, al di là di ogni specificazione. Inform-azione significa
sempre e in tutti i settori del sapere, dare o prendere forma, diversamente
quantificabile, con o senza significazione immediata. Questo ho cercato di
dire scrivendo nella lingua che conosco. Ma ho l'impressione che, per
ragioni diverse, il mio pensiero non sia passato. La Nuova economia che
propongo da circa 45 anni è una scienza della mediazione, anzi una scienza
delle scienze o al servizio delle scienze, seguendo la strada aperta da
Ernst Mach.Grazie lo stesso e buon lavoro a tutti.
Francesco Rizzo

2015-01-31 4:50 GMT+01:00 Steven Ericsson-Zenith :

> Dear Terry,
>
> This "emergence theory," at least on the face of it, is then surely an
> advocacy of dualism, since epiphenomenalism is logically indistinguishable
> from identity theory. So I must ask how you propose to distinguish the two.
>
> "Information theory" is a way of speaking about what happens in the world.
> As such it is a pragmatic, like many other pragmatics before it, it is a
> step in the right direction but not, of itself, able or required to meet
> the explanatory goal.
>
> My best definition of "information" does not standalone: Information is
> that which adds to knowledge and identifies cause, where "knowledge" is
> generalized to include all that determines subsequent action (importantly,
> it is the immediate that includes all physical actions).
>
> It is possible, in my theory, to reduce reference to an intrinsic physical
> property. Briefly, sense is formed as a shape upon the surface of flexible
> closed structures (biophysics, with latent receptors and motor functions),
> characterized by a holomorphic functor, covariant with another shape upon
> the closed surface, bound as a hyper-functor. The hyper-functor provides a
> sense/response decision point between the two. IOW, a clear reference is
> always associated with a response.
>
> Regards,
> Steven
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Terrence W. DEACON 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> My apologies for wordiness. We all have our weaknesses. I am curious
>> about your claim that a complete theory of information may be
>> impossible. I am not even sure what this would mean — except
>> irresolvable dualism. But as to the issue of whether I advocate an
>> identity theory, I can provide a clear no. Mine is an emergence theory
>> in which it is not possible to reduce reference to an intrinsic
>> physical property.
>>
>> Thanks, Terry
>>
>> On 1/30/15, Steven Ericsson-Zenith  wrote:
>> > Dear Terry, list.
>> >
>> > I apologize that I have not had the time to keep up with this
>> discussion. I
>> > did try to read Terry's text but found it strangely impenetrable with
>> many
>> > more word than were necessary to make a point. This is, perhaps, merely
>> a
>> > question of style, repeated in the recent books of his that I have
>> > purchased but that sit essentially unread although I have tried.
>> >
>> > To clarify, I have spent more than my share of time reading the work of
>> > Charles Peirce, readily acknowledged, although many of you may now
>> > recognize my preference for his father's work and its priority. Both
>> quite
>> > brilliant men, but Charles suffers, both conceptually and in his
>> readership
>> > at the hands of neology. Who among us wants to sit through yet another
>> > argument with followers of Charles on the nature of semeiois or a sign?
>> Not
>> > I.
>> >
>> > I have also spent a good deal of my time with the work of Claude
>> Shannon.
>> > My discipline of origin is, after all (in French), "Informatique." I do
>> > this not merely to comprehend Shannon's theory of communication but
>> also to
>> > inquirer concerning the role that his mathematization plays in its
>> > unfolding. I find, in the end, that the theory applies well to its
>> original
>> > intent, telephony engineering (a human activity), but it lacks any true
>> > ontology.
>> >
>> > That is, from my point of view, communication does not exist because
>> there
>> > is a lack of continuity. What I may speak of instead is apprehension.
>> This
>> > suggests that no "complete theory of information" is, in fact,
>> conceivable.
>> >
>> > I confess that I am stunned by Joe&

Re: [Fis] Intelligence Science

[Francesco Rizzo]

cari Tutti,
L'idealismo o il materialismo scientifico da solo non serve a niente.
Razionalità ed emozionalità combinate danno luogo a quella emo-ra-zionalità
che rende intelligente la scienza. Tuttavia, l'intelligenza della scienza
non dipende esclusivamente nè dalle capacità di osservare le "cose" della
natura nè  dalle"idee" del pensiero. Entrambe debbono essere compenetrate
(Riemann, Poincarè, Planck. Einstein, etc.) per dare luogo a quella
"sensata esperienza"(Galilei) che ci consente di comprendere le idee degli
oggetti o gli oggetti delle idee. Se vediamo le cose così, la pace è
assicurata in uno con la conoscenza della conoscenza. Mi permetto di fare
queste affermazioni, sempre con umiltà, alla luce della mia esperienza
teorico-pratica di 'economia che è una scienza mediatrice di tutte le
scienze, come sostiene anche Ernst Mach.
Un saluto più che cordiale e augurale.
Francecso Rizzo..

2015-03-02 20:44 GMT+01:00 Stanley N Salthe :

> Stanley N Salthe wrote:
>
> Pedro -- Here are my reactions :
>>
>> Intelligence Science is a new science. It is the scientific spirit
>> applied to thought and mental processes and phenomena; it is an emergent
>> multidisciplinary direction of research. At the same time, it represents a
>> long-standing tradition in oriental thought. After the success of science
>> in grasping the rules of the natural world, and despite many false starts,
>> science has finally begun to focus on intelligence. Hence East and West
>> should meet here, Science and Art should meet here, and it is from here
>> that the new scientific paradigm and a new paradigm for civilization should
>> evolve.
>> In ancient times, human beings faced the challenges of existence. After a
>> long period of evolution, it is the time to go from a survival mode - how
>> to live better - and now face what A. Feln said: to think better is the
>> challenge to our integrity. “Know yourself” was the inscription in the
>> temple of Apollo. It can and should be taken to heart now more than in any
>> other age. Intelligence Science has been born at the right moment.
>>
>>
>> S: The “right moment” may be too late for our current cultures, which
>> have virtually destroyed the natural environment with its 'ecosystem
>> services'!
>>
>>
>> Despite all their problems, all sciences are becoming richer and more
>> successful, above all technological disciplines. The Internet is the ‘roof’
>> over the Global Village in which this has taken place. Workers in the
>> sciences and the humanities are already exchanging information about their
>> work and also their feelings about their work. Intelligence Science emerges
>> naturally.
>>
>> We need to continuously try to face and answer honestly the question: how
>> can the human factor be recognized and integrated naturally into science?
>> Science needs rethinking, humanity needs rethinking, the West and the East
>> need rethinking, so that we can benefit from the richness of human nature
>> and  bear the complexity of human thought. Integration is not easy, but we
>> must do it. If all civilizations develop, reach their limits and then fade,
>> contending among themselves, finally they must fail and destroy each other.
>> Alternatively, the Eastern and Western civilizations of today could
>> interact more dynamically observing, understanding and checking each other
>> to form a ‘new’ civilization that could go farther. Which alternative will
>> we choose? Intelligence Science burdens itself with this mission.
>>
>> S: Civilization is mediated by language.  It seems that English has taken
>> precedence over all others as the current ‘lingua franca’.
>>
>>
>> From Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Intelligence Science (IS) is a
>> strategic transformation, a major contribution to science. Led by the
>> Chinese Association for Artificial Intelligence ( CAAI), Intelligence
>> Science was born in October, 2003. Since the first one created in Peking
>> University, in just the last decade, 27 universities have set up a
>> Department of Intelligence Science and Technology, and the number should
>> increase. We can say that IS has now created a new frontier of knowledge,
>> going from theory to practice and to education. But our task, the task of
>> this book, is to describe and participate in the research and development
>> of this still-forming frontier.
>>
>>
>> S: So it seems that Intelligence science’ will have a mechanistic basis.
>> That seems unnecessarily limiting!
>>
>>
>>  Poincaré said: “if we can occasionally enjoy relative tranquility, it is
>> because of the tenacious struggle of our ancestors. If our vigor, our
>> vigilance relax a moment, we will lose the fruits that our ancestors gained
>> for us.
>> There is a poem of Master Hong Yi that can describe this new science: “I
>> come for the plant/ I leave the flower that has not bloomed yet,/it does
>> not mean this is not a fine scene,/waiting for later generations.” Due to
>> the interactive changes involving East and West 

[Fis] (sin asunto)

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
l'idealismo o il materialismo scientifico da solo non serve a niente.
Razionalità ed emozionalità combinate danno luogo a quella emo-ra-zionalità
che rende intelligente la scienza. Tuttavia, l'intelligenza della scienza
non dipende esclusivamente nè dalle sole capacità di osservare le "cose"
della natura o della società nè dalle sole "idee" del pensiero. Entrambe
debbono essere compenetrate (Riemann, Poincarè, Planck, Einstein, etc.) per
dare luogo alla "sensata esperienza"  (Galilei) che consente di comprendere
le idee degli oggetti o gli oggetti delle idee. Se vediamo le cose così, la
"pace" è assicurata in uno con la conoscenza della conoscenza. Mi permetto
di fare queste affermazioni, sempre con umiltà, tenendo conto della mia
esperienza teorico-pratica dell'economia che è una scienza mediatrice di
tutte le scienze,come sostiene anche Ernst Mach.
Un saluto più che cordiale e augurale.
Francesco Rizzo.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
geometria, filosofia, fisica, psicologia ed, io aggiungo, economia si
integrano e armonizzano perfettamente. Tutto ciò si verifica se si conosce
la corretta elaborazione e trasformazione o tras-informazione dei concetti:
in una varietà continua si hanno tre differenti determinazioni possibili:
determinazione di posizione o di luogo, determinazioni di grandezza o
quantità, e determinazioni metriche o di misura; il metodo delle relazioni
o analogie; la connessione delle nostre rappresentazioni corrisponde alla
connessione delle cose. Questo e tanto altro discende dal pensiero geniale
di Bernhard Riemann.
Distinti saluti.
Francecso Rizzo.

2015-03-07 14:53 GMT+01:00 Dai Griffiths :

>  Thanks for sharing these ideas, which, for me, raise a long standing
> problem.
>
> The concept of 'intelligence' emerged as an ascription of a quality to
> humans and other animals who are capable of certain capabilities. That is
> to say, the starting point was the behaviours, and this led to the
> definition of the concept which charactarised those behaviours. This seems
> to be what you are describing in your section 1. The Concept of
> Intelligence, with the list (a) to (m).
>
> In section 2, on the other hand, you speak of 'problem solving' as 'the
> major embodiment of intelligence'. In this case, 'intelligence' is no
> longer a description of behaviours, but rather the entity which makes those
> behaviours possible.
>
> There is nothing wrong with hypothesising that an ascribed quality is in
> fact a verifiable entity. We can go and look for evidence that the entity
> exists, and that is often how science moves forward. But in the present
> case the concept of general intelligence (G), as a causal force rather than
> a statistical tool, is open to doubt. If there is a general intelligence
> (as opposed to a collection of capabilities) which can be 'embodied' in
> problem solving, then a number of difficult problems are raised. Where does
> this general intelligence reside? What is it composed of? How is it
> deployed in our problem solving and other aspects of our living?
>
> Our understanding of this is complicated by our experience of day to day
> interactions, in which we interact with people as wholes rather than a
> collection of individual capabilities. This gives us the intuition that
> some people have more of the quality of general intelligence about them
> than do others. And in our language it is reasonable to have a word which
> refers to that impression which we have, and that is how we use the word
> 'intelligence'. But in our scientific endeavours we need to be more
> cautious and critical, and aspire to making a distinction between
> observable mechanisms and ascribed qualities (not that this is necessarily
> easy to achieve in methodological terms). Because of this I am sympathetic
> to Steven's request for differentiation of the topics and types of inquiry.
> If we do not go down this road then we should recognise the possibility
> that we will end up with a theory which is the equivalent of the phlogiston
> explanation for combustion.
>
> My background is in education, not in intelligence research, so I am happy
> to be corrected by those with greater expertise!
>
> Dai
>
>
>
> On 07/03/15 03:53, 钟义信 wrote:
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
>
> Thank you very much for recommending Ms. ZHAO's good topic, intelligence
> science, for discussion at FIS platform. I think it very much valuable that 
> Ms.
> ZHAO put forward to us the great challenge of methodology shift. The attached
> file expressed some of my understanding on this iuuse that I would like to 
> share
> with FIS friends.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Yixin ZHONG
>
>
>
> - 回复邮件 -
> *发信人:*Pedro C. Marijuan  
> 
> *收信人:*fis  
> *时间:*2015年03月04日 19时58分15秒
> *主题:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
> Dear Chuan and FIS colleagues,
>
> The scientific study of intelligence is quite paradoxical. One is
> reminded about the problems of psychology and ethology to create
> adequate categories and frameworks about animal and human intelligence.
> The approaches started in Artificial Intelligence were quite glamorous
> three or four decades ago, but the limitations were crystal clear at the
> end of the 80's. It marked the beginning of Artificial Life and quite
> many other views at the different frontiers of the theme (complexity
> theory, biocybernetics, biocomputing, etc.) Also an enlarged
> Information Science was vindicated as the best option to clear the air
> (Stonier, Scarrott... and FIS itself too). In that line, Advanced
> Artificial Intelligence, as proposed by Yixin Zhong and others, has
> represented in my view a bridge to connect with our own works in
> information science. That connection between information "processing"
> and intelligence is essential. But in our occasional discussions on the
> theme we have always been centered in, say, the scien

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE. Non-Human Intelligence

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
seguendo, per quel che posso capire, la discussione che si è accesa a
proposito dell'intelligenza della scienza o della scienza
dell'intelligenza, mi piace ricordare che il concetto di "caos" dimostra la
sua importanza quando guida i ricercatori a creare nuove idee. I sistemi
caotici sono creativi. Senza questa creatività la legislazione del nostro
intelletto non potrebbe conferire forme (tras-informare) ai dati altrimenti
sconnessi dell'esperienza. Le intuizioni empiriche servono a creare la
concordanza o connessione tra le leggi del cervello e le leggi della natura
che si compenetrano, esaltano e nobilitano reciprocamente. .
Saluti augurali e grati.
Francesco Rizzo

2015-03-13 1:25 GMT+01:00 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch :

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The science fiction writer and philosopher Stanislaw Lem raised a point
> about intelligence in the 1960's which is perhaps worth thinking about
> today. He wrote that we shall not see the presence of intelligence in outer
> space not because it is not there but rather because its behavior defies
> our expectations. There is still no evidence for the non-exclusive
> existence of human beings in the class of 'intelligent beings'. However,
> Lem thought that one cannot be a fully rounded human being unless one
> thinks from time to time about a possible, still unknown community of
> intelligent beings of which we would be 'allegedly' part. (The allegedly is
> Lem's.)
>
> The point of this idea is relevant to what we wish to 'get out' of this
> discussion. It may not only be information that we can somehow exploit for
> our own benefit or even, yet, of mankind. It is a necessary component of
> our 'being intelligent'.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> Message d'origine
> De : z...@bupt.edu.cn
> Date : 06/03/2015 - 18:53 (PDT)
> À : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es
> Objet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
>
> Thank you very much for recommending Ms. ZHAO's good topic, intelligence
> science, for discussion at FIS platform. I think it very much valuable that
> Ms. ZHAO put forward to us the great challenge of methodology shift. The
> attached file expressed some of my understanding on this iuuse that I would
> like to share with FIS friends.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Yixin ZHONG
>
>
>
> - 回复邮件 -
> *发信人:*Pedro C. Marijuan 
> *收信人:*fis 
> *时间:*2015年03月04日 19时58分15秒
> *主题:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
> Dear Chuan and FIS colleagues,
>
> The scientific study of intelligence is quite paradoxical. One is
> reminded about the problems of psychology and ethology to create
> adequate categories and frameworks about animal and human intelligence.
> The approaches started in Artificial Intelligence were quite glamorous
> three or four decades ago, but the limitations were crystal clear at the
> end of the 80's. It marked the beginning of Artificial Life and quite
> many other views at the different frontiers of the theme (complexity
> theory, biocybernetics, biocomputing, etc.) Also an enlarged
> Information Science was vindicated as the best option to clear the air
> (Stonier, Scarrott... and FIS itself too). In that line, Advanced
> Artificial Intelligence, as proposed by Yixin Zhong and others, has
> represented in my view a bridge to connect with our own works in
> information science. That connection between information "processing"
> and intelligence is essential. But in our occasional discussions on the
> theme we have always been centered in, say, the scientific
> quasi-mechanistic perspectives. It was time to enter the humanistic
> dimensions and the connection with the arts. Then, this discussion
> revolves around the central pillar to fill in the gap between sciences
> and humanities, the "two cultures" of CP Snow.
> The global human intelligence, when projected to the world, creates
> different "disciplinary" realms that are more an historical result that
> a true, genuine necessity. We are caught, necessarily given our
> limitations, in a perspectivistic game, but we have the capacity to play
> and mix the perspectives... multidisciplinarity is today the buzzword,
> though perhaps not well addressed and explained yet. So, your
> reflections Chao are quite welcome.
>
> best--Pedro
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spai

Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
seguendo, per quel che posso capire, la discussione che si è accesa a
proposito dell'intelligenza della scienza o della scienza
dell'intelligenza, mi piace ricordare che il concetto di "caos" dimostra la
sua importanza quando guida i ricercatori a creare nuove idee. I sistemi
caotici sono creativi. Senza questa creatività la legislazione del nostro
intelletto  non potrebbe conferire forma (tras-informare) e significare i
dati altrimenti sconnessi dell'esperienza. Le trascendenze intellettuali  e
le intuizioni empiriche servono a costruire la concordanza o la connessione
tra le leggi del cervello e le leggi della natura o della società che si
com-penetrano, esaltano e nobilitano reciprocamente.
Saluti augurali e grati.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-03-12 10:57 GMT+01:00 钟义信 :

>
> Dear John,
>
>
> Thank you very much for the comments you made, which are very useful for
> me to think about.
>
>
> May I just say a few words as my simple responses to the two points you
> wrote in your mail.
>
>
> -- To my understanding, "context" and "goals" among others are necessary
> elements for an intelligence science system. Otherwise it would be unable
> to know where to go, what to do and how to do. In the latter case, it
> cannot be regards as intelligence system.
>
>
> --  As an intelligent system, it would usually be self-organized under
> certain conditions. This means thar the system has clear goal(s), is able
> to acquire the information about the changes in environment, able to learn
> the strategy for adjusting the structures of the system so as to adapt the
> system to the exchanged environment. This is the capability of
> self-organizing. If the change of the environment is sufficiently complex
> and the system is able to adapt itself to the change, then the system can
> be said a compplex system.
>
>
> Do you think so? Or you have different understanding?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Yixin ZHONG
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - 回复邮件 -
> *发信人:*John Prpic 
> *收信人:*钟义信 
> *抄送:*fis 
> *时间:*2015年03月12日 11时43分09秒
> *主题:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
> Dear Professor Zhong & Colleagues,
>
> Unsurprisingly, some very rich food for thought in the FIS group so far
> this year!
> Here's a few comments that I hope are useful in some respect:
>
> - As I think about the idea of intelligence science as put forward, would
> it be useful to say that "context" and "goals" (as constructs) would always
> be antecedents to intelligence science outcomes?
> Said another way, must intelligence science systems always include these
> two elements (among others) in a particular system configuration?
>
> - Also, when I look at the list of "elementary abilities" of intelligence
> science (ie A-M), it strikes me that more than a few of them can currently
> be considered to be core knowledge management techniques (storing,
> retrieving, transferring, transforming of information etc)... therefore, is
> there a difference between intelligence science in systems that are
> self-organized (ie complexity science), compared to intelligence science
> systems that are not self-organized? Must all intelligence science systems
> display complexity?
>
> Best,
> John
>
>
> --
> *From: *"钟义信" 
> *To: *"joe brenner" 
> *Cc: *"dai.griffiths.1" , "fis" <
> fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 19:07:36
> *Subject: *Re: [Fis]THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
> Dear Joe, Steven, and other friends,
>
>
> It is interesting, ans also benefitial,to have had opportunities to, via
> FIS forum,exchange ideas with you colleagues under the topic of intelihence
> science.Special thanks go to Joe, Steven, and other friends for their good
> comments!
>
>
> Intelligence science is, of course, asort of complex science and would not
> be easy to thoroughly understand in a short period of time. However,it is
> the right time to have it concerned seriously for now as, on one hand,it is
> extremely important for human kinds and, on the other hand, it is possible
> for researchers to make progress toward this direction based on the
> successes we have already achieved in the studies of information science
> and artificial intelligence so far.
>
>
> As for the conceptual distinktionsbetween intelligence scienceand
> information science, between intelligence scienceand artificial
> intelligence, and between intelligence and wisdom, we may, for the
> moment,mention the followings:
>
>
> -- The scope of intelligence science would be

Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Yixin Zhong e Cari Tutti,
mi dispiace che le mie parole non siano capite. D'altra parte non voglio
mancare di riguardo a nessuno. Chi le può comprendere è libero di farne o
non farne l'uso che vuole. Il mondo gira lo stesso, compreso il campo
dell'intelligenza, a prescindere dalle mie parole. Comunque, grazie e
auguri di un meritato successo.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-03-15 12:12 GMT+01:00 钟义信 :

> Dear Francesco,
>
>
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> I am sorry not to give you a reply because I am unable to understand your
> language.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Yixin ZHONG
>
>
>
>
>
> - 回复邮件 -
> *发信人:*Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> *收信人:*钟义信 
> *抄送:*JohnPrpic ,fis 
> *时间:*2015年03月15日 18时01分07秒
> *主题:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
> Cari Tutti,
> seguendo, per quel che posso capire, la discussione che si è accesa a
> proposito dell'intelligenza della scienza o della scienza
> dell'intelligenza, mi piace ricordare che il concetto di "caos" dimostra la
> sua importanza quando guida i ricercatori a creare nuove idee. I sistemi
> caotici sono creativi. Senza questa creatività la legislazione del nostro
> intelletto  non potrebbe conferire forma (tras-informare) e significare i
> dati altrimenti sconnessi dell'esperienza. Le trascendenze intellettuali  e
> le intuizioni empiriche servono a costruire la concordanza o la connessione
> tra le leggi del cervello e le leggi della natura o della società che si
> com-penetrano, esaltano e nobilitano reciprocamente.
> Saluti augurali e grati.
> Francesco Rizzo.
>
> 2015-03-12 10:57 GMT+01:00 钟义信 :
>
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much for the comments you made, which are very useful for
>> me to think about.
>>
>>
>> May I just say a few words as my simple responses to the two points you
>> wrote in your mail.
>>
>>
>> -- To my understanding, "context" and "goals" among others are necessary
>> elements for an intelligence science system. Otherwise it would be
>> unable to know where to go, what to do and how to do. In the latter case,
>> it cannot be regards as intelligence system.
>>
>>
>> --  As an intelligent system, it would usually be self-organized under
>> certain conditions. This means thar the system has clear goal(s), is able
>> to acquire the information about the changes in environment, able to learn
>> the strategy for adjusting the structures of the system so as to adapt the
>> system to the exchanged environment. This is the capability of
>> self-organizing. If the change of the environment is sufficiently complex
>> and the system is able to adapt itself to the change, then the system can
>> be said a compplex system.
>>
>>
>> Do you think so? Or you have different understanding?
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yixin ZHONG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - 回复邮件 -
>> *发信人:*John Prpic 
>> *收信人:*钟义信 
>> *抄送:*fis 
>> *时间:*2015年03月12日 11时43分09秒
>> *主题:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>>
>>
>> Dear Professor Zhong & Colleagues,
>>
>> Unsurprisingly, some very rich food for thought in the FIS group so far
>> this year!
>> Here's a few comments that I hope are useful in some respect:
>>
>> - As I think about the idea of intelligence science as put forward, would
>> it be useful to say that "context" and "goals" (as constructs) would always
>> be antecedents to intelligence science outcomes?
>> Said another way, must intelligence science systems always include these
>> two elements (among others) in a particular system configuration?
>>
>> - Also, when I look at the list of "elementary abilities" of intelligence
>> science (ie A-M), it strikes me that more than a few of them can currently
>> be considered to be core knowledge management techniques (storing,
>> retrieving, transferring, transforming of information etc)... therefore, is
>> there a difference between intelligence science in systems that are
>> self-organized (ie complexity science), compared to intelligence science
>> systems that are not self-organized? Must all intelligence science systems
>> display complexity?
>>
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"钟义信" 
>> *To: *"joe brenner" 
>> *Cc: *"dai.griffiths.1" , "fis" <
>> 

Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply8 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE-- an old poem as an echo

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Joseph e cari Tutti,
anche se rischio di essere bloccato o frainteso perché non ho voce
linguistica di moda, nei numerosi interventi precedenti ho sottolineato
l'importanza della parola composta emo-ra-zionalità, risultato della
combinazione della "intelligenza emotiva" e della razionalità
intellettuale. Nessuna descrizione non poetica della realtà può essere
completa. Ilya Prigogine ha proposto di adottare nel campo della scienza il
paradigma della musica. Henri Poincarè ritiene, talvolta, le equazioni o le
funzione  un "museo teratologico" ed i modelli paradigmatici una scelta
"convenzionale" o di comodità o di utilità. In "Incontro d'amore del cuore
della fede e dell'intelligenza della scienza" (Aracne editrice, Roma, 2014)
ho sostenuto la necessità del dialogo tra fede, ragione e scienza.  Albert
Einstein afferma che ciò che si può contare (computare) non conta e ciò che
conta non si può contare (computare). Secondo John  D. Barrow che gli
"aspetti eventuali" del mondo non si possono riconoscere o generare con una
sequenza di passi logici. La bellezza, la semplicità, la verità sono tutte,
in questo senso, "proprietà eventuali". Non c'è alcuna formula magica o
nessun programma o nessuna equazione che può generare tutta la bellezza o
tutta la bruttezza del mondo. Le mail che ho inviato il 10, 15 e 18 marzo
(non solo quest'ultima) in modo telegrafico affrontano questa problematica,
purtroppo, non sono state tenute in considerazione. Ciò mi dispiace, ma non
mi spinge a trascurare i contributi di tutti Voi che ringrazio per quanto
m'insegnate. Grazie e affettuosi saluti.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-03-19 19:27 GMT+01:00 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch :

> Dear Chuan, Rafael and All,
>
> There is a point in this exchange which perhaps should be addressed
> explicitly: everybody knows that people differ in their capacity to
> appreciate poetry emotionally. But we also differ in the capacity to
> appreciate the importance of poetry and art for science; this might be said
> to require an
> 'intelligence' of poetry. Perhaps someone else can express better what I
> am trying to say here.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> P.S. Admirers of Basho's haiku are directed to his far superior one to
> which this is a Californian response:
>
> Warm cloudy day in Spring
> Perched on a fresh leafy branch
> A young tow-hee
>
> Message d'origine
> De : raf...@capurro.de
> Date : 19/03/2015 - 08:35 (PST)
> À : fis@listas.unizar.es
> Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply8 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--
> an old poem as an echo
>
>
> Dear Chuan,
> thanks for sharing this poem.
> Allow me to thank you also with these texts where I try to reflect on Dao
> and Information Society
> http://www.capurro.de/china_infoethics2010.html
> This is a Chinese translation:
> http://www.capurro.de/beijing2011_chinese_version.pdf
> See also: http://www.capurro.de/DB_Akademie.html
> See also my activities and presentations in China:
> http://www.capurro.de/home-cn.html
> best regards
> Rafael Capurro
>
>  Dear Stanley N Salthe and All,
>
>  I am back to my duty from ten days hard work. Reliving from
> tired let me come back to the breakpoint – Stanley’s poem echo to Emily –
> and my draft reply as a new poem the same. I will finish and put out next
> mail – reply as another poem is “The Song of the Computer” and another poem
> on Internet. These two have send in our FIS years ago. And now “here a
> stay, and there a star”, now “ struggling to affect each other from our
> slowly burning bodies”, let us put these stars here again as a bunch of
> flower first.
>
>  Let this as my echo. We can image a Science fiction: long long
> after, there is a country, there  set such an law : if you have not
> replied an poet’s poem at once, if delay five days, you are evil. So let me
> use an old poem echo your poem as soon as I finished my heavy work.
>
>  Thanks for you poem. That is nice!
>
>  More reply and the new later.
>
>  Best wishes,
>
> Chuan
>
> 2015-3-19
>
>
> -原始邮件-
> *发件人:* "Stanley N Salthe" 
> 
> *发送时间:* 2015-03-14 03:41:00
> *收件人:* "赵川"  
> *抄送:*
> *主题:* Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply7 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--
> a poem & the π-festival
>
> Chuan, fis'rs
>
>  Here is a poem I wrote a couple of years ago:
>
>  internet fellowship
>
> is like --
>
> being in heaven?
>
>
>  we’re
>
>  disembodied spirits
>
>   struggling to affect
>
>  each other.
>
>
>  patterns of ‘on and off’ in the waves and wires
>
> like 

Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply15 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE: summary2

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Chuan e cari Tutti,
"La scienza è ricerca e la ricerca è poetica" è un'espressione che
sintetizza quanto ho scritto in tutti i miei messaggi e soprattutto
nell'e-mail del 20 marzo scorso. La scienza diventa poesia o musica quando
raggiunge il massimo o sublime livello. L'essenza umana e/o la volontà
subconscia sono caotiche fino a quando non vengono sottoposte al principio
della forma o al processo di tras-informazione. Il contrasto o la
dialettica tra determinazione e indeterminazione formale è alla base della
creazione artistica della scienza (economica) come il primo capitolo di
"Valore e valutazioni" (F. Rizzo, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 4 ed. 2010)
com-prova. Quest'attività creativa implica una imprescindibile riflessione
sui meccanismi del nostro cervello, giustificando l'interdipendenza tra la
fase cosciente e l'inconscio secondo la partecipazione personale e
soggettiva degli uomini nel contesto spazio-temporale in cui vivono e
interagiscono.
Un grazie affettuoso.
Francesco Rizzo

2015-04-08 2:09 GMT+02:00 赵川 :

> Dear Joseph, Pedro, Prof. Zhong, and dear All FISer Leaguers,
>
> Just as in the summer of 1956, in Dartmouth College, many
> interdisciplinary scholars met and has a tow-months long discussion and
> contributed the concept/direction as Artificial Intelligence. This spring
> of 2015, in Internet world wide, we FIS leaguers’ minds met/worked in
> Internet, we focused the concept /term of Intelligence Science. And tried
> preliminarily to made sure Intelligence science’s mission，range, the
> relation of IS and IS, FIS and FIS, relation with AI and other fields. Such
> mails with deep thought and wide horizon are “Foundational” and ”Frontier”
> both.
> 1.  In the finish of our discussion allow me put the “kickoff file”
> (dear Pedro’s analogy. I enjoy it.) in the attachment prepared with Pedro
> and Joseph before the beginning of our session. Forgive me that I have not
> enough strength to sort the questions this time yet. Perhaps very soon
> after out discussion finish I should integrate them with the new questions
> emerged in our session.
> 2.  Allow me announce again here to form a “National Scientist’s
> Poetry group”. It is the time try to initiate it with now more academic
> leagues in our discussion session. Let me put the mail of July 12, 2014
> that can make sure my wish:
>
> Dear scientist-poets and poet-scientists,
> After I wrote a mail to Joseph to report the news Prof. Mihir
> Chacraborty visited my university. Then I forwarded it to Denis Mire, I
> want to call him “where are you?”, I think of perhaps this can forward to
> Gerhard,Besiau,…etc. So now touch many fiends and leagues!
> I think of perhaps we should form an “πpoem association”. Because
> we are in different countries though we all in one poetical field, it
> should be an “InternationalπPoem Association”.
> Do you think this is a good idea? I wish hear your echoes.
> Our Intelligence Science Laboratory (I work in Chengdu University
> of Technology) should be 3 years. I think of to edit something to
> congratulate. One is a small poem collection of scientist. Science is
> research and research is poetical. Could you allowed and perhaps can share
> me more new poems?
> Not serious publish kind. Just collect to please to encourage and
> accompany ourselves. We are too heavy to enjoy poetical feeling. It is a
> bunch of flowers instead of a cold book.
> Making a good cup of tea, water is needed and should be enough.
> Now our science study condition is too much tea and too few water. So that
> the tea soup is bitter, not faint scent.
> Yes, Prof. Mihir invited me and another poet to join the International
> Poetical Conference January 2015 in Calcutta, India. If I join it, I should
> take our information of poem from Science to the conference.
> It is still an inspiration. Something is possible.
> Best wishes and good summer,
>  Zhao chuan
>
>   July 12, 2014
> I sent it to many friends as scientist-poets and poet-scientists. That day
> and till now, there was only an echo from Joseph. He welcomed it and
> suggested then that we can have such a poetry group first. Near a year
> pasted, nether a ”πpoem association” nor a Scientist’ Poetry Group/society,
> no matter what style or name, the wish is the same. I love science and poem
> both, and I have seen so many excellent poems from scientists, they are so
> important poets and poems to our civilization. Yes, important, for normal
> poets as humanist can’t understand science straightly, can’t bear the press
> of scientist. Such scientist and their poems form new literature and new
> science the same. We should not 

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
a proposito della uni-dualità tra informazione e interpretazione, non
bisogna essere per forza pragmatici tifosi di R. Rorty per affermare che i
fatti-segni o segni-fatti restano chiusi nella loro arbitrarietà o
irrazionalità semiotica senza un'interpretazione o  ermeneutica adeguata.
Purtroppo, questo non l'hanno capito gran parte dei sor-passati economisti
e di tanti filosofi ancora alla ricerca dell'Araba Fenice del pensiero
assoluto, mentre contrassegna il poderoso avanzamento delle scienze fisiche
e matematiche. Ecco perché la sessione precedente, appena conclusa, a mio
giudizio ha avuto una grandissima importanza. La nostra esistenza e la
nostra conoscenza sono un grande mistero che sola la poesia e la musica,
impregnate di tenerezza o amore divino e umano, possono educarci a
com-prendere.
Un abbraccio affettuoso da un "poverino esponenziale", quale "sono io", che
per il disegno o progetto di Dio può diventare un "Io sono". E ciò vale per
tutti, credenti e non credenti. Oggi, più che mai, affascina la ricerca di
"Un incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della
scienza" (F. Rizzo,Aracne editrice, Roma, 2014). Il valore dell'uomo non
dipende da ciò che è, ha, sa, ma dalla capacità di uscire da se stesso,
aprendosi e amando gli altri.La co-scienza dell'amore, vale più dell'amore
della scienza. Grazie.
Francesco Rizzo.


2015-04-25 8:00 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> Dear Pedro, Terrence, and colleagues,
>
>
>
>
>
> *“… to explain how this interpretive capacity couldpossibly originate in a
> universe where direct contiguity of causalinfluence is the rule."*
>
>
>
> The contiguity is relational. However, meaning is generated not
> relationally, but positionally. As the network system is shaped in terms of
> relations, it can be expected to develop an architecture. The structure is
> based on correlations, that is, patterns of relations
>
> including zeros. For example, two synonyms may have similar meaning
> without co-occurring ever in a single text.
>
>
>
> In other words, the vectors of relations span a vector space in which both
> nodes and links are positioned. A link may then mean something different
> for node A and node B; the link becomes directed because of its function in
> the network. The correlational analysis of the vector space adds to the
> graph analysis of the networks of relations.
>
>
>
> Reflexivity adds to the mutual contingency in the relations by bringing
> the patterns of relations to bear. Human reflexivity enables us to change
> (self-organize) additionally the diaphragm of the reflection. Thus, degrees
> of freedom can be added recursively using the same principle that the
> network of relations develops a next-order architecture.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
> --
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>
> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of
> London;
>
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Pedro C.
> Marijuan
> *Sent:* Friday, April 24, 2015 2:34 PM
> *To:* Terrence W. DEACON; 'fis'
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture: Aftermath
>
>
>
> Dear Terry and colleagues,
>
> I hope you don't mind if I send some suggestions publicly. First, thank
> you for the aftermath, it provides appropriate "closure" to a very intense
> discussion session. Second, I think you have encapsulated very clearly an
> essential point (at least in my opinion):
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Among these givens is the question of what is minimally necessary for a
> system or process to be interpretive, in the sense of being able to utilize
> presentintrinsic physical properties of things to refer to absent
> ordisplaced properties or phenomena. This research question is
> ignorablewhen it is possible to assume human or even animal interpreters
> aspart of the system one is analyzing. At some point, however, itbecomes
> relevant to not only be more explicit about what is beingassumed, but also
> to explain how this interpretive capacity couldpossibly originate in a
> universe where direct contiguity of causalinfluence is the

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture – The Correct Level of Analysis?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Marcus Abundis,
il non-duale o l'uni-duale modello non è costituito da rumore (entropia) &
segnale, ma da interpretazione & informazione (neg-entropia). E se vogliamo
approssimarci di più alla realtà liberamente creata dobbiamo analizzare
l'uni-trialità: entropia (rumore), interpretazione, neg-entropia
(segnalazione) o significazione (informazione). Come se l'interpretazione
fosse l'interfaccia tra entropia e neg-entropia o tra Boltzmann e Shannon
in un quadro più ampio comprendente l'informazione naturale o
termodinamica, genetica, matematica o cibernetica e semantica. Cfr. anche
l'e-mai inviata a Tutti il 25 aprile scorso.
Saluti cordiali.
Francesco Rizzo

2015-04-27 13:32 GMT+02:00 Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Terry – and “first-time greetings“ to FIS colleagues,
>
>
> First, Terry, thank you for your continued effort with this contentious
> topic. It is truly necessary and worthwhile “heavy lifting.“
>
>
> Second, in reading all prior postings I am drawn to your 30 Jan. note:
>
> > . . . I haven't felt that the specific components of this proposal have
> been addressed in this thread. <
>
> I find myself wondering if this is still the case, in the current thread.
> This also prompts me to wonder WHY is this “informational topic“ so
> doggedly contentious? Your January essay and your April preamble both
> emphasize a need for “reductive“ study of the topic, but which does not
> seem to truly arise here. This drives me to ask, indeed: “What is the
> correct level of analysis?“, and what is the level of analysis exhibited.
> To be clear, I support the reductive vista you seem to endorse.
>
>
> My impression is that there is little focus on the MOST reductive issues,
> and there is a bit of reasonable “jumping around“ as people reach for
> exemplars to explain/explore/connect their own view of things. But I also
> think a problem is buried in “jumping explanatory levels“ due to the nature
> of “emergent things.“ The unavoidable (co-incident?) inclusion of emergent
> elements (homunculi?), due to jumping explanatory levels seems likely to
> introduce logical gaps, that can leave people confused and argumentative.
> In some ways, your teleodynamic model may even encourage jumping around,
> simply due to its ambitious nature. Thus, I wonder if that ambitiousness
> hinders the model’s accessibility. Thoughts? (Yes, some ambitiousness is,
> generally speaking, required).
>
>
> Third, I am a bit confused (or just unclear) on your assertion of a
> “non-dual model.“(?) I suspect you must recognize some “dual material
> aspect,“ at least, as part of Shannon’s model (noise & signal), and your
> January essay seems to aim to explore a “dual aspect“ vis-a-vis Boltzmann
> and Shannon – yes, they are connected, but there are also clear
> distinctions to be made too, no?
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro)

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
 secondo l'esordio di questo nuovo tema di discussione e riflessione mi
verrebbe di scrivere: "E' l'economia bellezza!". Difatti la mia Nuova
economia è una inter-mediatrice di tutte le scienze perché congiunge
l'astrattezza filosofica e la concretezza empirica con un resiliente
impegno metodologico di tipo popperiano in-centrato su problemi, ipotesi,
teorie, critiche.. Ciò premesso nell'agosto 1997 ho elaborato il capitolo
11 "K. R. Popper dal neo-positivismo al post-positivismo o 'razionalismo
critico': la dimensione trina dell'esistenza e del sapere (economico)" di
"Valore e valutazioni" (FrancoAngeli Milano, 1999, pp. 219-242) che
confronta tre modelli nel seguente modo:
a) il mio processo di tras-informazione ha come input o immissioni,
materia, energia e informazione e come output o emissioni  ancora materia,
energia e informazione, ma in uno "stato" diverso; in estrema sintesi
questa è l'attività o teoria economica basata su un triangolo di tre
surplus;
b) Popper e John C. Eccles formulano (soprattutto il primo) ed esplicitano
(soprattutto il secondo) il Mondo 1 (Oggetti e Stati fisici inorganici,
biologici e fatti dall'uomo; Mondo 2 (Stati di Coscienza: Conoscenza
soggettiva attraverso l'Esperienza di percezione, pensiero, emozioni,
propositi, memorie, sogni immaginazione creativa); Mondo 3 (Conoscenza in
Senso Oggettivo: Testimonianze di imprese intellettuali filosofiche,
teologiche, scientifiche, storiche, letterarie, artistiche, tecnologiche;
Sistemi teoretici: problemi scientifici, argomentazioni, critiche);
c) G. Bugliarello, tecnologo di New York, nel 1991 ha introdotto il
concetto-unità di Bio-So-Ma (comprendente le entità biologiche, sociali e
tecnologiche) in relazione alla materia (società pre-industriale),
all'energia (società industriale) e all'informazione (società
post-industriale).
In questo stesso capitolo 11 ho criticato ( e proposto emendamenti de) i
tre Mondi di Popper così come sono stati esplicitati da Eccles. Tuttavia,
con una larga approssimazione metodologica, questi tre modelli com-provano
l'armonia meravigliosa che governa il mondo, quindi a mio parere, le stesse
eventuali  differenze o diversità non fanno altro che rafforzare una certa
UNITA' di fondo tra tutti i problemi dell'esistenza e tutte le teoria della
conoscenza.
La mia Nuova economia, da circa 50 anni ri-comprende, ri-significa e
re-interpreta la scienza economica tradizionale che ha ha fatto tante
scelte pratiche e teoriche sbagliate da farsi perdonare: compresa la crisi
economico-finanziaria, ecologica ed umana che  ancora imperversa nel mondo
globalizzato.
Chiedo scusa se sono stato più lungo del solito. Un doppio grazie.
Un saluto
Francesco Rizzo


2015-05-19 9:34 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> For the measurement of interdisciplinarity, one can use, for example,
> Rao-Stirling diversity which is defined as follows (Rao, 1982; Stirling,
> 2007):
>
>
>
> Δ = Σij pi pj dij   (1)
>
>
>
> where *dij *is a disparity measure between two classes *i *and *j*—the
> categories are in the case below journals—and *pi *is the proportion of
> elements assigned to each class *i*. As the disparity measure, we use the
> distances on an aggregated journal-journal citation map (Leydesdorff,
> Heimeriks, & Rotolo, in press; Leydesdorff, Rafols, & Chen, 2013).
>
>
>
> For example, 23 publications can be retrieved as of today with the search
> string “au=Marijuan P*” at WoS. The journal map is as follows:
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.gif@01D09216.E78CE210]
>
>
>
> and the Rao-Stirling diversity (“interdisciplinarity”) of this set is
> 01282.
>
>
>
> If I repeat the analysis with the search string “au=leydesdorff l*”, I
> retrieve 270 documents; Rao-Stirling diversity is 0.0805.
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image002.gif@01D09216.E78CE210]
>
>
>
> In other words, Leydesdorff is more prolific than Marijuan in terms of WoS
> publications, but Marijuan’s portfolio is more interdisciplinary than
> Leydesdorff’s.
>
>
>
> One finds the relevant software at
> http://www.leydesdorff.net/portfolio/index.htm
>
> Reference:
>
> Leydesdorff, L., Heimeriks, G., & Rotolo, D. (2015 (in press)). Journal
> Portfolio Analysis for Countries, Cities, and Organizations: Maps and
> Comparisons <http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05676>. *Journal of the
> Association for Information Science and Technology*.
>
> ___
> 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] It From Bit video

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,  davvero,
L'INFORMAZIONE è la legge fondamentale di tutte le scienze, compresa
l'economia, e dell'intera esistenza comprese nel pluri-verso  o nei
pluri-versi. Sostengo questo da circa 40 anni ed ho rielaborato la scienza
economica.  Tutto ciò l'ho ribadito da quando ho il piacere e l'onore di
partecipare alla Fis. Ma siccome scrivo nella mia lingua italiana, talvolta
 mi sembra di essere muto e inascoltato. Pazienza! Non mi resta che
esprimere l'accordo col pensiero di tanti , tra di Voi, autorevoli studiosi
e scienziati che ho la possibilità di leggere. Comunque, sono aperto anche
all'armonia del dis-accordo. Grazie e buon lavoro.
Un abbraccio umano e culturale.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-05-26 0:29 GMT+02:00 Ken Herold :

> Released recently--what about the biological?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATWa2AEvIY
>
> --
> Ken
>
> ___
> 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] It From Bit video

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro John e Cari colleghi,
Stephen Hawking nel 1975 riteneva che i buchi neri fagocitassero tutto ciò
che si ritrovava nelle loro vicinanze, all'interno di una regione detta
"orizzonte degli eventi". Fin da allora diventò evidente che questa
proprietà portasse a un paradosso. Infatti se i buchi neri inghiottono
tutto, allora dovrebbero fagocitare e distruggere anche l'informazione,
perdendo di ciò che ingoiano qualsiasi traccia. Secondo la meccanica
quantistica, però, l'informazione contenuta nella materia non può andare
persa del tutto. Circa trent'anni dopo Hawking ha affermato che "sui buchi
neri aveva torto". Rivedendo la sua teoria sostiene che i buchi neri non si
limitano a perdere massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma evaporano
o rilasciano informazione. Con-tengono un'informazione sulla materia di cui
sono fatti che consente di pre-dirne il futuro. In tal modo i buchi neri
non  evaporano o irradiano un'energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di
informazione come se fossero delle inafferrabili e indecifrabili entità
cosmiche,  e non sfuggono alla (mia) super-legge della combinazione
creativa (anche se talvolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I
buchi neri quindi possono considerarsi come speciali scatole nere o magici
processi di tras-in-formazione produttivi ( i cui "input"  e "output" sono
materia, energia e informazione) e prospettici.
Questo significa che da economista ho:
-elaborato una legge che vale anche per l'astronomia e l'intera fisica;
-preceduto di circa vent'anni quel che Hawking ha scoperto nel 1998
("Gravitational  entropy") e nel 2005 ("Information loss in black holes",
Phisical review. D 72).
 Quindi all'INTERNO dei buchi neri si avrebbe una minore entropia (o una
maggiore neg-entropia) rispetto alla maggiore entropia (o minore
neg-entropia) ESTERNA. La formazione di maggiore entropia ESTERNA
(corrispondente ad una minore informazione) dovrebbe essere necessariamente
bilanciata da una maggiore informazione INTERNA (corrispondente ad una
minore entropia). In base a questo ragionamento o bilanciamento - coerente
con la logica della Nuova economia - i buchi neri dovrebbero produrre ed
 emettere informazione netta al pari di qualunque processo produttivo. Tale
asimmetria ESTERNA-INTERNA fa una differenza che è proprio l'informazione.
Non sono pochi i saggi che ho dedicato alla capacità creativa
dell'asimmetria in qualunque processo di avanzamento scientifico (cfr.
soprattutto "Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza
della scienza", Aracne, Roma, 2014).
Quel che ho descritto schematicamente e sinteticamente, cosa di cui mi
scuso, di-mostra la mirabile e meravigliosa armonia che governa il mondo.
Grazie.
Francesco Rizzo.


2015-05-26 23:19 GMT+02:00 John Collier :

>  Dear Srinandan,
>
>
>
> He relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory
> in the Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe
> symmetries, which are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries,
> which are the differences that can be identified as information. This is
> worked out in some detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in *Asymmetry:
> The Foundation of Information*. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd
> relates the information concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and
> other means in his *Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer
> Scientist Takes on the Cosmos*. More direct connections can be made via
> the entropy concept where the information is the difference between the
> entropy of a system and its entropy with all internal constraints relaxed,
> but it comes to the same thing in the end. There are several convergent
> ways to relate information to form, then, in contemporary physics. But
> basically it is in the asymmetries.
>
>
>
> As far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think
> this is still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some
> physicists like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you
> have all the asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well.
> I don’t see through this adequately myself as yet, though.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* May 26, 2015 10:20 PM
> *To:* u...@umces.edu; John Collier
>
> *Cc:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] It From Bit video
>
>
>
> Re: boundary conditions, etc.
>
>
>
> I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this list, and the
> references to boundary conditions, geometry and information leave me quite
> befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same as
> information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on
&g

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

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
distinguere, separare o, peggio, contrapporre è pericoloso e contrasta con
l'armonia meravigliosa che governa ll mondo. A PRESCINDERE CHE SI CREDA O
MENO in una in una Intelligenza trascendente la natura umana (io, ad
esempio, credo in Dio che non finisce mai di stupirci e sorprenderci). In
questo contesto epistemologico ed ermeneutico il computo o calcolo non è
altro che una singolare caso o categoria di informazione. Naturalmente,
questo è quel che penso io e rassegno al Vostro giudizio.
Un abbraccio per Tutti, nella convinzione che nessuno possegga una verità
assoluta, eterna e immutabile.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-06-12 23:18 GMT+02:00 Krassimir Markov :

>   Dear John and Stan,
> Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
> But this is believe, not science.
> Sorry, nothing personal!
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* John Collier 
> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
> *To:* Stanley N Salthe  ; fis
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
> Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:
>
>
>
>
>
> It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s
> computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree
> with this.
>
> Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most
> physiological systems.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
> N Salthe
> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
> *To:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
>
> Pedro -- Your list:
>
>
>
> physical, biological, social, and Informational
>
>
>
> is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the
> physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.
> But where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:
>
>
>
> {informational {physicochemical {biological {social
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort
> of the border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on
> the interrelationship between computation and information is an essential
> matter. In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life
> cycles are involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the
> mere info circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any
> life-cycle relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction
> between both may help to consider more clearly the relationship between the
> four great domains of sceince: physical, biological, social, and
> Informational. If we adopt a pan-computationalist stance, the information
> turn of societies, of bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces
> to applying computer technologies. I think this would be a painful error,
> repeating the big mistake of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed
> the sciences of the artificial and reduced the nascent info science to
> library science. People like Alex Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are
> again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, it was nicer talking face to face as
> we did in the past conference!
>
> best ---Pedro
>
> Ken Herold wrote:
>
> FIS:
>
> Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did
> not intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative
> way of philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of
> some bad thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is
> information and I would like to hear how you might believe the formal
> relational scheme of Rosenbloom could be helpful?
>
> Ken
>
> --
> Ken Herold
> Director, Library Information Systems
> Hamilton College
> 198 College Hill Road
> Clinton, NY 13323
> 315-859-4487
> kher...@hamilton.edu <mailto:kher...@hamilton.edu>
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi

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

[Francesco Rizzo]

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

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

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

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: RE: It from Bit redux . . . MODERATION] From Xueshan

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
la neg-entropia (energia libera o INFORMAZIONE in condizione di
dis-equilibrio improbabile) di "Che cos'è la vita? La cellula vivente dal
punto di vista fisico" di Erving Schrodinger e la "evaporazione" di
INFORMAZIONE di Stephan  Hawking che compensa l'asimmetria tra entropia
interna (minore) e l'entropia esterna (maggiore) dei buchi neri dove le
mettiamo?
Scusate la  domanda.
Francesco Rizzo

2015-06-16 14:12 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

>   Original Message   Subject: RE: [Fis] It from Bit redux
> . . . MODERATION  Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:45:59 +0800  From: Xueshan
> YanReply-To: 
>   Organization: CHINA  To: 'Pedro C. Marijuan'
>  
>
>
>
>   ==
>
>  Dear Pedro, Joseph, John, Krassimir, Rafael, and All,
>
> Here I tell you some interesting stories about “It from Bit” in China.
>
> Around the year of 2000, The Seminar of Interdisciplinary Information
> Science of Peking University came into contact for the first time with
> Wheeler’s “It from Bit”, in fact, earlier this theory, we had just
> discussed Stonier’s “Information Physics” and had consulted with the Dean
> of Physics School, his opinion was: The concept ENTROPY is enough to
> physics, it is unnecessary to blunder in the fashion of information for
> physicists. Of course, that was over fifteen years ago.
>
> We afterwards had been tracking this information problem in Science of
> China History; So far, we found there are at least four doctrines related
> to “It from Bit”.
>
> 1. It from Taiji. Zhou Wenwang (Ji Chang), see his book: “The Book of
> Changes” (Yijing or Zhouyi), B.C. 1050;
> 2. It from Dao. Laozi. see his book: “Tao Te Ching” (Daodejing), B.C. 500;
> 3. The world is composed of information. Xinxi Shen, see his book:
> “Informatilism”, 2005;
> 4. The world is informational. Jianghuo Wang, see his book: “Unified
> Information Theory”, 2012.
>
> To my knowledge, the last two authors had not contacted Wheeler’s “It from
> Bit”, that Ji Chang and Laozi had no contacted with it is very obvious.
>
> In all his lifetime, Wheeler once visited China only one time in 1981,
> when he stayed in China, he watched a Beijing Opera named “Feng Ming Qi
> Shan”. When a general hold a flag on which a large Chinese word appeared,
> he asked the accompany that what is the meaning of that word, they told him
> its meaning is NOTHING, he said excitedly: The answer what I am looking for
> desperately all my life about the physical reality, your ancestors had
> originally given thousands years ago. (see his book: “Wheeler’s Lectures on
> Physics and Austerity”, 1982).
>
> So far, on the argument of “It from Bit”, we can not prove it is correct,
> but can not prove it is wrong too.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Xueshan
> 16:18, June 16, 2015
> Peking University
>
> -
>
> ___
> 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] Answer to Mark. Phenomenology and Speculative Realism

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
come ho scritto altre volte senza tanto successo, forse perché com-unico
con la lingua italiana, è la mia "Nuova economia" a mediare il rapporto tra
biologia e fisica.
 Difatti nel capitolo 14. di "Valore e valutazioni" (FrancoAngeli, Milano
1999) dichiaro: "In conclusione, ribadisco la necessità di una svolta (?)
epistemologica basata sulla compresenza e sulla complementarità della
coppia empatia-astrazione e della coppia senso-simbolo, nei processi
scientifici, per le tre dimensioni: personale, intersoggettiva e
macro-sistemica. Ciò si può ottenere adottando un modello
ontogenetico-dialogico centrato sull'ambivalenza o dualità dell'essere,
dell'agire e del conoscere, caratterizzato, cioè, dalla coppia
differenza-uguaglianza, interno-esterno, astrazione-empatia,
soggettivo-oggettivo, senso-simbolo: a partire da Luhmann bisogna andare
oltre Luhmann utilizzando il pensiero di Husserl e di Stein".
La mia teoria del valore economica, basata sulla combinazione creativa di
energia e informazione o sulla combinazione creativa delle tre neg-entropie
(termodinamica, eco-biologica o genealogica e matematico-semantica), è
intersoggettiva e consente di determinare in modo oggettivo i valori
(inter-)soggettivi.
"In questa logica definisco i beni culturali e/o naturali in funzione della:
 testimonianza materiale avente valore di civiltà o meglio la civiltà
presente testimonia, conserva, valorizza e gestisce i beni culturali
passati;
 creazione di neg-entropia;
 soddisfazione del più importante bisogno (economico) di godimento della
vita" (F.Rizzo, "Economia del patrimonio architettonico-ambientale",
FrancoAngeli, Milano 1983-99).
L'armonia che governa il mondo è meravigliosa: bisogna saperla cogliere. Il
disaccordo è un'armonia non facilmente compresa.
Buone vacanze a Pedro e a tutti.
Francesco Rizzo

2015-08-02 9:54 GMT+02:00 Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> I think that this discussion about phenomenology, or better said
> "phenomenological philosophy", is essential, but may go in the wrong
> direction. As for the common grounds that Loet addressed in his note, I
> assume that some of us are continuing the path of Varela’s naturalisation
> of phenomenology. If you are a bit patient, you can see the results of our
> effort in this direction by the end of the year:
>
>
> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/progress-in-biophysics-and-molecular-biology/call-for-papers/special-theme-issue-on-integral-biomathics-life-sciences-mat/
>
> This special volume is a collection of 41 papers discussing the aspects of
> phenomenological philosophy in mathematics, physics, biology and
> biosemiotics, incl. FIS contributors (Marijuan, Matsuno, Marchal, Goranson)
> and other prominent scientists representing their fields.
>
> I suggest to continue this discussion next year on the grounds of this
> volume.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Plamen
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Loet Leydesdorff 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> Without wishing to defend Husserl, let me try to formulate what is
>> according to my knowledge core to his contribution. The message is that the
>> transcendental intersubjectivity is phenomenologically present in our
>> reality. He therefore returns to Descartes' (much rejected) distinction
>> between *res extensa* and *res cogitans*. Intersubjectivity is *res
>> cogitans*. It is not "being" like in the Latin *esse*, but it remains
>> reflexively available. Thus, we cannot test it. The philosophy of science
>> which follows (in "*The Crisis*") is anti-positivistic. The
>> intersubjectivity is constructed and we live in these constructions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Descartes focused on the subjective *Cogito*. According to him, we meet
>> in the doubting, the Other as not limited and biologically constrained,
>> that is, God or the Transcendency. Husserl shifts the attention to the
>> *cogitatum*: that about what we are in doubt. We no longer find a hold
>> in Transcendency, but we find the other as other persons. Persons relate to
>> one another not only in "being", but also in terms of expectations. This
>> was elaborated as "dual contingency" (among others, by Parsons). The
>> dynamics of inter-personal expectations, for example, drive scholarly
>> discourses, but also stock exchanges.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alfred Schutz was a student and admirer of Husserl, but he did not accept
>> the Cartesian duality implied. He writes: "As long as we are born from
>> mothers ..." He then developed sociological phenomenology (Luckmann and
>> others), which begins

Re: [Fis] Information and Locality Introduction

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Steven Ericsson-Zenith, Pedro e Tutti,
proprio da qualche mese ho iniziato a scrivere un libro in cui, fra
l'altro, affronto ancora una volta il tema dell'informazione dell'armonia o
dell'armonia dell'informazione. Specialmente in questi giorni, dopo avere
passato in rassegna le diverse teorie del valore delle scuole o correnti
economiche che si sono succedute, sto rivisitando la mia teoria del valore
basata sui surplus generati dai quattro tipi di informazione: termodinamica
o naturale (neg-entropia), genetica (DNA-RNA-proteine), matematica (bit di
entropia) e semantica (significato ottenibile con un s-codice che si
sovrappone ad una fonte di informazione equiprobabile). In fondo, non
bisogna fare altre che una ri-unificazione del sapere come sostiene anche
Jerry Chandler. Ho sempre sostenuto che la natura e la società hanno
un'armonia meravigliosa, non inficiata dai disaccordi, dai contrasti e
dalle diversità pur esistenti. L'ultimo messaggio che ho inviato il 3
agosto a conclusione della discussione precedente ribadisce quindi
l'esigenza inderogabile di com-prendere il possibile tutto o il tutto
possibile con la fusione (non con la confusione) degli orizzonti.
Un grazie a Ericsson-Zenith per l'abile introduzione che ci ha offerto e a
Pedro, regista inimitabile di queste magnifiche iniziative.
Francesco Rizzo


2015-09-11 18:58 GMT+02:00 Robert E. Ulanowicz :

> I'll have to weigh in with Stan on this one. Stan earlier had defined
> information more generally as "constraint". It is convenient to employ the
> IT calculus to separate constraint from indeterminacy. This is possible in
> complete abstraction from anything to do with communication.
>
> The ability to make this separation has wide-ranging consequences. For
> example, it provides a pathway by which process philosophy can be brought
> to bear on quantitative physical systems! It is no longer necessary to
> rely solely on positivist "objects moving according to law". That's no
> small advance!
>
> <
> https://www.ctr4process.org/whitehead2015/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PhilPrax.pdf
> >
>
> The best,
> Bob
>
> > Pedro wrote"
> >
> >>Most attempts to enlarge informational thought and to extend it to life,
> > economies, societies, etc. continue to be but a reformulation of the
> > former
> > ideas with little added value.
> >
> > S: Well, I have generalized the Shannon concept of information carrying
> > capacity under 'variety'...  {variety {information carrying capacity}}.
> > This allows the concept to operate quite generally in evolutionary and
> > ecological discourses.  Information, then, if you like, is what is left
> > after a reduction in variety, or after some system choice.  Consider
> > dance:
> > we have all the possible conformations of the human body, out of which a
> > few are selected to provide information about the meaning of a dance.
> >
> > STAN
> >
> > STAN
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
> > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Steven and FIS colleagues,
> >>
> >> Many thanks for this opening text. What you are proposing about a pretty
> >> structured discussion looks a good idea, although it will have to
> >> confront the usually anarchic discussion style of FIS list! Two aspects
> >> of your initial text have caught my attention (apart from those videos
> >> you recommend that I will watch along the weekend).
> >>
> >> First about the concerns of a generation earlier (Shannon, Turing...)
> >> situating information in the intersection between physical science and
> >> engineering. The towering influence of this line of thought, both with
> >> positive and negative overtones, cannot be overestimated. Most attempts
> >> to enlarge informational thought and to extend it to life, economies,
> >> societies, etc. continue to be but a reformulation of the former ideas
> >> with little added value. See one of the last creatures: "Why Information
> >> Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies" (2015), by Cesar
> >> Hidalgo (prof. at MIT).
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the extension of those classic ideas to life are very
> >> fertile from the technological point of view, from the "theory of
> >> molecular machines" for DNA-RNA-protein matching to genomic-proteomic
> >> and other omics'  "big data". But all that technobrilliance does not
> >> open per se new avenues in order to produce innovative thought about the
> >> information stuff of h

Re: [Fis] Information and Locality Introduction

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Terry,
le Tue considerazioni sono sempre creative e stimolanti. Per me
l'informazione è in-centrata sulla forma, sullo stato, sulla condizione
topologica di un qualcosa che può considerarsi un "testo" o con-"testo" il
cui significato non può non essere interpretato.Ma esistono cose a questo
mondo che non debbono essere significate o interpretate? La meccanica
quantistica mi spinge a rispondere negativamente. Quindi la relazione tra
in-formazione e significato è strettissima.
Grazie e chiedo scusa per la mia in-form-azione linguistica. Saluti.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-09-12 22:08 GMT+02:00 Terrence W. DEACON :

> Reminders of old news.
>
> In defense of Stan: The use of the term "variety" as a generic stand-in
> for Shannon's concept of signal entropy traces to W. Ross Ashby, in his
> excellent effort to demystify information theory and cybernetics for the
> nontechnical reader. It is appropriate, then, to assume that use of the
> term "variety" is agnostic about the form of a particular reference
> distribution being assumed.
>
> About bringing "meaning" into the discussion: As Bob Ulanowicz emphasized
> in his paper "Shannon exonerata" from a couple of years ago, Shannon's
> analysis implicitly includes two complementary ways of understanding
> information: The entropy of a signal channel and the difference or
> reduction of entropy of a received message-bearing signal (that which is in
> effect "missing" in a received message signal). And these have opposite
> signs. This complementarity also indicates the intrinsically relational
> nature of the concept of information. What sign (+/-) to assign information
> became a controversial issue between Shannon and Wiener, especially since
> Wiener wanted to equate information with negentropy. Recognizing this
> complementarity and relationality resolves this. Although what Bob calls
> the "apophatic" aspect of information can be seen to be linked to reference
> and "meaning" these statistical and semiotic properties should not be
> confused. As Loet suggests, we would be wise not to slip into a tendency to
> equate statistical signal features with meaning. Reference, meaning,
> significance, etc. are not intrinsic to a communication medium, but are
> defined relative to an interpretive process, the details of which are for
> the most part entirely bracketed from the analysis. For these reasons,
> although these interpretation-dependent properties are dependent upon
> statistical properties of the medium, they cannot be reduced to them
> without loss.
>
> — Terry
>
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Stanley N Salthe 
> wrote:
>
>> Reacting to my:
>>
>> S: Well, I have generalized the Shannon concept of information carrying
>> capacity under 'variety'...  {variety {information carrying capacity}}.
>> This allows the concept to operate quite generally in evolutionary and
>> ecological discourses.  Information, then, if you like, is what is left
>> after a reduction in variety, or after some system choice. Consider dance:
>> we have all the possible conformations of the human body, out of which a
>> few are selected to provide information about the meaning of a dance.
>>
>> Jerry responded:
>>
>> Stan's post is a superb example of how anyone change the semantic meaning
>> of words and talk about personal philosophy in context that ignores the
>> syntactical meaning of the same word such that the exact sciences
>> are generated.  Of course, this personal philosophy remains a private
>> conversation.
>>
>> S: I really need a translation of this statement.
>>
>> STAN
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <
>> jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Steven, Pedro and List:
>>>
>>> Two excellent posts!
>>>
>>> Steven:  I look forward to your ratiocinations and there connectivity
>>> with symbolic logic.
>>>
>>> It is my view that one of the foundational stumbling blocks to
>>> communication about syntactical information theory (and its exactness!) is
>>> the multi-meanings that emerge from the multiple symbol systems used by the
>>> natural sciences.
>>>
>>> Stan's post is a superb example of how anyone change the semantic
>>> meaning of words and talk about personal philosophy in context that ignores
>>> the syntactical meaning of the same word such that the exact sciences
>>> are generated.  Of course, this personal philosophy remains a private
>>> conversation.
>>>
>>>  Steven and Pedro (

Re: [Fis] Information and Locality.

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
sforzandomi di interloquire e per quel che riesco a capire, ribadisco i
 contenuti dei due messaggi che ho inviato il 12 e il 14 settembre scorsi,
al secondo dei quali ha risposto magnificamente Terry Deacon lo stesso 14
settembre. "Qui" ed "ora" mi limito a riportare il pensiero del
neuro-biologo cileno H. Maturana: "L'esperienza del fisico, che si occupi
di fisica classica, relativistica o quantistica, non riflette la natura
dell'universo, bensì l'ontologia dell'osservatore come sistema vivente, in
quanto egli "opera linguisticamente" mentre realizza le entità fisiche e le
coerenze operative dei loro domini di esistenza. Come affermava Einstein
'le teorie (spiegazioni) scientifiche sono libere creazioni della mente
umana' " (H. Maturana, "Autocoscienza e realtà", Milano 1993, p. 114).
In questo con-testo, "operare linguisticamente" significa essere e vivere
nel linguaggio, mediante una cooperazione comportamentale, ricorsiva e
descritta semanticamente. Tutto esiste e si svolge all'interno della
comunicazione, non al di fuori. Ed è per questo che non si può prescindere
dal rapporto tra informazione e significato.
Beninteso, niente di quanto ho scritto ha un significato polemico.
L'obiettivo scientifico ed umano che mi pongo sempre è quello di realizzare
un'economia del pensiero o un pensiero dell'economia inclusivo, non
esclusivo.
Grazie e saluti.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-09-21 10:44 GMT+02:00 Steven Ericsson-Zenith :

> Dear List,
>
> I ended my last note highlighting that Bits are strongly local and their
> organization is arbitrary.
>
> The “word” in my last post is the binary word, such as “1010” and not
> “THIS.” The latter is more complex than the former, although they both
> depend upon an arbitrary organization.
>
> It may not seem that way to you but this is merely because we are familiar
> with conventions that enable us to apprehend, to perceive or “feel,” a
> particular organization. An 8bit or a 64bit word is equally arbitrary and
> has little locality, except that which is useful for engineering, not
> science.
>
> *On BIT Locality*
>
> So a weaker view of Bit Locality concerns the width of organization and,
> necessarily because we are dealing with Bits, the step-wise nature of their
> transformation.
>
> But let me point out that stated at its most dramatic nothing varies, the
> world can be said to transforms. It moves from one distinct state
> to another.  But there is no “returning” to a prior state, there can be no
> variable state. These are simply ways to speak about the world.
>
> Clearly we can dig a hole in the ground and place a stone in it. Between
> us we may call this hole a “Bit.” We may agree that when there is a stone
> in the hole its value is 1 and when there is no stone its value is 0.  We
> may dig a second hole at your house and we can do the same. We can agree to
> combine the two such that were a stone in each hole the value can be said
> to be “11” and when not the value can be said to be “00.”  We may also
> speak about the value “10.”  To increase our confidence, perhaps, we may
> pay a grandchild to stand by the hole and shout out whether or not there is
> a stone in the hole.
>
> By this means we may eventually build a computing system, grandchildren
> shattered all over the neighborhood. But this organization has little
> locality, it does not “scale,” and it is not sustainable. Children tire,
> holes eventually fill and stones break.
>
> And, this is especially challenging, each time a stone is placed in the
> hole it is not, in fact, the same stone nor is it the same hole. Even
> though this will not be how it will seem to our grandchildren. The reuse of
> the stone and the hole is itself an arbitrary pragmatic.
>
> Automated information processing varies from this scenario only as a
> matter of degree. Reducing the problem to microelectronics enables us to
> put the machine into our pocket but it does not change the locality
> question nor does it make the states the same.
>
> Every state is, in fact, new. The illusion that it is otherwise is
> transitory.
>
> Now, obviously, engineers make best efforts to give us the impression that
> things are other than this. And, of course, I understand that for practical
> purposes we take the organization of machines to maintain repeatable states
> for practical purposes. Indeed, we depend upon this fragile pragmatism.
>
> The illusion is so pervasive that we call our time the Digital Age and we
> attempt to explain everything in terms of illusory Bits. We are enamored.
>
> *On Step-wise Functions*
>
> At the core of the Bit issue is a dualism that extends back to the start
> of the twentieth century

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Information is a linguistic description of structures]--T...

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
condivido al 100% quel che afferma Marcin che si ritrova scritto in circa
20 miei libri. Quando parlo di significazione, informazione e comunicazione
mi riferisco all'intera esistenza e a tutta la conoscenza in-centrate su
quattro (ma potrebbero essere 44) tipi di informazione: termodinamica o
naturale (entropia e neg-entropia); bio-ecologica (informazione genetica
che si trasmette genealogicamente); semiotico-ermeneutica (informazione
semantica); matematica (bit di entropia uguale alla e differente dalla
seconda legge della termodinamica secondo Boltzmann). Si vuole prendere
atto di questo punto cruciale o no? Altrimenti cadiamo nella melassa
entropica della confusione.
Grazie.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-09-29 8:02 GMT+02:00 mjs@aiu :

> Dear Howard:
> I am afraid one of your examples is not really accurate historically:
> "the most amazing metaphor of relationality available to us is not math,
> it's not mechanism, and it's not reduction to "elements," it's language.
> by using the metaphor of a form of language called "code," watson and crick
> were able to understand what a strand of dna does and how.   without
> language as metaphor, we'd still be in the dark about the genome."
> The idea how to pack huge amount of information in something as small as
> chromosome came not from language, but from Schroedinger's concept of
> aperiodic crystal in his book "What is Life?". Crick switched from his
> candidacy in physics to biology after reading this book. He knew very well
> what he was looking for together with Watson. And crystals, periodic or
> not, do not have much common with language.
> Regards,
> Marcin
>
> On 9/29/2015 2:39 PM, howlbl...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> re: it is likely to be problematic to use language as the paradigm model
> for all communication--Terrence Deacon
>
> Terry  makes interesting points, but I think on this one, he may be
> wrong. Guenther Witzany is on to something.  our previous approaches
> to information have been what Barbara Ehrenreich, in her introduction to
> the upcoming paperback of my book The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos
> Creates, calls "a kind of unacknowledged necrophilia."
>
> we've been using dead things to understand living things.  aristotle put
> us on that path when he told us that if we could break things down to their
> "elements" and understand what he called the "laws" of those elements, we'd
> understand everything.  Newton took us farther down that path when he said
> we could understand everything using the metaphor of the "contrivance," the
> machine--the metaphor of "mechanics" and of "mechanism."
>
> Aristotle and Newton were wrong.  Their ideas have had centuries to pan
> out, and they've led to astonishing insights, but they've left us blind to
> the relational aspect of things. utterly blind.
>
> the most amazing metaphor of relationality available to us is not math,
> it's not mechanism, and it's not reduction to "elements," it's language.
> by using the metaphor of a form of language called "code," watson and crick
> were able to understand what a strand of dna does and how.   without
> language as metaphor, we'd still be in the dark about the genome.
>
> i'm convinced that by learning the relational secrets of the body of work
> of a Shakespeare or a Goethe we could crack some of the secrets we've been
> utterly unable to comprehend, from what makes the social clots we call a
> galaxy's spiral arms (a phenomenon that astronomer Greg Matloff, a Fellow
> of the British interplanetary Society,  says defies the laws of Newtonian
> and Einsteinian physics) to what makes the difference between life and
> death.
>
> in other words, it's time we confess in science just how little we know
> about language, that we explore language's mysteries, and that we use our
> discoveries as a crowbar to pry open the secrets of this highly contextual,
> deeply relational, profoundly communicational cosmos.
>
> with thanks for tolerating my opinions.
>
> howard
>
> 
> Howard Bloom
> Author of: *The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the
> Forces of History* ("mesmerizing"-*The Washington Post*),
> *Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st
> Century* ("reassuring and sobering"-*The New Yorker)*,
> *The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism* ("A
> tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, *The
> Atlantic*),
> *The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates* ("Bloom's argument will
>

Re: [Fis] Information is a linguistic description of structures

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
sarebbe oltremodo interessante ed utile discutere sulla triade sintassi,
semantica e pragmatica rievocata intelligentemente da Terry, piuttosto che
continuare ad insistere esclusivamente sulla teoria dell'informazione
matematica. Questo non è un intervento, ma una proposta.
Grazie.
Francesco Rizzo

2015-09-29 21:53 GMT+02:00 Terrence W. Deacon :

> The language metaphor is so very seductive. I fear that our discussion is
> too easily ensnared by its ubiquity in our lives. From Günther's response I
> am also not clear whether he is defending using the language model as
> generic or as a special case (though we do not agree in our assessments of
> von Frisch or Tomasello).
>
> To me, using language as the paradigm general case is like a biologist
> studying mammalian hair from the perspective of porcupine quills and
> defining all other forms of hair as simplified quills (quills minus some
> properties).
>
> The problem is, of course, the way we define the distinctive properties of
> language (simple property lists vs more basic semiotic analysis). Language
> is the most developed form because its symbolic capacity depends on and
> grows out of complex lower-order iconic and indexical forms of reference.
> This is why one can also represent WHAT simpler forms represent in a
> language-like system (but not vice versa). But the difference matters.
> Saying that one is sad and sobbing may communicate the same content, but
> the difference is significant. These more basic modes of representing are
> presupposed in the concept of language (but typically bracketed from the
> analysis). As a result we can erroneously ignore the difference in HOW
> these other forms represent, as well as how language representation itself
> is constituted.
>
> As is exemplified by coughs, smiles, music, and skunk odors (and thousands
> of other forms), I consider mapping all communication onto language (even
> in the form of e.g. language-minus-properties-X-and-Y) to be a truly
> procrustean enterprise— as is defining these non-linguistic modes of
> communication in terms of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. And so I am
> advocating that we not too hastily assume that an information theory made
> axiomatically isomorphic with natural language is the best most complete
> model for all uses. Such a model may be sufficient for analyzing many human
> linguistically-based communication systems, but that usefulness can blind
> us to what formal language models tacitly assume and leave unexplained
> about information in general.
>
> — Terry
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Günther Witzany  wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree with Terrance, that language of humans is a highly
>> specialized form used in communicative actions of various forms, although
>> in the beginning the difference between our ancestors – great apes – and
>> early hominoids was not so dramatically different (see M. Tomasello. The
>> origin of human communication, 2008). As we learned with the success of the
>> pragmatic turn thinkers which refuted the linguistic turn thinkers in their
>> attempt to construct an exact scientific language ( mathematical theory of
>> language) and to delimit exact science from metaphysics is that a natural
>> language we can term any sign system that functions according semantic,
>> pragmatic and syntactic rules.
>>
>> This means also body movements can express utterances, can be combined to
>> serial content which has meanings according its pragmatic context.
>> Interestingly decades before this, there was a controversy on the language
>> of the bees between Karl von Frisch with several others in which they
>> refuted v.Frischs termination of bee "language" just as being a metaphor
>> not really a language. In an article v.Frisch proved the fact that it is a
>> real language with all key features of real natural languages, including
>> the fact of several dialects. 20 years later he was awarded with  the
>> nobelprize for his research results. The dialects he detected by mixing
>> Austrian and Italian bees with the result, that the same sign sequences
>> (dance movements) expressed different meanings according the original real
>> lifeworld of the bees where they socialized.
>>
>> If we follow Juergen Habermas, the most cited philosopher of the present
>> we can term “communication” every sign-mediated rule-governed
>> interaction, although he did not mean this outside humans. As I tried to
>> demonstrate in my "biocommunication and natural genome editing" approach we
>> can identify such sign-mediated interactions throughout all
>> organismic kingdoms in coordination and organization processes between

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Information And Locality, Addendum's]--Steven

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
leggendo i messaggi di Steven e quello di Pedro desidero precisare che la
triade sintattica (relazione tra segni), semantica (relazione tra segni e
significato) e pragmatica (relazione tra uomo e segni) -- dal sottoscritto
approfondita e applicata alla mia "Nuova economia"-- non esclude l'uso
della teoria matematica (relazione tra simboli) della comunicazione, ma va
oltre per comprendere anche ciò che nessuna formula matematica potrà
esaurire tutte le variabili eventuali e intervenienti relative alla
bellezza e alla bruttezza della realtà poetica dell'esistenza e della
conoscenza. Inoltre, non so quante volte ho ribadito che è necessaria
un'armonia del disaccordo tra le diverse categorie di informazione usate
dalle persone di questo mondo per descrivere e comunicare qualunque
disciplina scientifica e qualsiasi prassi esistenziale. Ma ho l'impressione
che quel che scrivo io per alcuni, non so quanti, non conta niente.
Pazienza o resistenza.
Saluti, senza polemica o risentimento che non mi appartengono.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-10-02 14:00 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear Steven and FIS colleagues,
>
> Sorry about the problems with the server. Next messages, please, send them
> directly to me and I will re-enter.
>
> The approach to locality you have explained is interesting. In general it
> looks right, as biological information can be widely delocalized,
> relatively delocalized, but also strictly localized. Apart from your
> examples on allosterism and receptor synergistic action, the gradients of
> second messengers and the transmembrane transmission of signaling effects
> in other receptors may be instances of the relative class, and the base
> pairing of nucleotides would correspond to the localized class. If I am not
> wrong, it is quite difficult to shoehorn into a single category the bioinfo
> architectures of the cell. Therefore in general I use the "info flow"
> parlance, for the result of the cell's communication with the environment
> is quite often a Brownian flow or an "influence" (mostly of the delocalized
> class) that travels towards the action centers of the cell --the
> transcription factors that guide gene expression.
>
> Then, arriving at that instance, I have some disagreement in the way
> Guenther speaks about the syntactic-semantic-pragmatic rules applying to
> any sign-system of natural biocommunication language. Imagine, following
> with the previous paragraph, that we have just received (E. coli) a puff of
> cAMP signal from the environment. It has been trapped by some receptors of
> a two component system and some activated transcription factors  CRP type
> travel to express around 400 different genes. Of course, it previously
> depends on the dominant sigma factors (if sigma 70 dominates, it is OK,
> otherwise there might be problems with the previous sequence). Well, most
> of this narrative is fictitious, but the problem is how do you express in
> "rule-mediated" statements this type of half-known tremendous complexity?
> How do you handle the very different signaling capabilities/properties of
> one component systems, two components, three components, and above all, the
> sigma factors --that in my view are most of them essential for connecting
> with the life cycle; they represent the equivalent to our "moods" and
> "emotions". Otherwise I think he is quite right in the conflation of signs
> and sign-users at the sub-viral level. I consider it, potentially, a
> breakthrough complementing the symbiotic theory of Lynn Margulis with a new
> viral (sub-viral) branch, plus the well-known archeal and eubacterial ones.
>
> Unfortunately, the neglect of the life cycle is almost universal. Neither
> neuroscientists nor psychologists nor social scientists are sufficiently
> aware of this invisible "water" that permeates all living stuff. Echoing
> some old evolutionary statement, everything should made sense in relation
> with the advancement of the corresponding life cycle. Just the superficial
> observation of human exchanges in our societies, or in whatever historical
> epoch, the conversational small-talk topics, the way people greet each
> other, the gossip media... the condensates of the individuals' info cycles
> are everywhere. A new conceptualization of information as accompanying the
> development of human action for the sake of life cycles and subtending the
> cooperation structures of economic life could have wide multidisciplinary
> interest--I think. (Unfortunately, these adventures are discouraged: Mark
> is terribly right about the sorrow state of our collective brain
> reservoirs--poor universities! kingdoms of conventionalism and tunnel
> vision).
>
> To conclude, the emphasis on th

Re: [Fis] Shannon-Weavers' Levels A, B, C.

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Johnson Cari Tutti,
il 3 agosto ho inviato un messaggio in-centrato sulla inter-soggettività e
il 2 ottobre un messaggio in-centrato sulla necessità di adottare il
paradigma della musica o della poesia per comprendere quello che non si
 arriva a conoscere mediante la sola matematica, per quanto la funzione
d'onda di Riemann sia una matematica onnicomprensiva. Naturalmente, il mio
interesse per questi argomenti è motivato dalla mia "Nuova economia",
scienza mediatrice o ancella di tutte le altre scienze.Tenete conto, se
credete.
Saluti.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-10-17 19:39 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson :

> Dear Loet, Joseph and Fis colleagues,
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> Pascal: "the heart has its reasons [the constraints of the body] which the
> reason cannot perceive [because it is abstract]" and yet... we do come to
> know the reasons of the heart - we know them long before we know reason. In
> language as Joseph says "Less is more" precisely, in my experience at
> least, because ambiguities reveal the reasons of the heart. Poetic language
> lifts the veil of everyday language to expose the raw, embodied, uncodified
> constraints which underpin it. Music is more powerful still (Alfred Schutz
> wrote about this wonderfully)
>
> Can we fashion a description of how this works with existing theory? (I
> don't believe we should surrender the territory to psychologists!)
>
> Parsons's idea of 'double-contingency' of communication presents an
> interaction between ego and alter where communication emerges through
> selections of meaning and utterance of each party. Schutz, whose theory of
> intersubjectivity was important for Parsons (they had an significant and
> difficult correspondence about these matters which is well-documented in
> Richard Grathoff's "The Theory of Social Action: The Correspondence of
> Alfred Schutz and Talcott Parsons") found Parsons's model too
> functionalist. Parsons and Schutz have a different understanding of how
> people 'tune-in' to one another: I see Parsons's model as effectively
> 'digital': a set of multi-level interacting selections; Schutz's concept is
> more 'analogue', involving sharing a sense of 'inner time' between people.
> I prefer to think of this as a shared constraint.
>
> Loet's redescription of double-contingency in terms of mutual redundancies
> loosens the determinism in both Parsons and Luhmann (who followed him). I
> think this is important, and opens a space for reconsidering Schutz's
> understanding of how 'tuning-in' might work.
>
> It's best to start with 'selection' (of utterance, meaning and
> understanding in Luhmann). Shannon selections are constrained by redundancy
> as we know, so to turn the spotlight on the redundancies rather than what
> is selected allows us to differentiate the intersubjective communication
> between two people talking face-to-face as one of higher mutual
> constraint/redundancy than the intersubjective situation of writing an
> email or a listserve post to Fis. Locality makes a difference in increasing
> mutual constraint.
>
> Returning to Pascal, my body constrains my thoughts in ways which cannot
> be abstractly modelled, and yet I can apprehend my own constraints and
> those of others, whilst not necessarily being able to articulate them in
> language. I could however make music, wave my arms around, pull an angry
> face, or cry. Isn't inference of constraints by observing such behaviour
> essential to communication? How could double contingency work were we not
> able to grasp and physically feel what constrains the other? Babies
> wouldn't survive otherwise!
>
> Just to extend the speculation a bit further, we should ask about the
> process of knowledge construction itself in the light of mutual redundancy.
> Since Hume, many believe that the agreement of scientists in the light of
> event regularities is a factor in the development of knowledge. What do
> those scientists 'tune into' when they do this? In what way might an
> empirical event regularity be a mutual constraint? How are physical
> constraints separable from personal, biological or psychological
> constraints?
>
> Might apparently 'woolly' (but, IMO, valuable) sociomaterial accounts of
> science be reframed as analytical accounts of interacting constraints?
>
> just some thoughts...
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Loet Leydesdorff 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Marcus, Mark, Bob, and colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> My ambition was a bit more modest: the paper does not contain a theory of
>> meaning or a theory of everything. It is an at

Re: [Fis] Fw: Five Momenta. Five Itineraries

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Pedro e Joseph, Cari Tutti,
ho scritto sempre le stesse cose. La conoscenza dell'armonia o l'armonia
della conoscenza è basta sulla super-legge dell'informazione (energia della
cultura) o dell'energia (informazione della natura). L'informazione
naturale o termodinamica, genetica, matematica e semantica sono
specificazioni della stessa unica legge. Il sapere è unico ed è servito
dalla scienza economica, mediatrice di tutte le scienze e fondamentale per
l'esistenza. Le leggi della natura o dell'arte o della poesia, etc. sono
leggi economiche nel senso che perseguono il massimo risultato con il
minimo delle risorse. Le "strutture dissipative" di Ilya Prigogine che
creano ordine dal disordine mediante fluttuazioni sono unità di carattere
generale. La mia "Nuova economia" si in-centra su questi pilastri. I miei
numerosi libri lo testimoniano. Purtroppo, essendo scritti in lingua
italiana, non sono tanto conosciuti, nemmeno da Voi. Pazienza. Comunque
Cari Tutti questa è la strada che bisogna perseguire non per una forma di
conoscenza generalista, bensì per creare una nuova alleanza tra le scienze
dell'uomo e le scienze della natura di cui non si può fare a meno. I
dettagli e le specificazioni specialistici vengono dopo e meglio se si
sceglie questa visione paradigmatica ed epistemologica.
Un abbraccio per tutti.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-10-20 22:20 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner :

> Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,
>
> Pedro's note conveys very well the intellectual /Angst/ I and probably
> also many of you feel confronted by the complexity of the 'crazy story'
> which we are both tellers of and listeners to. Pedro's division into five
> domains of knowledge (and knowing) is a very useful first step. The second,
> I suggest, just to continue the thinking process, is to look for what
> underlies or might be common to the domains, as a possible part of what
> Pedro calls a multidisciplinary Itinerary. I can think of five candidates,
> some of which have been touched on recently. All of them address change and
> process in some way. None of them is fully adequate by itself, but perhaps
> a combination, with the addition of some others, might be. "Theories of
> Everything" need not apply. Please note that 1) no necessary meaning or
> hierarchical priority should be ascribed to the order used and 2) I have
> written exactly two sentences for each entry.
>
> 1. The Tao
> This universally valid attempt to conceive of and refer to an underlying
> unity of phenomena seems very relevant to today's problems. A key concept,
> among many others, is that the ambiguity and self-contradiction in language
> is not only accepted as inevitable but considered a necessary way of
> pointing to that unity.
>
> 2. Wu Kun's Philosophy of Information
> The first step here would be to accept that all of the momenta are
> constituted by information and hence constrained by the dynamics of
> information. In other words, I see the Philosophy of Information also as an
> /Itinerary/ rather than only as part of Momentum 1, part of the solution
> rather than of the problem, joining with Momentum 5.
>
> 3. Lupasco's Logic of Energy and Principle of Dynamic Opposition
> Action in all the domains listed by Pedro involves the expenditure of
> energy by an agent to effect change against a resistance of some kind,
> especially at the higher cognitive levels of human sociality (Momentum 4).
> Such interactions and antagonisms are the locus of change and the emergence
> of new entities at all the levels of reality of the momenta.
>
> 4. Transdisciplinarity (I)
> There is a growing general understanding that the boundaries of classical
> disciplines block the development of knowledge, and any methods which
> transcend their limitations will be constructive. This is certainly
> happening in Momentum 2, and Information Science has been clearly
> recognized as transdisciplinary.
>
> 5. Transdisciplinarity (II)
> The Nicolescu acceptation of Transdisciplinarity as that which lies
> within, between and beyond individual disciplines is even stronger. There
> is a unique tension between the ontological and epistemological aspects of
> this form of Transdisciplinarity that itself points toward a unity of
> knowledge.
>
> Pedro's call, in his last paragraph, is an instance of application of
> Itinerary 3 above, a proper maintainance of interaction with an excess of
> neither identity nor diversity. My note itself is an instance of Itinerary
> 5 (which includes 3 and 4) and suggests that a degree of self-reference is
> an indication of the possible utility of an approach. Self-reference is a
> key principle in art and humor and it may also be a key component of the
> structured coherence in s

Re: [Fis] Five Momenta. A First Preferred Itinerary

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e Cari Tutti,
credo di potere affermare, da economista e senza offesa per nessuno, che la
biologia è la scienza più fantastica che esista.  Dai fondamenti biologici
della  conoscenza (Maturana e Varela) dipendono gli atteggiamenti
comportamentali ricorsivi e descritti semanticamente, quindi il linguaggio
(lingua e parole), la cultura, la relazionalità sociale, l'indispensabile
etica dell'amore o amore  dell'etica. Cioè tutta la vita umana. Quindi,
seppure con la cautela e la raffinatezza degli artisti, più che degli
scienziati, non mi preoccuperei tanto di riempire di significato il "bio
della semiotica". Naturalmente e culturalmente so che questo nostro
twittare o comunicare tarzaniano può creare qualche problema, inclusivo e
esclusivo, ma il dibattito o la discussione risulta utile, efficace ed
efficiente. Il che non è cosa da poco, grazie anche al prestigio e allo
spessore scientifico di molti di Voi. Grazie ancora.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-10-27 14:37 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear Joseph and Colleagues,
>
> Thanks for the further comment. The relationships between the Five Momenta
> are always occurring in the background, as witnessed by those dense
> citation maps fashionable today, but have not been organized yet along the
> relatively strange sequence proposed. As you say, it would be good to
> discuss other alternatives. From my part,  a strong emphasis should be put,
> I think, in the separation between Momenta and "Instrumenta", quite
> convenient along most of the itinerary. Given that within Instrumenta there
> would be included quite strategic items from physics, computer science,
> info theory, logics, etc. (see below in the mesg previous to Joseph's) the
> point becomes rather contentious. To reinforce it in the form of a potent
> Latin dictum:  /Instrumenta numquam sunt momenta.
>
> /It militates against the most frequent practice in our medium, starting
> usually in some particular physico-theoretical item and ascending towards
> successive generalizations. Alternatively, the itinerary suggests a "new
> tao", a new way to organize our info foundations reminiscent of the
> collegian, multidisciplinary way that metrical standards were developed
> during the past three centuries (Robert P. Crease, 2011). We are dealing
> with information science foundations, and creation of new "standards", an
> enterprise where in spite of their enormous scientific-technological
> importance, contents of the Instrumenta are only useful tools helping to
> better explore and elaborate the different portions and interrelationshisps
> of the Momenta.
>
> If the above is right, even rather partially, we have been following the
> wrong strategy decade after decade...
>
> About what disciplines are (to Loet) the terms I wrongly reproduced --it
> should be: "communities of inquirers... under an economy of research"--
> were taken from C.H. Peirce. I think they are a very adequate
> characterization, beyond the metaphor. But of course, any characterization
> of the disciplinary  branching phenomena will fail in one or another
> respect.
>
> best--Pedro
>
>
> Joseph Brenner wrote:
>
>> Dear Pedro and Colleagues,
>>
>> Pedro's note has brought out more clearly to me the concept of an
>> 'Itinerary' as a path between Momenta. I for one would be willing to
>> accept
>> the discipline that comments should address relations and movement between
>> Momenta in an AGREED UPON SEQUENCE. The one in Pedro's note is certainly a
>> valid option, and perhaps we should try to list just one or two others to
>> choose from. I think the term Pedro uses of 'itinerary elements' is
>> consistent with this.
>>
>> This approach, if implemented, would have the advantage that I have often
>> urged: each of us would have to study something he or she has not
>> studied previously, or not in this context. There would be some unity in
>> this resulting diversity, at least in the order of the discussion.
>>
>> The overlaps and interactions between Momenta other than the next one in
>> line should not be neglected, but they can remain in the background.
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <
>>> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
>>> To: 
>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Five Momenta. Five Itineraries
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear FIS colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to all for the valuable insights. Responding briefly:
>>>>
>>>>

Re: [Fis] Five Momenta

[Francesco Rizzo]

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, information, etc.
>> These two social momenta are being egregiously forgotten in most of our
>> debates (not any more with the pla

Re: [Fis] Tragedy in France

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e Cari Tutti, francesi e umani,
nessuna ingiustizia può giustificare l'uccisione di un uomo o di una donna.
Ricordiamoci sempre che quel che conta non è tanto l'amore della scienza,
quanto la scienza dell'amore. Questa è la legge fondamentale dell'esistenza
e della conoscenza che vale per Tutti, credenti e non credenti. Tale
insegnamento si basa soprattutto sui fondamenti biologici della conoscenza
che determinano un'etica naturalistica e culturale.
Un abbraccio per Tutti e diamo ragione alla nostra speranza con coerenza,
mitezza e tenerezza.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-11-17 21:10 GMT+01:00 Michel Petitjean :

> Dear Julio,
> Many thanks for your kind support.
> French people much appreciate the solidarity of Brasil.
> I see the blue, white and red colors appeared in Rio and at a large
> number of places all around the world, and I much appreciate it.
> I can tell that this feeling is the same than the one my compatriots.
> I also much appreciate the support of the Fisers transmitted by Pedro.
> The peaceful and positive spirit existing in the Fis community is a
> model of tolerance.
> This is so good.
> All my best,
> Michel.
>
> 2015-11-17 20:18 GMT+01:00 Julio Stern :
> > Michel:
> > Strength and courage in this dark hour!
> > On Sunday we had a big rally is Sao Paulo,   in front of the French
> Consulate, in solidarity for the victims of terror in Paris.
> > Hope to see you soon,
> > Hope to see the lights of the Eiffel tower  on again as soon as possible.
> > All the best,
> > ---Julio Stern
> >
> ___
> 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] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
sto seguendo con attenzione il dibattito che è appena iniziato, ma confesso
qualche smarrimento. D'altra parte quando si affrontano le analisi di
sistemi complessi, non lineari e lontani dall'equilibrio mi viene istintivo
ancorarmi o aggrapparmi a tutto ciò che insegna la termodinamica. Questi
sistemi, auto ed etero organizzativi, ad-attativi o dis-adattativi,
asimmetrici o simmetrici, creano ordine dal disordine mediante fluttuazioni
o instabilità. Sono cioè delle organizzazioni o strutture "dissipative" che
producono il beneficio della neg-entropia sostenendo il costo
dell'entropia. Se poi abbiamo a che fare con regimi caotici o geometrie
frattali, come quelli che spesso si verificano nei mercati immobiliari,
monetari e finanziari dell'economia finora nessuno, dico nessuno, ha
elaborato algoritmi affidabili capaci di prevedere l'andamento dei valori
futuri nè del loro rischio. La crisi speculativo-finanziaria che ha
inginocchiato il mondo è la prova provata che gli scambi sono
imprevedibili, irregolari, discontinui e caratterizzati da leggi di potenza
o esponenziali. E' da circa mezzo secolo, a partire da "Il giudizio di
valore"(1971-72) che ho criticato aspramente i cosiddetti scienziati
"normali" della teoria economica neoclassica basata sui comportamenti
razionali dal punto di vista individuale in un sistema statico che non
esiste neanche nella mente malata di qualche studioso. Ecco perché ho
inventato o scoperta, come più volte ho scritto, una "Nuova economia"
fondata sul triangolo dei tre surplus: termodinamico o naturale,
eco-biologico o genetico, semiotico-ermeneutico.
Qui però nasce un problema. Per quanto sia sostenitore dell'armonia del
sapere e adotti una procedura multi-criteriale, non mono-fattoriale, non
sempre e non facilmente i diversi sistemi sono comparabili, confrontabili e
analizzabili alla stessa maniera. Ad es., il significato di comunicazione è
convenzionale. La radice etimologica del termine (communicatio)) significa
"porre in comune", o "diffondere".Si possono classificare i seguenti
livelli di comunicazione: Livello vegetale; livello tonico; (si basa su
processi continui fondamentali per lo sviluppo individuale, quali la
escrezione e  il metabolismo cellulare; comprende la produzione di essudati
chimici, e alcune forme di comportamento trofallattico e di ricerca di
tracce), livello fasico (emissioni di energia); livello dei segnali
bisociali o psico-sociali; livello simbolico (plastico e variabile);
livello linguistico (comunicazione di idee astratte, parlato,
meta-linguaggio: limitato all'uomo).
Allora bisogna in-centrare i nostri studi su due triadi: la prima è
costituita dalla significazione, informazione e comunicazione; la seconda
dalla sintattica, semantica e pragmatica. Queste due triadi sono
fondamentali per l'intera esistenza e tutta la conoscenza.
Concludo affermando che, seppure adottando e adattando una visione olistica
e globale, non possiamo essere esperti di tuttologia, quindi è
consigliabile alla luce di una certa impostazione epistemica o
paradigmatica fornire le esperienze delle discipline coltivate onde
metterle insieme o in comune, cioè comunicarle, senza scoraggiare i voli
pindarici o i comportamenti da monaci delle piccole o singole cose. Non si
può certo pensare, in buona fede, di fare sfoggio, di sapere essere, sapere
conoscere, sapere avere e sapere fare, sfuggendo alla "grammatica della
fantasia" o creativa e alla concretezza della tecno-scienza o ingegneria
generale.
Questo è un soffio o un granello del mio pensiero pensante e lo rassegno
con molta umiltà e dichiarando che sono educato all'armonia del
dis-accordo, ma rifuggo  dalle confusioni o accumulazioni o ammucchiamenti
ai quali non sono abituato: ricordo,  a questo proposito, che l'economia
(come attività o come conoscenza) è una mezza arte e una mezza scienza,
Quindi quando si accosta ad altre "sensate esperienze" o alle diverse
conoscenze bisogna stare molto attenti.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco

2015-11-27 17:07 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner :

> Dear Nikhil,
>
> I think it is a very interesting exercise to see how a consensus might be
> reached on your work by both adding to and subtracting from the different
> perspectives. Thus, I agree with Stan that we are looking at instances of
> isomorphism at different levels, and this for me is entirely logical (;-).
> Levels of reality exist and the rules that apply in them are not identical,
> and this constitutes a discontinuity between them. Also, within a given
> level involving three elements, even if they all influence one another, it
> should be possible to decompose the interactions into those between A and
> B, the resultant of which interacts with C. This is Pedro's comment in
> somewhat different terms.
>
> On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of the term
> 'self-organization' does not bring any additional knowledge. It diverts
> attention from the dynamics of the different flows, which are also affected
> by such a mu

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
mi permetto di inviarVi uno stralcio da un articolo scritto da un giovane e
brillante fisico, Carlo Rovelli, in cui si riporta il pensiero di un altro
grande fisico, John Wheeler il quale afferma che la legge delle leggi è
l'INFORMAZIONE, come io sostengo da oltre trenta anni. A questo proposito
invio un file contenente un messaggio spedito ad uno dei miei giovani
collaboratori, dal quale si evince quanto detto.
Un saluto cordiale.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-11-28 6:30 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:

> Cari Tutti,
> sto seguendo con attenzione il dibattito che è appena iniziato, ma
> confesso qualche smarrimento. D'altra parte quando si affrontano le analisi
> di sistemi complessi, non lineari e lontani dall'equilibrio mi viene
> istintivo ancorarmi o aggrapparmi a tutto ciò che insegna la termodinamica.
> Questi sistemi, auto ed etero organizzativi, ad-attativi o dis-adattativi,
> asimmetrici o simmetrici, creano ordine dal disordine mediante fluttuazioni
> o instabilità. Sono cioè delle organizzazioni o strutture "dissipative" che
> producono il beneficio della neg-entropia sostenendo il costo
> dell'entropia. Se poi abbiamo a che fare con regimi caotici o geometrie
> frattali, come quelli che spesso si verificano nei mercati immobiliari,
> monetari e finanziari dell'economia finora nessuno, dico nessuno, ha
> elaborato algoritmi affidabili capaci di prevedere l'andamento dei valori
> futuri nè del loro rischio. La crisi speculativo-finanziaria che ha
> inginocchiato il mondo è la prova provata che gli scambi sono
> imprevedibili, irregolari, discontinui e caratterizzati da leggi di potenza
> o esponenziali. E' da circa mezzo secolo, a partire da "Il giudizio di
> valore"(1971-72) che ho criticato aspramente i cosiddetti scienziati
> "normali" della teoria economica neoclassica basata sui comportamenti
> razionali dal punto di vista individuale in un sistema statico che non
> esiste neanche nella mente malata di qualche studioso. Ecco perché ho
> inventato o scoperta, come più volte ho scritto, una "Nuova economia"
> fondata sul triangolo dei tre surplus: termodinamico o naturale,
> eco-biologico o genetico, semiotico-ermeneutico.
> Qui però nasce un problema. Per quanto sia sostenitore dell'armonia del
> sapere e adotti una procedura multi-criteriale, non mono-fattoriale, non
> sempre e non facilmente i diversi sistemi sono comparabili, confrontabili e
> analizzabili alla stessa maniera. Ad es., il significato di comunicazione è
> convenzionale. La radice etimologica del termine (communicatio)) significa
> "porre in comune", o "diffondere".Si possono classificare i seguenti
> livelli di comunicazione: Livello vegetale; livello tonico; (si basa su
> processi continui fondamentali per lo sviluppo individuale, quali la
> escrezione e  il metabolismo cellulare; comprende la produzione di essudati
> chimici, e alcune forme di comportamento trofallattico e di ricerca di
> tracce), livello fasico (emissioni di energia); livello dei segnali
> bisociali o psico-sociali; livello simbolico (plastico e variabile);
> livello linguistico (comunicazione di idee astratte, parlato,
> meta-linguaggio: limitato all'uomo).
> Allora bisogna in-centrare i nostri studi su due triadi: la prima è
> costituita dalla significazione, informazione e comunicazione; la seconda
> dalla sintattica, semantica e pragmatica. Queste due triadi sono
> fondamentali per l'intera esistenza e tutta la conoscenza.
> Concludo affermando che, seppure adottando e adattando una visione
> olistica e globale, non possiamo essere esperti di tuttologia, quindi è
> consigliabile alla luce di una certa impostazione epistemica o
> paradigmatica fornire le esperienze delle discipline coltivate onde
> metterle insieme o in comune, cioè comunicarle, senza scoraggiare i voli
> pindarici o i comportamenti da monaci delle piccole o singole cose. Non si
> può certo pensare, in buona fede, di fare sfoggio, di sapere essere, sapere
> conoscere, sapere avere e sapere fare, sfuggendo alla "grammatica della
> fantasia" o creativa e alla concretezza della tecno-scienza o ingegneria
> generale.
> Questo è un soffio o un granello del mio pensiero pensante e lo rassegno
> con molta umiltà e dichiarando che sono educato all'armonia del
> dis-accordo, ma rifuggo  dalle confusioni o accumulazioni o ammucchiamenti
> ai quali non sono abituato: ricordo,  a questo proposito, che l'economia
> (come attività o come conoscenza) è una mezza arte e una mezza scienza,
> Quindi quando si accosta ad altre "sensate esperienze" o alle diverse
> conoscenze bisogna stare molto attenti.
> Un abbraccio.
> Francesco
>
> 2015-

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research:

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e Cari Tutti,

di queste e di altre cose simili, alternative e concorrenti ho parlato in
non pochi  miei saggi e, naturalmente, continuerò a interessarmene. Qui mi
limito ad elencare tre concetti molto presenti nella mia *Nuova economia*:

– nella «economia monetaria della produzione» di keynesiana memoria
l’economia monetaria e l’economia «reale» vengono unificate da un’analisi
che non può non essere resiliente: flessibile o liquida la prima, rigida o
illiquida la seconda;

– la legge fondamentale della scienza e dell’attività economica è proprio
l’informazione, intesa come processo che dà forma o, al contrario,
dis–informa; la mia ultima mail ribadisce, d'accordo con un grande fisico,
che l'informazione è la legge basilare dell'esistenza e della conoscenza;

– in *Dalla rivoluzione keynesiana alla nuova economia*  ho esposto una
teoria infor–monetaria che, forse, supera alcune considerazioni
problematiche di Mariyuan.

E per concludere questa breve interlocuzione, rivendico la primazia di
avere affrontato il problema complesso dell’auto–organizzazione nel campo
dell’economia capitalistica, in-cenrata sul processo di auto-valorizzazione
del capitale di Karl Marx, per aver capito che bisognava buttare alle
ortiche quella pseudo–teoria neoclassica che ha contribuito a provocare
tanti guai nel mondo in cui viviamo. Ma chi ne è a conoscenza?

Un abbraccio.

 Francesco Rizzo.

2015-12-02 21:30 GMT+01:00 John Prpic :

> ​Hi All,
>
>
> I just ran across this new piece that I thought would be of interest to
> both the current conversation, and the many others that have occurred here.
>
>
> "The Bayesian Second Law of Thermodynamics"
>
> - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02421v2.pdf
>
>
> Best,
>
> John
> ​
> John Prpić
> PhD Candidate
>
> Research <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1919614>
>
> Google Scholar
> <https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=yiueCGUJ&hl=en>
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/JPNuggets>
> Special Issue
> <https://beedie.sfu.ca/sms/admin/_DocLibrary/_ic/fd6699ff8c25b8f75e1f822da82412d7.pdf>
> CHI 2016 Workshop <http://www.worklearn.org/>
> --
> *From:* Fis  on behalf of Pedro C. Marijuan
> 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2015 6:23 AM
> *To:* 'fis'
> *Cc:* Nikhil Joshi
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research:
>
> Dear FIS colleages,
>
> Before assimilating the last exchanges (I have been on a trip), I have a
> few pending comments on self-organization and monetary resilience.
>
> In some of the papers (links) Bob sent us, strong emphasis is put on
> "self-organization of complex flow systems sharing common patterns of
> behavior. Similar energy-flow concepts and analysis methods would apply to
> economic systems as well as natural ones..."  As the ongoing discussion
> shows, that view can be more or less OK, but... The network and subsequent
> IT analysis becomes appropriate for eco-systemic flows, but in my opinion
> it obscures a fundamental trait of eco-nomic flows: that they are guided
> and anticipated by a superimposed structure of information flows. So there
> are two flows compounded, and each one is endowed with a specific fluency,
> velocity, friction, etc. radically different. Handling prices of goods or
> trading shares in a stock market is far away from circulating the physical
> goods or from the physical and human structures of a company...
> Unfortunately the info-structure of economy is not satisfactorily solved
> yet (at least in my opinion), except the partial classical equilibrium
> approaches and some diminishing returns and other nonlinear approaches.
> Presumably, a more complete vision cannot be articulated yet.
>
> Anyhow, Lietaer's application (in the paper with Goerner and Ulanowicz) of
> Bob's ecological criteria on resilience to the economic crisis looks
> enormously interesting. Some of the thinking lines of Nikhil could
> dovetail. The underlying problem is (at least in my opinion) how to give
> voice to Nature, not only evaluating the value of human work done to
> extract the raw matter or to collect it, but also the caring work with no
> immediate return.  Who may represent Nature herself and her interests in
> the human monetary market? Analyzing the currency monopoly of our times,
> and the present financial crisis, the main alternative seems to be
> increasing the financial resilience by adding different types of
> currencies. The Swiss B2B complementary currency is mentioned in the papers
> (other local, regional, and sectorial cases also exist, and the Internet
> may strongly facilitate such experiences). In this line, an ecologically
> based currency or eco-coin ("

Re: [Fis] Hierarchy of Information

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Xueshan, Stan e Tutti,
queste gerarchie comunicative sono tanto diverse da quelle che Vi ho
proposto il 28 novembre scorso, senza ricevere alcun riscontro da parte
vostra? Naturalmente, la mia non è una domanda polemica, ma essenzialmente
retorica. Almeno, lo spero.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco.

2015-12-03 9:16 GMT+01:00 Xueshan Yan :

> Dear Stan，
>
> Generally speaking, we have two kinds of Information Science, one is
> materialist, another is imformationist. Of course, what FIS colleagues are
> discussing here is materialist one. As to the imformationist information
> science, it sprang from John Wheeler and is becoming confirmative in some
> frontiers of physics recently, for example, the string-net theory advocated
> by some theoretical physicists of MIT.
>
> In materialistic information science, self-organization and autopoiesis
> are two wonderful criteria, they can exclude those information sciences
> based on information technology from real information science for their
> hetero-organization and heteropoiesis. As to the information science based
> on library science spread through the United States, whether it is a real
> information science, undoubtedly, it is questionable.
>
> Let’s come back to our topic. Facing so many kinds of information and
> disciplines of information theory/informatics/information science, we
> urgently need a classification to handle them, and the hierarchy
> consideration maybe is more fundamental. Which was activated by Pedro (He
> said it is Fisher’s idea, really Pedro?) with Cell, Brain, Firm many years
> ago, and advanced by Joshi these days.
>
> In fact, Joseph and I had some private communication about this issue
> several weeks ago, the topic is something I named “From Mechanism to
> Organicism” which was arisen when I predict the paradigm shift of
> information studies in the next 10 years or more. In those mails, we have
> touched this problem.
>
> According to your expression, we have several different hierarchies:
> 1. [firm [brain [cell]]]: Pedro
> 2. [society [cell [molecule]]]: Joshi
> 3. [social [organism [cell [molecular [microphysical ]: Stan
> 4. [organism [cell [molecule [fundamental particle: Xueshan
> 5. [organism [cell [molecule]]]: Xueshan
>
> From its narrow sense, social character only belongs to organism, so we
> can absorb “society” into “organism”. In the organism group, we have animal
> and plant. In animal, we have man, chicken, dog, tiger, lion, etc. Of
> course, our main object is man, just like medicine and physiology that
> claim their object over all animals, but man is their main object. Man’s
> information problem is our main aim here.
>
> From communication standpoint, that man (of course also all organism),
> cell, molecule (at lest organic molecule) can communicate each other are
> undoubtedly, so the information disciplines can emerge from this level
> undoubtedly naturally. But question is: can communication take places
> between two fundamental particles, such as two atoms? So, I am not sure if
> we can have a physical informatics at last.
>
> It is very humorous, this will bring us to the FIS discussion 13 year ago
> again: Is informational existences still only start with the biological?
> Is it still a huge black hole? (Gyorgy Darvas).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Xueshan
> --
> *From:* Stanley N Salthe [mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:01 AM
> *To:* y...@pku.edu.cn
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The
> Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
>
> Xueshan -- Your hierarchy
>
> nformation studies.
> Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological information
> studies.
> Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all molecular/chemical information
> studies.
> XXX (level0): Particlate/physical information studies??
> is OK, but, since it may be that not all organisms are social, to be more
> general one could insert:
>
> [social [organism [cell [molecular [microphysical ]
>
> Of course, it could be argued that organisms are societies of cells!
>
> STAN
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Xueshan Yan  wrote:
>
>> Dear Joshi,
>>
>> No matter what topic/title you used, no matter what goal you want to
>> reach, your post has raised a very important theory which can decide the
>> future of information science: Three Level Theory: Molecular (level1),
>> Cellular (level2), Social (level3). (Please excuse my minor modification).
>>
>> The FIS colleagues can easily recollect the theory of Cell, Brain, Firm
>> which was advocated by Pedro about 10 years ago, but I think this hierarchy
>> is could be much better spent taking some positive action.
>>
>> Social (level3): It can indicate the all human/social information studies.
>> Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological
>> information studies.
>> Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all molecular/chemical
>> information studies.
>> XXX (leve

Re: [Fis] Fw: Sustainability through multilevel research: Energetic Realm-Informational Realm. Social Complexity

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Joseph e Cari Tutti,
l'energia è l'informazione della natura e l'informazione è l'energia della
cultura.
L'energia libera o neg-entropia vitale non è altro che conseguenza del
gradiente termico o differenza tra molecole calde e veloci e molecole
fredde e lente di un gas, quindi è una particolare forma di informazione,
cancellata la quale si ha un equilibrio termico o mortale: una sorta di
dis-informazione o entropia (termodinamica) che confonde e omogeneizza le
molecole, degradando l'energia e rendendola non più trasformabile in lavoro
utile o meccanico..
L'informazione è energia della cultura che dà luogo ad una carica
attrattiva o detrattiva tipica della teoria del caos o dei bacini
culturali, come a me piace chiamarli. Sicché un bacino archeologico, ad
es., diventa un faro che illumina la pianificazione o la rigenerazione
urbanistica o un museo si struttura e funziona come una città viva e alla
luce del sole: crea ordine dal disordine mediante fluttuazioni e
instabilità (struttura dissipativa); in questa prospettiva l'entropia
assume la sostanza e la forma di un costo della neg-entropia..
Gli esempi potrebbero continuare, ma  sfuggo alla tentazione di ingrossare
questo elenco. Perché qualunque altro sistema che si auto o etero-organizza
dovrebbe fare eccezione? Biologia, fisica, chimica, matematica, economia,
sociologia, etc., sono in-centrate su questa singolare e generale, ad un
tempo, conoscenza della conoscenza.
La mia teoria del valore (economico) è frutto della combinazione creativa
di energia e di informazione. Ma la mia scienza dell'economia svolge una
funzione mediatrice; è un'ancella della conoscenza generale, cioè
un'economia della scienza. I sistemi complessi non possono comprendersi se
non alla luce dell'una, energia, e dell'altra, informazione.
Di ciò sono fermamente convinto, anche se essendo un "poverino
esponenziale", sono sempre grato se qualcuno mi fa la cortesia di
correggere il mio pensiero pensante. Che può prendere qualche cantonata.
Un abbraccio sincero.
Francesco.

2015-12-13 12:09 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner :

> Dear Pedro,
>
> I agree with your presentation here of the dynamics of informational
> entities and the necessary dominance of the informational realm. But my
> reaction to your placing the energetic and informational realm in a kind of
> opposition was a Capurrian 'hm'. What is still and will be always needed is
> a proper description of the relation between the two. The principles of
> Logic in Reality may provide that relation without being 'thermodynamic
> inflation', and I believe more attention should be paid to the
> relation than any disjunction. We have had too much of *those*.
>
> Regarding social complexity, the long-term trend is probably irreversible.
> Short-term, in spite of the 'inventions', processes of regression and
> reduction are now flourishing world-wide. Fukuyama is one of people I
> personally trust least to say what's wrong here.
>
> Gloomily,
>
> Joseph
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Pedro C. Marijuan 
> *To:* 'fis' 
> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 1:36 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research:
>
> Dear FISers,
>
> I agree with Loet's views (for once! :-) ).  The energy flow supporting
> the biosphere and society as a whole have not much explanatory power
> regarding the bonding complexity of contemporary societies. Of course, it
> is an interesting exercise, particularly concerning the limits of
> sustainability, but we have had so much thermodynamic inflation that it is
> very difficult adding anything relevant. Irrespective of its
> sophistication, the energetic realm can hardly substitute for the
> informational realm.
> About the intriguing interrelationship between kinship and nonkinship
> modalities of human bonding, a very interesting view was drafted by Francis
> Fukuyama (1995), centered on "trust". He was distinguishing between
> "familial" centered societies and "high trust" societies. In European terms
> (exaggerating), it is the dichotomy between the Mediterranean societal
> culture and the Anglosaxon culture. It is not a black and white narrative,
> as each polarity has advantages and disadvantages (think on wine &
> Mediterranean food!), and actually today each country and each culture has
> some terrible mix of everything, but it is interesting just to see how the
> two kinds of bonding may interact within a complex society.  I also penned
> a few ideas about the matter in my recent "How the Living is in the world"
> (DOI information: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2015.07.002.) I am copying below a
> paragraph (maybe a little bit long--excuses).
>
> *This coarse reflection on the dynamics of successive “informational
> entities” helps us make sense of fundamentals of social evolution. The
> transition to a new social order, more or less ‘revolutionary’, tends to be
> produced by new information channels and communication practices that
> support the emergence of new ways to organize the st

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro John, Caro Nikhil e Cari Tutti,
l'economia necessaria per l'allievo di J. Collier io l'ho scritta e
pubblicata  dagli inizi degli anni Ottanta, allorché affrontando l'analisi
dell'economia dei beni culturali o del  patrimonio
architettonico-ambientale ho inventato una nuova teoria del valore
economico fondata proprio sulla combinazione dell'informazione e della
neg-entropia.
 Un abbraccio augurale, anche natalizio, per Tutti a partire da Pedro.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-12-17 11:03 GMT+01:00 John Collier :

> Interesting post, Nikhil. One of my PhD students is doing his thesis on
> egalitarian (living system) centred morality. He is not aiming to draw
> moral conclusions, but to lay out a coherent position based in complexity
> theory, especially in the work of Paul Cilliers (who he studied with for
> his MA) and myself.
>
>
>
> Extension to include the values of all living systems within economics is
> a natural extension of my student’s work, though he has enough on his plate
> right now.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus, UKZN
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Nikhil
> Joshi
> *Sent:* Thursday, 17 December 2015 10:53
> *To:* FIS Group
> *Cc:* Nikhil Joshi
> *Subject:* [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel,
> Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> The research presented here is focused on gleaning insights leading to new
> solutions to the economics vs ecosystem conflict. The roots of many of our
> problems in ecological sustainability lie in the fact that our
> socio-economic systems are largely focused on fulfilling only human needs
> and the needs of human organizations. In doing so, as pointed out by Pedro,
> Bob, Francesco and others in this group our economics largely ignores the
> productive value of our ecosystems and the true costs of our development on
> our life supporting living systems.
>
>
>
> I term such a society as a “shallow society”, a society that is focused on
> the development of a single species and largely ignores the value of its
> own life-supporting living systems. With global population predicted to
> grow to 9 billion people, the next level of human development requires a
> transition of human society from being a “shallow society” that is only
> focused on only human needs to what I call a “deep society”. A deep society
> is a society that includes all living systems in its development.
>
>
>
> In this view, a deep society is not only focused on needs of human beings
> and their organizations but its development models also include development
> of the entire gamut of life-supporting living systems. Such a society grows
> not by exploiting the resources of a living planet, but also it possesses
> the capability to nurture, grow and actively manage a “living planet”
> (and perhaps seed life on other planets as well). Human development in the
> future will require the creation of new capabilities to develop models
> leading to a deep society. The question then is- can we develop systems
> that will enable a fair-value reciprocity and exchange between living
> ecosystems and economic systems?
>
>
>
> While, the notion that economics does not adequately value natural systems
> has been highlighted by many researchers in the field of ecological
> economics. Ideas on how natural systems can be understood, valued and
> integrated into economics have remained elusive. A multilevel view (like
> the one presented here) allows one to compare socio-economic organizations
> with natural organizations and could also provide new insights into how the
> dynamics of natural ecosystems could be synergised with economic systems.
>
> The model presented in the kick-off session shows two levels of
> energetically and materially coupled exchange networks in ecosystems. At
> the first level of exchange networks geochemical molecules are organized
> into different autotrophic species, and modulated by Mycorrhiza (level 1).
> Different autotrophic species then become food for the different
> heterotrophic species hence giving rise to the next higher level of
> exchange networks in ecosystems, modulated by gut bacterial networks (Level
> 2). The question then is- how does nature organize to build-in synergies
> between these two levels?
>
> At level 1, Mycorrhiza networks are known to modulate growth rates across
> different autotrophic species by providing phosphorous to different
> autotrophic species in quantitative exchange for carbohydrates. Autotrophic
> species (or groups of autotrophic species) that provide more carbohydrate
> hence get more phosphorous. Hence carbohydrates play a

[Fis] Fwd: Pedro's trinity

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e Cari Tutti,
Il mondo sarebbe migliore se fosse più bello, buono, giusto, vero, legale
ed utile. Queste sei caratteristiche costituiscono l'esagono della teoria
del valore della mia "Nuova economia". In tal modo la scienza o l'attività
economica non sarebbe più "triste", ma felice. Quindi auguro a Tutti un
anno bello, buono, giusto, vero, legale ed utile.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco Rizzo.

2016-01-05 18:49 GMT+01:00 Hans von Baeyer :

> It seems to me that Pedro himself incarnates the third element of his AP.
> What undoubtedly accounts for most of the success, and certainly for the
> longevity of FIS, is his profound, utter, and unshakeable KINDNESS -- a
> virtue that may not be as deep as compassion or love, but that has a much
> broader reach.  If human society were shaped by the forces of reason,
> justice, and kindness, what a paradise this world would be!
>
> Hans Christian von Baeyer
>
> ___
> 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] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
la teoria delle super stringhe o delle corde che risentono della tensione
energetica dell'ambiente in cui si verificano i fenomeni della fisica,
sottratte alle dimensioni puntuali e alle traiettorie lineari, dando luogo
ad una sorta di danza; la "danza" delle masse solari dei buchi neri prima
di scontrarsi  e fondersi, dissipando energia ed emettendo onde
gravitazionali; il modo di camminare e correre del giaguaro e degli animali
in genere, uomini e donne compresi, etc., sono principi teorici o
paradigmatici che attraversano anche la mia "Nuova economia" che vi
risparmio per non tediarvi. Comunque ricordo solamente che Ilya Prigogine
diceva che la scienza dovrebbe adottare il paradigma della musica. In
questo momento sto pensando alla forma elicoidale e femminile del DNA!
Un abbraccio a tutti e soprattutto a Pedro, regista impareggiabile. Grazie
Francesco Rizzo.

2016-02-23 7:24 GMT+01:00 Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>:

>
> Dear Bob,
>
> I agree with you that: neither of existing models (Newtonian physics,
> original Darwinian formulation of evolution) is sufficient for explaining
> how real change—in the form of creative advance or emergence—takes place in
> nature. And that: Chance and disarray in natural processes are necessary
> conditions for real change. Randomness contributes richness and autonomy to
> the natural world. (From the description of your book A Third Window:
> Natural Life beyond Newton and Darwin). Complex phenomena and
> self-organisation are subject of intense research within science and by no
> means understood as miraculous.
>
> It seems to me that all depends on how we conceptualise “miracle” vs.
> “law”. “Laws” need not be deterministic and they can also evolve, as
> physicists are talking about unification of forces under conditions of
> early universe. In analogy with the previous posts regarding “miracles” we
> can imagine minimising “laws” to one in our model of the early universe and
> then follow how the “laws” emerge together with the rest of everything.
> I imagine “miracle” as something going beyond our understanding forever,
> while natural phenomenon is something we believe to be able to find a good
> model for, no matter how long it may take.
>
> If we imagine “miracles” as explanation for things we do not have good
> models for, the world would be full of miracles. As a scientist I just
> react to the word “miracle” being used to explain what we do not understand
> in nature. I have seen human laws in practice, and I was taught about
> “natural laws” in school. I have never seen a “miracle” and I do not
> believe in “miracles” other than poetic figures of speech.
>
> All the best,
> Gordana
>
>
> On 23/02/16 02:20, "Robert E. Ulanowicz"  wrote:
>
> Dear Gordana,
>
> "Law" is a slippery concept. Most physicists make the theological
> assumption that the laws of physics pre-existed the Big Bang. I rather
> doubt that. I see the laws as having evolved (precipitated?) out of
> inchoate configurations of processes.
> <
> https://www.ctr4process.org/whitehead2015/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PhilPrax.pdf
> >
>
> Under the prevailing metaphysics, miracles are impossible. For that
> matter, so is real change! If we switch metaphysical foundations, however,
> the boundary between law and miracle grows permeable.
> <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/publications/philosophy/3rdwindow/>
>
> Best wishes,
> Bob
>
> To me the miracle is not so much order, as it is relation, and thus as
> Loet says "order is always constructed (by us)"-
> but the miracle is the very existence of anything (us, the rest of the
> universe).
> Why there is something rather than nothing (that would be much simpler)?
> To me miracle is how it all started. From vacuum fluctuations? But where
> the vacuum comes from?
> But then, why should we call it a miracle?
> Perhaps the better name is just natural law, finally equally inexplicable
> and given,
> but sounds more general and less mystic.
>
> Best,
> Gordana
>
>
> From: Fis
> mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>
> > on
> behalf of Loet Leydesdorff
> mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>
> >
> Organization: University of Amsterdam
> Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>
> "
> mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>
> >
> Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 20:36
> To: 'Bruno Marchal' mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>
> >, 'fis
> Science' mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
> >
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24
>
>
> All worldviews begin in a miracle. No exceptions.
>
> I agree. Nevertheless, we should, and 

Re: [Fis] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e cari Tutti,
allego un file .doc di alcune pagine di "Etica dei valori economici o
economia dei valori etici" scritte nel 2002 e pubblicate nel 2004
(FrancoAngeli, Milano), il cui contenuto è, a mio giudizio, congruente e
pertinente al tema che si sta affrontando. Naturalmente, chiedo scusa a
tutti per la lunghezza dello scritto e per la pazienza che Vi chiedo di
avere nei miei confronti, dato che uso la lingua italiana. In modo
particolare a Pedro che mi deve sopportare pur essendo, in un certo qual
modo, un diverso che naviga in molti campi del sapere e chiede
semplicemente di trovare, come sempre è accaduto nella Fis, uno spazio per
me prezioso, provvidenziale e  compensativo di tante congiure del silenzio
di cui sono stato oggetto. Ecco perché, fino a quando il mio "pensiero
pensante" funzionerà farò il possibile e l'impossibile per comunicare con
il mondo che amo, conservo e custodisco nel mio cuore. Comunque, io voglio
bene a Tutti perché ho sempre avuto da Dio Padre una misericordia che mi
abilita a per-donare e ad essere per-donato.
Grazie quaresimale e pasquale.
Vostro Francesco


2016-03-11 14:09 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> Let me start by announcing the *special session on **INFORMATION &
> SYMMETRY*, in the Symmetry gathering this Summer in Vienna (18-22 July)
> http://festival.symmetry.hu/ The deadline for abstract reception in this
> session has been enlarged until beginnings of next month. Tentatively, it
> will be chaired by our colleagues Jerry Chandler and Abir Igamberdiev. A
> special issue has been planned in cooperation with the journal
> "Information" too. We will celebrate the near 20th anniversary of the first
> joint session with FIS on information and symmetry (Washington 1995) and
> the subsequent special issues (Symmetry & Culture, 1996 and 97). It will be
> a good occasion to meet again and pass over the views developed in this
> period. Old FISers and members of this list are invited to attend.
>
> And then about the ongoing discussion--responding to the exciting
> exchanges by Louis and Plamen. This type of abstract discussion is rarely
> fertile for biological fundamentals, where structure and function become so
> intertwined that the concrete mechanisms obliterate the quest for too
> far-reaching generalizations, but it may be interesting for approaching
> problems such as "distinctions". Some time ago I tried an approach not so
> different from Spencer Brown's. It was based on "multidimensional
> partitions", a development of Karl Javorszky (of this list) for set theory
> out from classical Euler's partitions (the different ways to decompose
> additively a natural number). It was very interesting finding a natural
> limit for the total distinctional between members of given set, finding a
> curious info dynamics of distinctional gains and losses after addition of
> just one sign or a few signs in the set, a sort of power law in the total
> decomposition, etc. (most of this was coming from previous works by
> Karl--we somehow improved the algorithmic, with a few colleagues here in
> Zaragoza). Then we tried to apply it to prokaryotic complex receptors (2CS,
> 3CS) and to the "language of cells"... but we reached our math limits very
> soon (anyhow, some elementary drafts and publc. were left). I keep thinking
> that it was a serious approach to cellular "distinctions" that could be
> escalated upwards. Later on, in a couple of papers in BioSystems (2010, 99,
> 94-103; and  2013, 114, 8-24) we roughly described prokaryotic and
> eukaryotic signaling machinery in relation with the intelligent advancement
> of the life cycle of each cell.
>
> About viruses in evolution, we could listen in Vienna (IS4IS & FIS 2015
> Conference) to one of the most advanced thinkers, Guenther Witzany. What
> Plamen suggests about a virus theory from the viewpoint of viruses is not
> science fiction. It is astonishing what a few crucial proteins of HIV
> "know" about hundred molecular components of our lymphocytes. It is as if
> they had conspired with structurally enslaved pieces of former viruses
> temporarily joining them to create havoc in the machinery of the cellular
> host. If just 30% of what Guenther says is right, we have to revise the
> Symbiotic Theory, the Central Dogma, the RNA (inner) cloud, gene
> expression, biosemiosis, etc.
>
> Echoing the final debates of the previous session, description should go
> first. And in bio-informational matters there is still plenty to describe.
>
> Best regards--Pedro
>
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 
> 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> ---

Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Re: _ Re: On mathematical theories and models in biology

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Plamen Simeonov e Cari Tutti,
secondo U. Maturana e F. Varela la conoscenza ha fondamenti biologici.
Tutta la conoscenza, anche quella fisica, soprattutto quella quantistica,
ha fondamenti biologici. E viceversa, la biologia ha fondamenti
quantistici. Quel che scrivo qui sinteticamente può sembrare apodittico e
dogmatico, ma nei miei libri questo è analizzato, approfondito e sistemato
in modo organico: beninteso, secondo l'ottica della mia "Nuova economia".
Quindi vi sono elementi fondati per condividere l'accostamento tra
"platonismo, teologia, logica e algebra". Così come, a me pare ben fondato
il rapporto quadrangolare che passa tra: i numeri primi, la funzione d'onda
di Riemann, la meccanica quantistica e la geometria frattale (dei mercati)
(cfr. fra gli altri,  Rizzo R., "Una vita. Il figlio del garzone", Aracne
editrice, Roma, 2015, pp. 305-306.)
Un augurio, ancora, pasquale.
Francessco

2016-03-30 1:00 GMT+02:00 Guy A Hoelzer :

> Hi Robert,
>
> I haven’t read your book yet, but thanks for the link.  You have certainly
> thought through these issues much more deeply than I have and I appreciate
> your perspective.  I am trying to parse the meanings of your three
> fundamentals, so please let me know if I am getting the main ideas right.
>
> “Aleatoricism” seems to reflect the creativity associated with dynamics at
> ‘the edge of chaos’, or inherent to self-organization.  I would strongly
> agree with this as an essential fundamental that was not explicit in my
> formulation.  I would argue that aleatoricism and feedback are implicit in
> the notion of metabolism, but I like that you pull them out.
>
> I’m not sure what you are suggesting with the term “centripetality’.  Is
> this meant to reference the functional and dynamical coherence of
> self-organizing systems?
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Robert E. Ulanowicz  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Guy,
> >
> > Please allow me to respond to your invitation to Terry with my two cents.
> >
> > My triad for supporting the dynamics of life is a bit different. I see
> the
> > three essential fundamentals as:
> >
> > 1. Aleatoricism
> >
> > 2. Feedback
> >
> > 3. Memory
> >
> > Just to briefly elaborate on each:
> >
> > 1. I use aleatoricism to avoid the baggage associated with the term
> > "chance", which most immediately associate with "blind" chance. The
> > aleatoric spans the spectrum from unique events to blind chance to
> > conditional chance to propensities to just short of determinism.
> >
> > 2. More specifically (and in parallel with autopoesis) I focus on
> > autocatalytic feedback, which exhibits the property of "centripetality".
> > Centripetality appears on almost no one's list of properties of life,
> > despite its ubiquity in association with living systems.
> >
> > 3. Memory (and information) likely inhered in stable configurations of
> > processes (metabolism) well before the advent of molecular encoding.
> Terry
> > speaks to this point in Biological Theory 1(2):136-49.
> >
> > My fundamentals do not include reproduction, because I see reproduction
> as
> > corollary to 2 & 3.
> >
> > I propose a full metaphysics for life predicated on these three
> > assumptions.
> > 
> >
> > Looking forward to what others see as fundamental.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >> I personally consider metabolism to be at the core of what constitutes
> >> â?~lifeâ?T, so the notion of autopoeisis is very attractive to me.  It
> is
> >> also possible that the richness of life as we know it depends on having
> >> metabolisms (activity), genomes (memory), and reproduction combined.
> The
> >> reductionistic approach to singling out one of these three pillars of
> life
> >> as its essence may be futile.  However, I want to point out that the
> most
> >> reduced version of â?~lifeâ?T I have seen was proposed by Terry Deacon
> in
> >> the concept he calls â?oautocellsâ? .  Terry has made great
> contributions
> >> to FIS dealing with related topics, and I hope he will chime in here to
> >> describe his minimalist form of life, which is not cellular, does not
> have
> >> any metabolism or genetically encoded memory.  Autocells do, however,
> >> reproduce.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Guy
> >
> >
>
>
> ___
> 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] _ Re: _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Louis e Cari Tutti,
tutta la mia più che cinquantennale ricerca si basa proprio
sull'informazione semiotica unita all'informazione naturale o
termodinamica, genetica e matematica. Anzi ho incontrato e conosciuto
Pedro, se non ricordo male, il 17-22 setmbre 2002 ad Acireale (Catania) si
è svolto un convegno sul tema "Energy and information transfer in
biological systems", al quale invia "Valore e valutazioni. La scienza
dell'economia o l'economia della scienza" (FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1999) che,
fra l'altro, comprende uno specifico capitolo. di "Semiotica economica" e
l'intera Terza Parte (9 capitoli) dedicati alla teoria del valore intesa
come combinazione creativa di energia e informazione. Inoltre il 1 aprile
2016 ho pubblicato "La scienza non può non essere umana, civile, sociale,
ECONOMI(C)A, enigmatica, nobile, profetica" in cui la problematica appena
rievocata e  ripresa nella  Fis è affrontata con una certa sistematica ed
organica consistenza o dimensione. Per non parlare di "Nuova economia"
(Aracne editrice, Roma, 2013) che spiega perché e come ho rivoluzionato la
scienza economica.
Quindi sono grato a Louis per avere compendiato un introduzione assai utile
e significativa, se non si vogliono scambiare lucciole per lanterne o
focacce per pane.
Grazie ancora.
Un abbraccio augurale e ancora pasquale a Tutti, ai quali voglio bene anche
se talvolta non ricambiato.
Francesco.

2016-04-02 5:46 GMT+02:00 Louis H Kauffman :

> Dear Soren and Folks,
> I have included some comments inside Soren’s introduction.
> Best,
> Lou K.
>
>
> Infobiosemiotics
>
> Søren Brier, CBS
>
> This discussion aims at contributing to the definition of a universal
> concept of information covering objective as well as subjective
> experiential and intersubjective meaningful cognition and communication
> argued in more length in Brier (2015a). My take on the problem is that
> information is not primarily a technological term but a phenomenon that
> emerges from intersubjective meaningful sign based cognition and
> communication in living systems. The purpose of this discussion is to
> discuss a possible philosophical framework for an integral and more
> adequate concept of information uniting all isolated disciplines (Brier,
> 2010, 2011, 2013a+b+c).
>
> The attempts to create *objective concepts* of information were good for
> technology (Brilliouin 1962) and the development of AI, but not able to
> develop theories that could include the *experiential (subjective) aspect*
>  of informing that leads to meaning in the social setting (Brier 2015b).
> The statistical concept of Shannon (Shannon and Weaver 1963/1948) is the
> most famous objective concept but it was only a technical invention based
> on a mathematical concept of entropy, but never intended to encompass
> meaning.  Norbert Wiener (*1963) *combined the mathematics statistical
> with Boltzmann’s thermodynamically entropy concept and defined information
> as neg-entropy. Wiener then saw the statistical information’s entropy as a
> representation for mind and the thermodynamically entropy as representing
> matter. So he thought he had solved the mind matter problem through his and
> Schrödinger’s (1944/2012) definition of information as neg-entropy.
>
>
> The idea was developed further into an evolutionary and ecological
> framework by Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979, 19827) resulting in an ecological
> cybernetic concept of mind as self-organized differences that made a
> difference for a cybernetically conceptualized mind (Brier 2008b). But this
> concepts that could not encompass meaning and experience of embodied living
> and social systems (Brier 2008a, 2010, 2011).
>
> [It seems to me that Bateson is well aware of the neccesity of being
> meaningful and thoughtful in relation to information and that his
> ‘difference that makes a difference’ is often the difference that is
> understood by an aware observer. Thus for him it is often the case that
> information arises within awareness and is not just
> a matter of channel capacities as in the Shannon approach. The whole
> reason one is take by Bateson and can find much to think about there is
> that he has a sensitive and thoughtful approach to this area of problems.
> It is too harsh to just say that “the idea was developed further …”.
>
> My main point is that from the present material, energetic or
> informational ontologies worldview we do not have any idea of how life,
> feeling, awareness and qualia could emerge from that foundation.
>
> [Yes.]
>
> Ever since Russell and Whitehead’s attempt in Principia Mathematica to
> make a unified mathematical language for all sciences and logical
> positivism failed (Carnap, 1967 & Cartwright et.al. 1996),
>
> [Personally, I do not regard the incompleteness results of Godel as an
> indication of failure! They show for the first time the true role of
> formalism in mathematics and in intellectual endeavor in general. We cannot
> rely on formalism only for our search, but it 

Re: [Fis] DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
il concetto o significato di informazione è unico, quel che varia è il modo
di qualificarlo o quantificarlo in ragione dei diversi tipi o categorie di
informazione: naturale o termodinamica, genetica, semantica e matematica. E
questo lo dico da studioso di economia della scienza o dell'esistenza, non
da studioso di esistenza o  della scienza economica.
Un abbraccio, non solo fisico, ma anche emo-ra-zionale.
Francesco

2016-04-09 12:21 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> Dear Pedro,
>
>
>
> I disagree about putting "meaning" outside the scope of natural sciences.
>
>
>
> I doubt that anybody on this list would disagree about using the metaphor
> of meaning in the natural sciences.
>
>
>
> Maturana (1978, p. 49): “In still other words, if an organism is observed
> in its operation within a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the
> observer as if its nervous system interacted with internal representations
> of the circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of state of
> the organism were determined by the semantic value of these
> representations. Yet all that takes place in the operation of the nervous
> system is the structure-determined dynamics of changing relations of
> relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal network.”
>
> http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html#Descriptions
>
>
>
> In other context, Maturana used the concept of “languaging”.
>
>
>
> My point is about the *differentia specifica* of inter-human
> communication which assumes a next-order contingency of expectations
> structured by “horizons of meaning” (Husserl). One needs a specific
> (social-science) set of theories and methods to access this domain, in my
> opinion. In concrete projects, one can try to operationalize in terms of
> the information sciences / information theory. One can also collaborate
> “interdisciplinarily” at the relevant interface, notably with the computer
> sciences. The use of metaphors in other disciplines, however,  cannot be
> denied.
>
>
>
> This is just a reaction; I had one penny left this week. J
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Karl,
la chiamiamo natura, ma è tutta arte. A. Einstein e S. Hawking pensavano
che Dio non giocasse a dadi. Il primo non ha avuto il tempo di ricredersi,
il secondo si. Ha perso una scommessa, circa la non emissione di
informazione da parte dei buchi neri sostenuta nel 1975, dopo (2004-5) ha
dovuto ricredersi. Io da economista, non da fisico, secondo il mio processo
di tras-in-forma-azione che ha come "input" (immissione) la materia,
l'energia e l'informazione e come "output"  (emissione) la materia,
l'energia e l'informazione in stato diverso, la pensa(vo) diversamente: ed
ho avuto ragione. La natura non ha bisogno di retorica ed è
ininterrottamente sottoposta ad un processo di trasinformazione a partire
dal "big bang". Nei primi tre vv. della "Genesi", che può condividersi
senza avere alcuna fede religiosa, è scritto: "In principio Dio creò il
cielo e la terra. La terra era informe e deserta e le tenebre ricoprivano
l'abisso e lo spirito di Dio aleggiava sulle acque. Dio disse: 'Sia luce!'.
E la luce fu". In questo processo informazione significa dare o prendere
forma. Quindi l'informazione "non" è il modo che ciò che è il caso si
differenzia da ciò che non il caso, tranne che non si voglia sostituire
caso con caos. Io uso "sfondo e primo piano in concomitanza e gioc(o) con
interferenza tra i due", perché la conoscenza ha fondamenti biologici e
dipende dall'immaginazione umana che si realizza a diversi livelli di
inferenza - da molto astratti a molto concreti -  e in una dinamica
spazio-temporale.
Comunque, non ho la pretesa di possedere alcuna verità. E ascolto e leggo
sempre con attenzione le parole dette e scritte dagli altri. Specialmente
se autorevoli.
Grazie.
Francesco

2016-04-09 18:24 GMT+02:00 Karl Javorszky :

> not in Italian but in full concordance with what Rico ha dito:
> information as a concept lies behind all and each of the ways of looking
> at the world. Whatever the picture, it has a background to it.
> Could it be that a description of the background is common to each and all
> of the pictures one makes of the world?
>
> Rational thinking has always been cautious and only permitted speaking
> about what is clearly delineated. All other is art.
> Now we see that Nature is not that well educated in rhetoric, and makes
> allusions also to that what is the background in our imagination. She
> simply does not use our perspectives and our bifurcations. She uses
> background and foreground concurrently and plays with interferences between
> the two.
>
> The general answer to "and relative to what?" is non-existence as such,
> the background sui generis. That, to which everything else is different,
> just like the thing as such has something common with everything else. The
> general idea of how different a background is to the foreground shown/known
> could well be the root for the concept of information. That what we know,
> what is the case, is no information. Information is how that what is the
> case differs from what is not the case.
> Karl
> On 9 Apr 2016 16:56, "Francesco Rizzo" <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cari Tutti,
>> il concetto o significato di informazione è unico, quel che varia è il
>> modo di qualificarlo o quantificarlo in ragione dei diversi tipi o
>> categorie di informazione: naturale o termodinamica, genetica, semantica e
>> matematica. E questo lo dico da studioso di economia della scienza o
>> dell'esistenza, non da studioso di esistenza o  della scienza economica.
>> Un abbraccio, non solo fisico, ma anche emo-ra-zionale.
>> Francesco
>>
>> 2016-04-09 12:21 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff :
>>
>>> Dear Pedro,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree about putting "meaning" outside the scope of natural
>>> sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that anybody on this list would disagree about using the
>>> metaphor of meaning in the natural sciences.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Maturana (1978, p. 49): “In still other words, if an organism is
>>> observed in its operation within a second-order consensual domain, it
>>> appears to the observer as if its nervous system interacted with internal
>>> representations of the circumstances of its interactions, and as if the
>>> changes of state of the organism were determined by the semantic value of
>>> these representations. Yet all that takes place in the operation of the
>>> nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of changing relations
>>> of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal network.”
>>>
>>>

Re: [Fis] The phenomenology of life

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
tutto ciò che è stato creato o si è formato vive la propria vita. Le
distinzioni tra i mondi servono a farci cogliere le differenze di vita, ma
non a stabilire una contrapposizione tra ciò che vive e ciò che non vive.
Le leggi della vita o la vita delle leggi si inquadrano nel contesto
dell'esistenza che non può che essere fenomenologica. Gli uomini hanno
impiegato troppo tempo e tanta energia a classificare, gerarchizzare,
distinguere, contrapporre, ma hanno trascurato lo slancio vitale e
l'energia creativa che consente l' essere dinamico o la dinamica
dell'essere di ogni cosa..
Un abbraccio vitale o un vitale abbraccio trasmettitore di energia del
cuore e della mente a tutti e per tutti.
Francesco

2016-04-29 23:58 GMT+02:00 Rafael Capurro :

> Dear Alex,
>
> this is a very interesting story that remembers me my 'relationships' with
> dogs and horses in Uruguay where I was born and spent my youth in the
> countryside.
> On weltarm:
> But, on the other hand, "world-poor" does not mean, as Heidegger remarks,
> "that life ("Leben") with regard to human existence ("Dasein") is of a
> poorer quality or a lower level. Rather is life a field with an own
> richness of openness that probably the human world does not know about."
> so... there is a lot of empirical research to be done with regard to the
> richness of openness of animals... that is different to ours, and of course
> each one of us has an own range of openness and this makes human-human
> interplay so amazing; how far can we now about the kind of openess a bird
> or... a dog or... has? it is indeed amazing to experience what they
> understand from what we say and viceversa, although there might be also
> some orthogonal relationship that does not allow the other to go further...
> but ths happens in everyday human relationship also, doesn't it? even among
> scientists :-) and of course among philosophers! so looking for differences
> does not mean making hierarchies it just makes life more astonishing. I was
> reading this morning a short article on Heidegger's sources in his lectures
> 1929/30 where he quotes some experiments of the physiologis Albrecht Bethe
> and their elucidation by the biologist Emanuel Radl following the apparisal
> of Jakob von Uexküll dealing with  te capaciy pf bees for finding their way
> bak (Christoph HOffmann: "Aus dem Leben der Bienen", A source of
> Heidegger's Examples Concerning Animal Life in the Fundamental Concepts of
> Metaphysics" in: Heidegger Studies 2014, vol.30, p. 205 ff. one of these
> sources being particualrly  Karl von Firsch: The danced Language and
> Orientation of bees,  1927, another original source bein Ernst Wolf: Über
> das Heimkehrvermögen der Bienen, Zt. f. vergleich. Physiologie, vol. 6,
> 1927, dealing ith the retinal image formed by the compound eye of a glow
> worm observed aadn even (sogar) photographed . and... the isue ehter the
> photograph depicts or not what the glow worms sees... (this is not suggeted
> neitehr by von Firsch nor Exner: he Physiology of the Compound Exyes of
> Insects and Crustaceands, 1891) so... this was 1927... you, biologists have
> done amazing research in the last hundred years... Heidegger was learning
> from you in 1927... and I am learning also from you too
> best
> rafael
> ps greetings from san sebastian and this amazing nature around me/us...
>
> Dear Rafael,
>>
>> I read the opinion expressed in your patent,
>> http://www.capurro.de/patent.html, that we can enter the world of animals
>> but that they are 'world-poor' (*veltarm *- Heidegger), with interest, and
>>
>> the following comment.
>>
>> When I made my preconference seminar presentation to the 2016 Science of
>> Consciousness Conference here in Tucson on Tuesday morning, one of the
>> seminar participants (named Bill) happened to have a pet African Gray
>> Parrot named Harry, and was highly amused at my descriptions taken from
>> Sheldrake. He added some of his own, both at my invitation in response to
>> his interjection, and privately the following day after one of the plenary
>> sessions.
>>
>> He told several stories about his bird and his relationship with it. Harry
>> definitely likes to be treated as a 'person' and not a 'possession' or
>> mere
>> 'pet'. He exercises choice, and if offered the chance to accompany Bill in
>> his car, feels quite free to respond, 'No, you go alone', or 'I'll stay
>> here'.
>>
>> More poignantly, he has a great sense of humour, as related in several
>> anecdotes, one of which was what may happen if Bill has a long, long phone
>> call. Harry will sometimes imitate Bill's voice and say, 'Bye, now!', and
>> then make the clicking sound of the phone being hung up!!!
>>
>> On one occasion when this happened, Bill was in the middle of a Skype
>> conference call with three colleagues all in different locations /
>> countries (continents?). Two of them with were already familiar with
>> Harry's habits and antics roared with laughter, and immediately told t

Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Fwd: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Alex e Stan, Cari Tutti,
condivido pienamente l'espistemologica impostazione filosofico-scientifica
di Alex e la logico-matematica insiemistica e/o la "gerarchia della
sussunzione in evoluzione" di Stan. Comunque, il riduzionismo non appaga nè
paga.
Un abbraccio collettivo alla rete Fis.
Francesco

2016-05-01 0:38 GMT+02:00 Alex Hankey :

> It is good to see the discussion developing into deep considerations of
> the history (histories?) of the metaphysical understanding of the nature of
> the self, the soul, and the world(s) of experience, including the material
> universe in which it finds itself.
>
> I do not claim to have any great expertise in understanding Nagarjuna's
> approach, but we have to realise that both he and the great exponent of
> Vedanta, Adishankara, also known as Shankaracharya (meaning teacher of
> liberation), are said to have used almost identical formulations, albeit
> with a different emphasis. While Nagarjuna used the concept of emptiness as
> the foundation, Adishankara stayed within the traditional Vedic scheme
> where 'fullness' or completeness / wholeness is regarded as fundamental.
>
> While it is certainly true that to experience the 'self' clearly, all
> mental content has to allowed to settle down and fade away (one aspect of
> 'Chitta Vritti Nirodha', a definition of Yoga) the condition for
> maintaining that stably is that the subtle energy, prana (life-breath),
> should be enlivened fully, which is why the enlivenment (ayama) of prana
> i.e. pranaayama (normal spelling pranayama, in which the long 'a' is not
> explicitly emphasised) is a fundamental Yoga exercise, usually practised
> before meditation (Dhyana) practices in which the mind moves to its empty
> state (samadhi). As can be seen, increasing the prana (life-energy) to a
> state of fullness is thus an integral part of attaining a stable state of
> pure consciousness (samadhi).
>
> It is the fullness of the state of prana that stabilizes the mind from
> influences that might bring it out of samadhi. In particular, various
> emotions can block the flows of subtle energies (several websites explain
> this in detail e.g. Google on acupuncture meridians - emotions). Fullness
> of prana is thus considered equivalent to emotional stability, which
> requires balanced positive emotions and feelings.
>
> Both Nagarjuna and Adishankara are then concerned with how it is that
> all-that-exists emerges from the original absolute. Nagarjuna evidently
> shows that all things including all sentient beings have a 'dependent'
> existence - they do not exist in and of themselves. Adishankara on the
> other hand uses Vedic physics and metaphysics to trace how they emerge at
> various levels of perception. The essence of his argument is to show how
> the mental sensory apparatus came from the original source / Absolute, and
> thus how all objects of sensation can be traced back there.
>
> In modern terms, all things we have ever experientially encountered are
> quantum fields, and all quantum fields seem to have emerged from the Big
> Bang via the process of symmetry breaking at its source - the inflationary
> process. But symmetry breaking is an instability, and when one inspects the
> information states that that instability supports, they turn out to have a
> similar structure to O===>, the one proposed in the material that was
> distributed.
>
> I feel that the role and significance of instabilities in the physical
> world, particularly life processes, has not been adequately expounded and
> that we may only be beginning to understand them.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Alex
>
> On 30 April 2016 at 08:18, steven bindeman  wrote:
>
>> I hope the following passage I’ve written on Nagarjuna will be of use for
>> this discussion on the nature of self. The passage is from a manuscript
>> I’ve just completed on silence and postmodernism.
>>
>> Nagarjuna’s thinking is deeply conversant with silence and with the use
>> of paradox as well. For him, contradictory things are never “either/or,”
>> but are always “both/and.” Refusing to choose between opposing metaphysical
>> problems, he would recommend responding through silence instead. For an
>> example of his reductive reasoning process, consider the following:
>>
>> Whatever is dependently co-arisen
>> That is explained to be emptiness.
>> That, being a dependent designation,
>> Is itself the middle way.
>>
>> Something that is not dependently arisen
>> Such a thing does not exist.
>> Therefore a nonempty thing
>> Does not exist.
>>
>> Nagarjuna is criticizing the common paradoxical occurrence that when we
>> attribute abstract concepts (“something that does not dependently exist”)
>> like emptiness to the status of “reality” (like we do with the Platonic
>> forms), then they seem to be applicable to everything, while on the other
>> hand when we emphasize instead the individual uniqueness and particularity
>> of any one thing (“whatever is dependently co-arisen”), this emphasis

Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Re: re Gödel discussion

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Terrence, Louis, Maxine e Tutti,
premetto che sono un "poverino esponenziale" che non ha la pretesa di
menare alcun vanto. Ma mi pare di aver capito dalla  triangolazione dei tre
colleghi,che non credo si sia conclusa,  quello che:
- Rosario Strano, un valente matematico dell'Università di Catania, tenendo
una conferenza su "Goodel, Tarski e il mentitore" alla fine ha affermato:
"In chiusura concludiamo con un'osservazione 'filosofica' suggerita durante
la conferenza dal collega F. Rizzo: una conseguenza che possiamo trarre dai
teoremi su esposti è che la ricerca della verità, sia nella matematica che
nelle altre scienze, non può essere ingabbiata da regole meccaniche, nè
ridursi a un calcolo formale, ma richiede estro, intuizione e genialità,
tutte caratteristiche proprie dell'intelletto umano ("Bollettino Mathesis"
della sezione di Catania, Anno V, n. 2, 28 aprile 2000);
- anche  a me è capitato, per difendere la scienza economica dall'invadenza
o dominio del calcolo infinitesimale, di dichiarare che i modelli
matematici assomigliano a dei simulacri, in parte veri (secondo la logica)
e in in parte falsi (secondo la realtà): cfr. ultimamente, Rizzo F.,
..."Economi(c)a", Aracne editrice, Roma, aprile 2016;
-nella teoria e nella pratica economica il saggio di capitalizzazione "r"
della formula di capitalizzazione V = Rn. 1/r si può determinare o
ricorrendo alla "quantità qualitativa" di hegel ("La scienza della logica")
oppure ai numeri complessi o immaginari che, fra l'altro consentirono al
matematico polacco Minkowski, maestro di A. Einstein, di aggiustare la
teoria della relatività generale, tanto che ho scritto: "I numeri
immaginari e/o complessi usati per concepire l''universo di Minkowiski' che
trasforma il tempo in spazio, rendendo più chiara ed esplicita l'influenza
isomorfica che lo spazio-tempo esercita sulla formula di capitalizzazione e
sull'equazione della relatività ristretta, forse possono illuminare di luce
nuova la funzione del concetto di co-efficiente di capitalizzazione" (Rizzo
F., "Dalla rivoluzione keynesiana alla nuova economia", FrancoAngeli,
Milano, 2002, p. 35).
Come vedete il mondo sembra grande ma in fondo spetta a Voi e, anche ai
poverini come me di renderlo o ridurlo alla dimensione adeguata per
comprendere (ed essere compreso) da tutti.
Nel ringraziarVi per l'opportunità che mi avete dato, Vi saluto con
amicizia intellettuale ed umana.
Francesco

2016-05-03 5:28 GMT+02:00 Louis H Kauffman :

> Dear Folks
> I realize in replying to this I surely reach the end of possible comments
> that I can make for a week. But nevertheless …
> I want to comment on Terrence Deacon’s remarks below and also on Professor
> Johnstone’s remark from another email:
>
> "This may look like a silly peculiarity of spoken language, one best
> ignored in formal logic, but it is ultimately what is wrong with the Gödel
> sentence that plays a key role in Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem. That
> sentence is a string of symbols deemed well-formed according to the
> formation rules of the system used by Gödel, but which, on the intended
> interpretation of the system, is ambiguous: the sentence has two different
> interpretations, a self-referential truth-evaluation that is neither true
> nor false or a true statement about that self-referential statement. In
> such a system, Gödel’s conclusion holds. However, it is a mistake to
> conclude that no possible formalization of Arithmetic can be complete. In a
> formal system that distinguishes between the two possible readings of the
> Gödel sentence (an operation that would considerably complicate the
> system), such would no longer be the case.
> ”
> I will begin with the paragraph above.
> Many mathematicians felt on first seeing Goedel’s argument that it was a
> trick, a sentence like the Liar Sentence that had no real mathematical
> relevance.
> This however is not true, but would require a lot more work than I would
> take in this email to be convincing. Actually the crux of the Goedel
> Theorem is in the fact that a formal system that
> can handle basic number theory and is based on a finite alphabet, has only
> a countable number of facts about the integers that it can produce. One can
> convince oneself on general grounds that there are indeed an uncountable
> number of true facts about the integers. A given formal system can only
> produce a countable number of such facts and so is incomplete. This is the
> short version of Goedel’s Theorem. Goedel worked hard to produce a specific
> statement that could not be proved by the given formal system, but the
> incompleteness actually follows from the deep richness of the integers as
> opposed to the more superficial reach of any given formal system.
>
> Mathematicians should not be perturbed by this incompleteness. Mathematics
> is paved with many formal systems.
>
> In my previous email I point to the Goldstein sequence.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein%27s_theorem
> 

Re: [Fis] Fwd: _ Re: _ Gödel discussion

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti, Alex, Lou,
mi permetto di far notare che bisogna distinguere o non confondere:
macchine, meccanismi e meccanicamente. Dire che non siamo macchine  è una
cosa ovvia, ma sostenere che gli uomini non devono ragionare meccanicamente
non è per niente ovvio. Non Vi pare?
Grazie.
Francesco

2016-05-06 7:21 GMT+02:00 Alex Hankey :

> By the way, the argument below
> was sent to me by Lou Kauffman.
>
> On 4 May 2016 at 20:11, Alex Hankey  wrote:
>
>> Dear Fis Colleagues,
>>
>> I received this comment on Lucas's argument that seems to me short and
>> sweet,
>> so I am posting it for our general edification.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>>
>> “Proving” that we are not machines is somewhat quixotic from my point of
>> view, in that it should be obvious that we are not machines!
>>
>> But so many people imagine that we could be nothing more than mechanisms
>> that the Lucas-Godelian argument is helpful.
>>
>> But let us look at this argument. We start by assuming that I am a
>> consistent Turing machine (CTM) (consistency being needed to apply Godel’s
>> Theorem.)
>>
>> If I am a CTM, then I can be completely specified by at text T which I
>> put out on the table here in front of me.
>>
>> And I then apply the Godel argument to T, producing a Theorem G that T
>> cannot prove, but that I can prove.
>>
>> But I am identical with T. SO this is a contradiction.
>> We have contradicted that I am a CTM.
>> Therefore I am not a CTM.
>>
>> I cannot be a Consistent Turing Machine.
>> If I am consistent then I am not a Turing machine.
>> Otherwise I might be an inconsistent Turing machine.
>>
>> The argument shows that I must be consistent in order to conclude that I
>> am not a Turing machine.
>>
>> I believe that I am consistent.
>> I conclude that I am not a consistent Turing machine.
>> And being consistent, I am not an inconsistent Turing machine.
>>
>> Therefore, I am not a Turing machine.
>>
>> (P.S. Another champion of the Lucas viewpoint is Roger Penrose in his
>> books
>> “The Emperor’s New Mind” and “Shadows of the Mind”.)
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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

Re: [Fis] _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Plamen e Cari Tutti,
sottolineo lo stile pedagogico e l'efficacia comunicativa di questo
eccellente contributo. Desidero soffermarmi sulla nota 5. della
fenomenologia. La discontinuità o il salto brusco e traumatico tra una
situazione e l'altra è frutto di una trasmutazione che caratterizza i
"momenti" decisivi e strategici di qualunque settore della esperienza
esistenziale e cognitiva. Tutto e dappertutto avviene secondo un processo
economico basato sull'asimmetria creativa che rompe ogni simmetria e
determina i cambiamenti evolutivi da cui dipende la vita. La vita, miracolo
dei miracoli, non è un e-vento ordinario, ma un insi-eme di fatti
imprevedibili, sconvolgenti, asimmetrici. Il cosmo è (o potrebbe essere)
iniziato in modo arbitrario, cioè indipendente da qualunque conoscenza
umana, e si svolge (o potrebbe svolgersi) in modo arbitrario, nel senso che
le rotture o le discontinuità provocate dalle singolarità o asimmetrie sono
( o potrebbero essere) il risultato di una sua intrinseca creatività che
sfugge al dominio dell'uomo al quale è possibile (?) conoscere sola la
"realtà" compresa tra una singolarità e l'altra. Questo discorso potrebbe
continuare a lungo, cosa che non faccio rinviando, almeno, alle pagine
211-231 di Rizzo F., "Etica dei valori economici o economia dei valori
etici" (FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2004).
Il meccanismo che trasforma un mondo ideale, dove tutto si muove alla
velocità della luce, nel nostro mondo reale è proprio quello di Higgs
basato sulla "rottura spontanea della simmetria" di gauge. Quindi partendo
dal mondo a massa nulla, si può rompere spontaneamente la simmetria di
gauge, originando la massa delle particelle, che interagiscono con la
particella di Higgs. Tutto ciò è possibile se la particella di Higgs
interagisce con se stessa o, come dicono i fisici, se il campo di Higgs è
auto-interagente. Questo effetto è un ingrediente cruciale della particella
di Higgs che genera le masse di tutte le particelle e auto-genera anche la
sua massa (cfr. Rizzo F., "Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e
l'intelligenza della scienza. Un salto nel cielo", Aracne editrice, Roma,
2014, pp. 598-604).
Quando il mondo fu creato o si formò la materia e l'anti-materia erano
presenti in proporzioni uguali o simmetriche, poi si verificò un ancora
sconosciuto fenomeno che ruppe questa simmetria e l'antimateria scomparve o
si ridusse o fu neutralizzata oppure non so cosa sia accaduto e non lo sa
nessuno. Ma una cosa è certa che lo scioglimento o la frattura di quella
simmetria consente la nostra vita, che altrimenti non ci sarebbe.
Noi viviamo in un mondo frattale imprevedibile, irregolare, discontinuo,
asimmetrico, caratterizzato dalle leggi esponenziali o di potenza, come
afferma anche la. Nuova economia (cfr. Rizzo F., "Nuova economia", Aracne
editrice, Roma, 2013).
In conclusione, sapendo che sono stato molto schematico e frammentario, il
pensare economico, più che il pensiero economico, fa diventare la
fenomenologia più brillante, pregnante e cognitiva. La libertà economica,
infatti, è condizione della libertà di pensiero ed illumina la vita.
Grazie e auguri, questo è un bel dibattito che non avrà mai nè vinti nè
vincitori.
Francesco

2016-05-14 9:49 GMT+02:00 Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> My contribution will finalize the discussion on phenomenology in the
> domains of biology, mathematics, cyber/biosemiotics and physics by the
> previous speakers (Maxine, Lou, Sœren and Alex) with a “challenging topic”
> in *3φ integrative medicine*. *You may wish to skip the small font text
> notes following each underscored phrase like the one below.*
>
>
>
> *Note 1:* Although this term is often used as synonym for holistic
> healing (s. ref. list A), its meaning in this context with the prefix 3φ
> goes much “deeper” into the disciplines’ integration leaving no room for
> speculations by mainstream scientists. The concept is a linguistic choice
> of mine for the intended merge of the complexity sciences *ph*ysics and
> *ph*ysiology with *ph*enomenology for application in modern medicine
> along the line of integral biomathics (s. ref. list B).
>
>
>
> It is rooted in the last presentation of Alex Hankey, since it naturally
> provides the link from physics to physiology and medicine, and thus to an
> anthropocentric domain implying a leading part of phenomenological studies.
> To begin, I compiled a précis of Alex’ thesis about self-organized
> criticality (s. ref. list C) from his paper “A New Approach to Biology and
> Medicine” -- the download link to it was distributed in a previous email of
> him -- and extended it with my reflections including some questions I hope
> you will resonate on.
>
>
> I am curious of your opinion about how to apply the scientific method, and
> in particular mathematics and information science, to study illness and
> recovery as complex phenomena.
>
>
>
> *Alex Hankey: self-organized criticality and regulation in li

[Fis] _ Re: _ RE: _ Re: _ Re: _ Re: _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro John e Cari Tutti,
se tenessimo conto - come spesso ho ripetuto - che la semiotica o la
semiologia è basata sulla triade semantica, sintassi e pragmatica e
finalizzassimo tutte le scienze dell'uomo e/o della natura a questa terna
capiremmo che spesso tutto ciò che dichiariamo nuovo è un ritorno
all'antico paradigma dopo averlo distrutto, frantumato e specializzato.
Forse da questa "corruzione" epistemologico-scientifica si salva la mia
"Nuova economia" che è in-centrata sulle tre neg-entropie o sui tre surplus
termodinamici, eco-biologici e semiotico-ermeneutico e quindi al servizio
di tutte le scienze. Infatti la mia non è una scienza dell'economia, ma
un'economia della scienza.
Grazie. Chiudo per non essere lungo e noioso. Beninteso, con la
consapevolezza che sembrerò apodittico o schematico, ma con la
disponibilità a rispondere ad eventuali domande in proposito..
Francesco

2016-05-18 19:15 GMT+02:00 John Collier :

> Actually, I think the influence went the other way, from the prior medical
> use to Locke’s usage in philosophy (which I should note went far further
> than language – as he makes clear in Book 4, the whole Essay Concerning
> Human Understanding leads up to the semiotics described in the final book).
> For example, physical observations would be diagnostic of underlying laws.
> Locke and Newton were good friends and influenced each other quite a bit,
> so I think it is fair to say that Locke’s version of semiotics was very
> reductionist, and that he probably took this from his understanding of
> medicine, at least as one influence.
>
>
>
> Stan’s suggestion that semiotics might be useful in understanding medicine
> I would assume is based in Peirce’s non-reductionist approach to semiotics,
> which differs considerably from Locke’s (which in modern usage is closer to
> the Sausserian school that I believe infects Eco’s thought as well).
>
>
>
> I did study some history of medicine in graduate school, but I am afraid I
> have forgotten most of it over the past 35 years. There was a reversal at
> times between the supposed causes of disease, with the more Newtonian
> version of a specific cause winning out, pretty much, over Galen’s ideas
> that disease was caused by the body’s response to the conditions (humorism
> – balance or otherwise of the humours, was a major part of this view – it
> never fully died out – the shifts in medial paradigms I discussed in my
> dissertation on comparing across paradigms were never complete, and there
> was a lot of overlap, compatible with Kuhn’s view that communication was
> partial).
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov [mailto:plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 May 2016 6:27 PM
> *To:* John Collier 
> *Cc:* Stanley N Salthe ; fis  >
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Re: _ Re: _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
>
>
>
> This is a very interesting note for me, John!
>
> So, the modern symptomatic medicine, the collection of data about illness
> characteristics has its roots in philosophy?
>
> Best,
>
> Plamen
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:16 PM, John Collier  wrote:
>
> Ironically, “semiotic” originally was a medical term referring to signs
> (symptoms) of disease. John Locke (my favourite modern philosopher)
> introduced the term as we use it today, and may have derived it from the
> Greek *seme*.  But he also knew a lot about medicine (and just about
> everything else at the time, but he apparently lacked a sense of humour).
>
>
>
> From an online dictionary (the other I found had the first known use in
> 1880. Which is clearly wrong. So beware!):
>
> 1615-20; (def 3) < Greek *sēmeiōtikós *significant, equivalent to
> *sēmeiō-,*verbid stem of *sēmeioûn *
> to interpret as a sign (derivative of Greek *sēmeîon*sign) + *-tikos *-tic
> ; (def 4) < Greek *sēmeiōtik**ḗ*
> *, *noun use of feminine of*sēmeiōtikós, *
> adapted by John Locke (on the model of Greek *logik**ḗ* logic
> ,etc.; see -ic
> 
>  ) to mean “the doctrine of signs”; (defs 1, 2) based on Locke'scoinage or a 
> reanalysis of the Gk word
>
>
>
> Also, from a medical dictionary:
>
> semiotic
>
>  /se·mi·ot·ic/ (se″me-ot´ik)
>
> *1. **pertaining* to signs or symptoms.
>
> *2. **pathognomonic*
> .
>
> Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an
> imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
> For which, if like me, you may further need:
>
> pathognomonic
>
>  [path″og-no-mon´ik]
>
> specifically *distinctive*
>  or characteristic of a disease or pathologic condition; denoting a sign or 
> symptom on which adiagnosis can be made.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Collier
>

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Cancer Cure? (Plamen S.)

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Plamen e cari Tutti,
circa dieci giorni fa ho composto e inviato un messaggio in-centrato sul
rapporto antagonista tra riduzionismo (specialismo) e armonia (olismo), ma
non ha riscosso tanto successo, e non solo perché scrivo in lingua
italiana. Non ripeto quel che ho già comunicato, ma mi limito a confessare
che andando avanti negli anni la specializzazione professionale o
settorializzazione del sapere mi attrae e convince sempre di meno. Da
economista, invece, divento sempre più consapevole dell'armonia
(dell'equilibrio e del dis-equilibrio) che domina il mondo.Tutto ciò è
provato anche dall'ultimo mio libro che è uscito il 1 aprile scorso: "Una
scienza non può non essere umana, civile, sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,enigmatica,
nobile, profetica"(Aracne editrice, Roma, 2016).
Allora in questa circostanza desidero spendere qualche parola sulla terna:
asimmetria/simmetria, auto-similarità o geometria frattale, legge di
potenza o sviluppo esponenziale che vale sia per le cellule sane sia per le
cellule malate. Tuttavia, questa terna vale di più per le cellule malate di
cancro, il cui sviluppo è molto più intenso ed esponenziale di quello che
caratterizza le cellule sane. Interessante sarebbe in questa prospettiva
indagare in modo specifico le cellule staminali, più o meno potenti o
pluri-potenti, ma non sono un esperto di queste cose. Dico solo che le
cellule staminali sono una forma di moneta biologica.
Ragionando per schemi  simmetria e asimmetria si alternano e/o convivono
contemporaneamente e continuamente. La simmetria si ad-dice ai momenti di
conservazione e stabilità, l'asimmetria invece caratterizza i momenti di
rottura o discontinuità che si verificano tra uno stato di simmetria e/o di
equilibrio e l'altro. Tutta l'attività economica, essendo dinamica,non è
altro che il passare irreversibile da uno stato di dis-equilibrio
all'altro. La natura della fisica di tutto ciò che è stato creato o si è
formato ci fa capire o sapere che se immediatamente dopo il Big Bang non si
fosse rotta la simmetria tra materia e antimateria, creandosi un'asimmetria
vitale (solo materia perché l'anti-materia pareche sia sparita), noi e il
resto non saremmo a questo mondo. Anzi, non ci sarebbe nemmeno il mondo
stesso. La stessa particella di Dio o il Bosone di Higgs senza la rottura
della simmetria di gauge non avrebbe interagito con se stessa formandosi la
massa nè con le altre particelle altrettanto bisognose di massa. Il
discorso potrebbe continuare con i buchi neri, ma mi fermo qui per questo
punto.
L'auto-similarità contrassegna la geometria frattale e la rende irregolare,
discontinua, disordinata e imprevedibile.
La legge di potenza o esponenziale vale per i sistemi complessi, non
lineari e lontani dall'equilibrio.
Ho il sospetto che oggi le parole di un economista non valgano molto. Ma
bisogna stare attenti a non confondere la teoria economica, con l'attività
o la pratica economica e, comunque, non è nè teoria o pratica economica la
professione dei ladri, dei briganti e dei pirati , ad es. della finanza.La
chiamano economia, ma è solo ruberia o ladrocinio. Beninteso, la finanza
speculativa.
In ogni caso, ormai, posso ben dire di avere scoperto una nuova scienza o
conoscenza economica, come i miei testi dimostrano, proprio aprendomi alla
conoscenza delle scienze dell'uomo e della natura.
Non sono un presuntuoso e so quel che affermo.
Vi saluto con un grazie e un abbraccio affettuoso a Tutti.
Francesco.

2016-06-02 18:00 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear Plamen, Bob, and FIS Colleagues,
>
> I respond to ideas previously expressed on the connection of living cells
> with physics. SOC may be one of the ways, but there are other instances, eg
> "constructal law", catastrophe theory, tensegrity (at least, all of these
> are well related to development), and many others... My own bet regarding
> the centrality and potential extension of the construct is "molecular
> recognition". Elevating beyond heterogeneity, its conflation with symmetry
> makes sense on the polymerization and supramolecular strategies of life.
>
> Molecular recognition appears as the key element from which the whole
> biochemical and evolutionary universe is constructed. Like any other
> chemical reaction, recognition between molecules is based on the “making
> and breaking of bonds”. This ––and only this–– is what makes possible the
> mutual recognition and the formation of complexes between biomolecular
> partners. The big problem with biomolecular recognition instances is that
> they involve an amazing variety and combinatorics of almost any type of
> chemical interaction: hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic / hydrophilic forces,
> dipole forces, van der Waals forces, ionic Coulombian forces, etc. Dozens
> or even hundreds of weak bonds participate, for instance, in the formation
> of a protein-protein specific complex. Quite probably, measuring molecular
> recognition and establishing its crucial parameters and variables can only
> be realized biologically 

Re: [Fis] Fw: "Mechanical Information" in DNA

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Stan e cari Tutti,
la subsumption hierarchy è il basamento epistemologico e logico della mia
"Nuova economia" da 35
 35 anni: Questa è una bella sincronicità tra l'inter-azione o causalità
reciproca o com-penetrazione
metodologica  di Stan e la mia orto-prassi.
Grazie per la conferma e il conforto che (ne) ricevo.
Francesco

2016-06-10 13:46 GMT+02:00 Karl Javorszky :

> Dear FIS,
>
> now there is a voice discussing the concepts and methods of counting. This
> is highly encouraging.
>
> Taking together with the overall theme of "Mechanical Information in DNA"
> of the discussion, it seems that - at least some of - members of FIS begin
> to address the quastions of HOW the transfer of information from a sequence
> (the DNA) into an organism (a non-sequenced, commutative multitude) can
> take place/does take place.
>
> Some of FIS, who are longer than a few months with this chat group, will
> have noticed, that I insist that there exists a very nice and neat
> algorithm to connect unidimensional descriptions (like the DNA) with
> pluridimensional assemblies (like the organism).
>
> I have made an explanation which includes drawings with red and blue
> arrows and makes it impossible not to understand how the transfer of
> genetic information takles place.
>
> The treatise has 55 pages and is easy to understand. You can have it thru
> the publisher (Morawa, Wien), but it has come out just this week, so I
> dispose presently only of the proof copies. These I can send to interested
> persons.
>
> Please contact me for details. If you are interested in Information
> Theory, this is the work that simplifies the question(s) into
> interpretations of a+b=c.
>
> The first 100 buyers of the work will get a personally hand-signed copy.
> There is a money-back guarantee: if the treatise you buy is not a
> state-of-art exercise in the philosophy of the logical language, opening up
> algorithms that connect descriptions of linear sequences with descriptions
> of pluridimensional assemblies, with easy examples and easy-to-follow
> deictic definitioons, you will be refunded on sending back the copy.
>
> Let me express once again the hope that there are some among the
> subscribers to the FIS list, who are interested in how information
> processing in biology takes actually place.
>
> Karl
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-06-09 16:31 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson :
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Is this a question about counting? I'm thinking that Ashby noted that
>> Shannon information is basically counting. What do we do when we count
>> something?
>>
>> Analogy is fundamental - how things are seen to be the same may be more
>> important than how they are seen to be different.
>>
>> It seems that this example of DNA is a case where knowledge advances
>> because what was once thought to be the same (for example, perceived
>> empirical regularities in genetic analysis) is later identified to be
>> different in identifiable ways.
>>
>> Science has tended to assume that by observing regularities, causes can
>> be discursively constructed. But maybe another way of looking at it is to
>> say what is discursively constructed are the countable analogies between
>> events. Determining analogies constrains perception of what is countable,
>> and by extension what we can say about nature; new knowledge changes that
>> perception.
>>
>> Information theory (Shannon) demands that analogies are made explicit -
>> the indices have to be agreed. What do we count? Why x? Why not y?
>> otherwise the measurements make no sense. I think this is an insight that
>> Ashby had and why he championed Information Theory as analogous to his Law
>> of Requisite Variety (incidentally, Keynes's Treatise on Probability
>> contains a similar idea about analogy and knowledge). Is there any reason
>> why the "relations of production" in a mechanism shouldn't be counted?
>> determining the analogies is the key thing isn't it?
>>
>> One further point is that determining analogies in theory is different
>> from measuring them in practice. Ashby's concept of cybernetics-as-method
>> was: "the cyberneticist observes what might have happened but did not".
>> There is a point where idealised analogies cannot map onto experience. Then
>> we learn something new.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Mark
>> --
>> From: Loet Leydesdorff 
>> Sent: ‎09/‎06/‎2016 12:52
>> To: 'John Collier' ; 'Joseph Brenner'
>> ; 'fis' 
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw:  "Mechanical Information" in DNA
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that a definition of information should be compatible with
>> the possibility to measure information in bits of information. Bits of
>> information are dimensionless and “yet meaningless.” The meaning can be
>> provided by the substantive system that is thus measured. For example,
>> semantics can be measured using a semantic map; changes in the map can be
>> measured as changes in the distributions, for example, of words. One can,
>> for example, study whe

Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 28, Issue 22

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Loet e colleghi,
le leggi naturali o fisiche sono leggi economiche. Questo affermano anche
Konrad Lorenz e Ernst Mach. Non v'ha niente di meglio - per essere coerenti
con tale concezione che il mio l'approccio epistemologico o la teoria del
valore della "Nuova economia" - che  non sia direttamente o indirettamente
legato al triangolo delle tre neg-entropie o dei tre surplus. Triangolo che
analizza e usa ogni forma di conoscenza, avente sempre fondamenti
biologici, basata sull'informazione termodinamica (gradiente termico),
genetica, semantica e sintattico-matematica. Tutti i processi
dell'esistenza e della conoscenza, nessuno escluso, sono sempre processi di
tras-informazione o ad-attamento o ex-attamento i cui "input" sono materia,
energia e informazione ed i cui "output" sono ancora materia, energia e
informazione in stato diverso. Ciò premesso - a mio modesto, ma consapevole
e convinto parere - le distinzioni di cui spesso sono oggetto la biologia,
l'economia, la semiotica, la matematica, etc., sono operazioni
contro-natura che rischiano di diventare contro-cultura, cioè prive di
effettiva ed empirica corrispondenza con la realtà.
Più tempo passa, più sono portato a sostenere questa visione
teorico-pratica, senza mancare di rispetto a nessuno. Non mi manca
l'umiltà, ma sono maggiormente provvisto di onestà intellettuale unita alla
vocazione principale della libertà di espressione. Tuttavia, non manco di
apprendere e di accogliere le critiche volte a rilevare miei eventuali
difetti cognitivi, al fine di correggerli.
Un saluto affettuoso e grato.
Francesco

016-07-21 9:20 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> Dear Marcus and colleagues,
>
>
>
> But when it comes to drawing a hard line *within* behavioral adaptation –
> for example differences between instinctual behaviors and more cognitive
> behaviors – this (presently) is beyond my grasp. So the point you two now
> seem (to me) to circle around is effective differences between instinctual
> and cognitive behavior, between species.
>
>
>
> Entropy develops with the arrow of time, but meaning is provided from the
> perspective of hindsight, that is, against the arrow of time. Providing
> meaning can sometimes (!) reduce uncertainty. In the Shannon model, such a
> reversal of the time arrow (feedback and feedforward) is not possible.
> However, in a knowledge-based economy, the generation of redundancies (new
> options and expectations) is crucial for the competition.
>
>
>
> Obviously, this is not biological competition such as “between species”.
> The domain is not the one of biological realizations, but of cultural
> expectations that is exclusively (inter-)human. (This cultural evolution is
> constrained by the biological/physical conditions which can be considered
> as a retention mechanism.) The dynamics are shaped in terms of expectations
> (“cogitata” carried by “cogitantes”).
>
>
>
> Another way to study this is in terms of the theory and computation of
> anticipatory systems (Rosen, Dubois). The strongly anticipatory system that
> shapes its own future options is based on the exchange and codification of
> expectations at the supra-individual level. The future states can drive a
> knowledge-based development more than the historical ones.
>
>
>
> The duality between forward (historical) development and cultural
> evolution can be assessed in terms of mutual information and redundancy
> generation (Leydesdorff & Ivanova, 2014). The reduction to an a priori
> origin, in my opinion, is not a good idea. The formal a priori is contained
> in the notion of probability (which grounds also Shannon’s entropy).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
> PS. Pedro: my last posting was on Sunday evening. L.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Associate Faculty, 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] An Agenda of Control

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Michel e cari tutti,
finalmente si comincia a capire che la legge fondamentale della vita,
esistenza e conoscenza, è INFORMAZIONE, inclusa la neg-entropia, non
l'entropia. Ciò si evince dalla mia ricerca scientifica da circa
quarant'anni: anche dai miei libri e contributi alla rete Fis, da quando ho
conosciuto ad Acireale (Catania) Pedro.
Un abbraccio augurale.
Francesco


2016-07-28 10:30 GMT+02:00 Michel Godron :

> my replies are in red
> Bien reçu votre message. MERCI. Cordialement. M. Godron
> Le 27/07/2016 à 13:23, Pedro C. Marijuan a écrit :
>
> Dear Joseph,
>
> I finally went through that video, in part stimulated by your critical
> comments. My impression, particularly at the beginning of the talk, was
> positive: that the fundamental physical reality might partake of a similar
> organization to life is quite congruent with the "informational" point of
> view.
>
> I quite agree, and the first  chapter of  *Ec**ologie et Evolution du
> monde vivant *explains why "Life is a transmission of information"
> including thermodynamical entropy.
>
> I was strongly reminded of Michael Conrad's: "When we look at a biological
> system we are looking at the face of the underlying physics of the
> universe." This was in Madrid 1994, at the foundational conference of FIS.
> Well, perhaps some aspects of the last part of that talk were not so well
> focused in my view, but at least always appeared open to argumentation if I
> properly interpret the style and the context. Does a not so well-solved
> part destroy a whole direction of thought? I think we must be open to the
> give and take, and contribute to salvage the best parts of interesting
> speculations (if that's the case here), even for our own intellectual
> interest. Couldn't our own common fis enterprise be toughly criticized in
> similar grounds? Just to conclude, I am reminded of one of the most famous
> short essays by philosopher Ortega y Gasset, it was about the "frame", just
> the frame of any painting ("Meditación del Marco" was the title in
> Spanish). Sholarship is able to create exciting reflections/discussions...
> on anything.
> So, addressed to all FIS colleagues, why we don't accept this new
> discussion challenge?
>
> I should be glad to participate !
> Could you tell me if another french scientist partipates to FIS ?
> M. Godron
>
>
> Friendly regards
> --Pedro
>
>El 13/07/2016 a las 19:15, Joseph Brenner escribió:
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
>
>
> Most of us would agree that standard Western science does not give a
> complete answer to questions about life and mind. As we try to seek better
> foundations in general and for information science in particular, we may be
> able to benefit from knowledge resources which have not been fully
> exploited, those of the 'Past' and those of the ‘East’. I myself have
> written a paper suggesting that a metalogical rejunction is possible in
> which logic recovers its original status as inclusive of all other
> disciplines. As Brian Josephson writes in the Abstract of one of his
> lectures, “Eastern mystics may have relevance to scientific understanding.”
> Fritjof Capra explored such parallels in his important 1967 book *The Tao
> of Physics.*  However, many interpretations of what mysticism is are
> possible.
>
>
>
> There is a further major *caveat *to keep in mind: there are different
> ways of understanding “what is missing” in science (see Terence Deacon’s
> discussion of information) and what kind of additions could be made. On the
> one hand, we may legitimately associate quantum fluctuations with Indian
> (not Eastern) ideas of things continuously moving in and out of existence.
> On the other, as we have discussed in connection with Conrad’s ‘fluctuons’
> at least once in the FIS Group, it may NOT be correct to say that such
> fluctuations are or can carry meaningful information.
>
>
>
> Recent postings to the FIS list have been made by people associated with a
> project embedded in a major university (Cambridge, UK), the “Matter-Mind
> Unification Project”, now the “Theory of Condensed Matter Group” which
> Josephson has directed. This effort has sought and still seeks to
> incorporate doubtful, self-confirming forms of Western thought and
> activity. Personally, I do not wish to be associated with the Circular
> Theory of Ilexa Yardley, in which “the core dynamic is the conservation of
> a circle”, which is a misunderstanding of dynamics. I do not wish to accept
> nature as controlled by some “Master Algorithm”, any more than I
> do Peircean Thirdness. I do not wish to be associated with paranormal
> phenomena, cold fusion and observer created reality, all of which are part
> of Josephson’s project.
>
>
>
> A characteristic of this thought is its dogmatism of completeness, a
> theory of everything, in which things are linked by a “subtler dimension
> which we have identified with the Platonic realm” (Yardley). One might
> argue that the Tao is also a theory of everything that also sees thin

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Loet, Mark e Tutti,
Mark ha fatto un buon lavoro di digitalizzazione della
tecno-social-conoscenza. Loet, come al solito, lo ha penetrato ponendo
delle questioni-domande epistemologiche e paradigmatiche centrali e
strategiche. In questo  contesto situo la mia "Nuova economia" costruita
sul dominio della terna significazione, informazione e comunicazione. A mio
giudizio, questa è la strada che bisogna seguire.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco

2016-09-27 9:27 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> Dear Mark, Moises, and colleagues,
>
> I agree that this is a very beautiful piece of work. The video is
> impressive.
>
> My comment would focus on what it is that constructs reality "by language"
> (p. 2). I agree with the remark about the risk of a linguistic fallacy; but
> how is the domain of counterfactual expectations constructed? The answer in
> the paper tends towards a sociological explanation: "status" for which one
> competes in a new political economy. However, it seems to me that the
> selection mechanism has to be specified. Can this be external to the
> communication? How is the paradigmatic/epistemic closure and quality
> control brought about by the communication? How is a symbolic layer shaped
> and coded?
>
> One cannot reverse the reasoning: the editorial boards follow standards
> that they perceive as relevant and can reproduce. The standards are not a
> convention of the board since one would not easily agree. Reversing the
> reasoning would bring us back to interests and thus to a kind of
> neo-marxism a la the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). In
> actor-network theory (ANT) the emergence of standards happens
> historically/evolutionarily, but is not explained.
>
> I don't have answers on my side. But perhaps, the strength of anticipation
> and the role of models needs to be explored. Models can be entertained and
> enable us to reconstruct a knowledge-based reality.
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Associate Faculty, 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
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Moisés André
> Nisenbaum
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:45 AM
> To: Mark Johnson
> Cc: fis
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing
>
> Dear Mark.
>
> Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to
> discuss this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students (can
> you send me the transcription?).
> No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against abusive
> processes, like publication industry.
>
> In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the
> digital age?” I understand that we must think outside the box. I think it
> would be great if some group invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific
> production. Something that connect directly authors and readers at feasible
> rates.  arXiv does this connection in some way, but it is not universal.
> E-science is also a good initiative.
>
> Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
> (sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International Day
> for Universal Access to Information (http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016).
>
> But the fact is: we are human and the worry about "reputation" is the real
> reason of today's organization of scientific communication (about this,
> this book chapter is very good: VAN RAAN, Anthony FJ. The interdisciplinary
> nature of science: theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical
> approach. Practising interdisciplinarity, p.
> 66-78, 2000.)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Moisés
>
>
>
> 2016-09-26 4:55 GMT-03:00 Mark Johnson :
> >
> > Dear FIS Colleagues,
> >
> > To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared
> > a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U
> >
> > (if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is
> > called 'Videoscribe')
> >
> > I have also produced a paper which is attached.
> >
> > I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Mark
> > --
> > Dr. Mark William Johnson
> > Institute of Learning and Teaching
> > Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
> > University of Liverpool
> >
> > Phone: 07786 064505
> > Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
> > Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
> >
> > ___
> > Fis mailing list
> > Fis@listas.unizar.es
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Moisés André Nisenbaum
> Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
> Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ Campus Rio

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Scientific communication (---from Mark)

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Mark e cari tutti,
la patologia finanziaria è determinata dall'ignoranza e dalla disonestà.
L'una e l'altra vanno condannate, non tanto per ragioni morali, quanto per
incapacità e corruzione. Si: corruzione o falsificazione della scienza
economica qual è quella che ha portato alla formulazione di algoritmi
falsi, pseudo teorici e non corrispondenti alla effettiva realtà dei
mercati.
Questo non ha niente a che vedere con la fiducia o la sfiducia nei
confronti degli economisti. Tranne che non si abbia a che fare con correnti
o tendenze economiche che scambiano l'apparenza con la realtà e la luce con
le ombre. E viceversa.
Nessuno nega che le scienze non sono tutte uguali. Tuttavia, servono tutte,
se sono vere o fino a quando non vengono falsificate.
Nella confusione (di parole e di concetti) che spesso si crea tra
significazione, informazione e comunicazione bisogna non perdere di vista
un fondamento: informazione sta a neg-entropia come dis-informazione sta ad
entropia.
Tutto ciò a prescindere dalla teoria dell'informazione alla fonte o
matematica che definisce l'informazione di un messaggio con una formula che
ricorda quella dell'entropia non avente alcun significato semantico, se non
dopo avere introdotto un s-codice. In conclusione:i entropia è degradazione
o deformazione (mortale), neg-entropia è informazione od ordine (vitale).
Anche nella scienza dell'economia.
Un abbraccio augurale.
Francesco

2016-10-14 14:38 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

>  Mensaje reenviado 
> Asunto: Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:04:06 +0100
> De: Mark Johnson  
> Para: fis  , Pedro C.
> Marijuan  
>
> Dear Karl, Loet and Bruno,
>
> On reflection, I had been thinking this discussion about scientific
> communication had been a bit 'quiet'... now it is less quiet: there's
> nothing like throwing 'god' into the equation to liven up discussions!
> Why?
>
> More seriously (and sorry, this is a long post) there are three
> fundamental distinctions and an example which I want to draw in the
> light of your comments. They are:
> 1. The distinction between IS and OUGHT in arguments about scientific
> communication
> 2. The distinction between an EXPLANATION and a DESCRIPTION
> 3. Issues about ONTOLOGY and INFORMATION
> 4. A musical example
>
> 1. IS - OUGHT
> There are critical worries in Bruno's comments about making "theology,
> the science, vulnerable, as reason is no more allowed in, and that
> leaves the place for emotion and wishful thinking, which are quickly
> exploited by manipulators, usually to steal our money, or control us
> in some ways". Clearly, we ought not allow this to happen. In my
> second video, I used the example of the swindler whose speech acts are
> chosen in full knowledge of the constraints of the victim. Of course
> there are unscrupulous religious people who do this; but there are
> equally (and possibly more so) unscrupulous scientists (particularly,
> I'm afraid, psychologists and economists (if they are to be considered
> scientists - as they would like)). I like Bruno's theology of the
> machine - it looks very similar to Ashby's concept of variety (the set
> of propositions true about the machine = the set of possible states
> the machine can exist in)... which brings us back to information,
> Shannon, etc.
>
> I agree with Karl in his suggestion "to focus on the dichotomy
> creating the foreground, lifting it off from the background. Patterns
> connect the two: it is reasonable, in my view, to work on the subject
> of patterns.". But it is easy to say that we "ought" to do this. I'd
> prefer to see the pathologies that we see in education and publishing
> are a direct consequence of our not doing this, and to describe the
> ontological mechanisms. It is the business of arguing how our
> scientific communication should be conducted in the light of what we
> know about our science.
>
> Hume's famous passage in dealing with the dichotomy of "is" and
> "ought" is worth reflecting on:
>
> "In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
> always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the
> ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or
> makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am
> surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of
> propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not
> connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is
> imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this
> ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis
> necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same
> time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether
> inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others,
> which are entirely different from it."
>
> His complaint is about slippage from "is" to "ought" (he does not deny
> the possibility of deriving an ought f

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Mark e cari tutti,
da "Il giudizio di valore" (1972) affermo che la scienza economica
"normale" doveva essere buttata alle ortiche o nell'immondezzaio, perchè
 "La scienza non può non essere  umana, civile, sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,
enigmatica, nobile, profetica" (2016). Quindi non mi viene facile leggere
taluni rilievi critici che non possono condividere perché non è giusto fare
di tutte le erbe un fascio.
Ho rispetto del pensiero degli altri, ma ritengo sempre opportuno mettere i
puntini sulle i.
Francesco

2016-10-21 14:33 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear Mark and FIS colleagues,
>
> It was a pity that our previous replies just crossed in time, otherwise I
> would have continued along your thinking lines. However, your alternative
> focus on who has access to the "Brownian chamber motion" is pretty exciting
> too.
>
> Following our FIS colleague Howard Bloom ("The Global Brain", 2000),
> universities and the like are a social haven for a new type of personality
> that does not match very well within the social order of things. It is the
> "Faustian type" of mental explorers, dreamers, creators of thought, etc.
> Historically they have been extremely important but the way they are
> treated (even in those "havens" themselves!), well, usually is rather
> frustrating except for a few fortunate parties. A long list of arch-famous
> scientific figures ended very badly indeed.
>
> So, in this view, people "called to the box" are the Faustians of the
> locality... But of course, other essential factors impinge on the box
> composition and inner directions, often very rudely. SCIENTIA POTESTAS EST:
> it means that as the box's outcomes are so much influential in the
> technology, religion, culture, richness, prosperity, and military power,
> etc., a mixing of socio-political interests will impress a tough handling
> in the external guidance and inner contents of the poor box.
>
> And finally, the education --as you have implied-- that very often is
> deeply imbued with classist structures and class selection. The vitality of
> the Brownian box would most frequently hang from these educational
> structures --purses-- for both financing and arrival of new people. And
> that implies further administrative strings and been involved in frequent
> bureaucratic internecine conflicts. The book of Gregory Clark (2014, The
> Son also Raises) is an excellent reading on class "iron statistics"
> everywhere, particularly in education.
>
> E puor si muove! All those burdens have a balance of positive supporting
> and negative discouraging influences, different in each era. Perhaps far
> better in our times, but who knows... The good thing relating our
> discussion is that, from immemorial times, all those Brownian boxes around
> are wonderfully agitated and refreshed by the external communication flows
> of scientific publications via the multiple channels (explosive ones today,
> almost toxic for the Faustian).
>
> Maintaining a healthy, open-minded scientific system... easy said than
> done.
>
> Best regards
> --Pedro
>
>
>
>
>
> El 16/10/2016 a las 16:07, Mark Johnson escribió:
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
> Thank you for bringing this back down to earth again. I would like to
> challenge something in your first comment - partly because contained
> within it are issues which connect the science of information with the
> politics of publishing and elite education.
>
> Your 'bet' that "that oral exchange continues to be the central
> vehicle. It is the "Brownian Motion" that keeps running and infuses
> vitality to the entire edifice of science." is of course right.
> However, there is a political/critical issue as to who has ACCESS to
> the chamber with the Brownian motion.
>
> It is common for elite private schools in the UK (and I'm sure
> elsewhere) to say "exams aren't important to us. What matters are the
> things around the edges of formal education... character-building
> activities, contact with the elite, etc". What they mean is that they
> don't worry about exams because their processes of pre-selection and
> 'hot-housing' mean that all their students will do well in exams
> anyway. But nobody would argue that exams are not important for
> personal advancement in today's society, would they?
>
> Similarly, elite universities may say "published papers are not that
> important - what happens face-to-face is what matters!". Those
> universities do not have to worry so much about publishing in
> high-quality journals because (often) the editors of those journals
> are employed by those universities. But when, at least in the last 10
> years or so, did anybody get an academic job in a university with no
> publications?
>
> I draw attention to this not because it seems like a stitch-up
> (although it is). It is because it skews what you call the "Brownian
> motion". At worst we end up with the kind of prejudice that was
> expressed by Professor Tim Hunt last year
> (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scien

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Francesco Rizzo]

probability.
>
> Apologies for the rather crackly sound in parts of the video, but I
> hope at least some of it makes sense (and I hope I didn't make too
> many mistakes playing the Bach fugue!)
>
> The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeuRlVrTUGU -
> "Scientific Communication: From Keynes's Probability theory to a Bach
> Fugue"
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
> On 22 October 2016 at 13:18, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero
>  wrote:
> > Dear Mark,
> >
> > I think this might be of interest for the discussion
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/22/nonsense-
> paper-written-by-ios-autocomplete-accepted-for-conference
> >
> > It's a extreme case of economic interest debunking scientific
> communication.
> > I think it shows a problem of coding between science and economics. Codes
> > disambiguate information processing allowing differentiation. Frauds like
> > these fall in between both codes: they are making money out of science
> > without making science.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Javier
> >
> > El oct 21, 2016 9:06 a.m., "Francesco Rizzo" <
> 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> > escribió:
> >>
> >> Caro Mark e cari tutti,
> >> da "Il giudizio di valore" (1972) affermo che la scienza economica
> >> "normale" doveva essere buttata alle ortiche o nell'immondezzaio, perchè
> >> "La scienza non può non essere  umana, civile, sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,
> >> enigmatica, nobile, profetica" (2016). Quindi non mi viene facile
> leggere
> >> taluni rilievi critici che non possono condividere perché non è giusto
> fare
> >> di tutte le erbe un fascio.
> >> Ho rispetto del pensiero degli altri, ma ritengo sempre opportuno
> mettere
> >> i puntini sulle i.
> >> Francesco
> >>
> >> 2016-10-21 14:33 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan  >:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Mark and FIS colleagues,
> >>>
> >>> It was a pity that our previous replies just crossed in time,
> otherwise I
> >>> would have continued along your thinking lines. However, your
> alternative
> >>> focus on who has access to the "Brownian chamber motion" is pretty
> exciting
> >>> too.
> >>>
> >>> Following our FIS colleague Howard Bloom ("The Global Brain", 2000),
> >>> universities and the like are a social haven for a new type of
> personality
> >>> that does not match very well within the social order of things. It is
> the
> >>> "Faustian type" of mental explorers, dreamers, creators of thought,
> etc.
> >>> Historically they have been extremely important but the way they are
> treated
> >>> (even in those "havens" themselves!), well, usually is rather
> frustrating
> >>> except for a few fortunate parties. A long list of arch-famous
> scientific
> >>> figures ended very badly indeed.
> >>>
> >>> So, in this view, people "called to the box" are the Faustians of the
> >>> locality... But of course, other essential factors impinge on the box
> >>> composition and inner directions, often very rudely. SCIENTIA POTESTAS
> EST:
> >>> it means that as the box's outcomes are so much influential in the
> >>> technology, religion, culture, richness, prosperity, and military
> power,
> >>> etc., a mixing of socio-political interests will impress a tough
> handling in
> >>> the external guidance and inner contents of the poor box.
> >>>
> >>> And finally, the education --as you have implied-- that very often is
> >>> deeply imbued with classist structures and class selection. The
> vitality of
> >>> the Brownian box would most frequently hang from these educational
> >>> structures --purses-- for both financing and arrival of new people.
> And that
> >>> implies further administrative strings and been involved in frequent
> >>> bureaucratic internecine conflicts. The book of Gregory Clark (2014,
> The Son
> >>> also Raises) is an excellent reading on class "iron statistics"
> everywhere,
> >>> particularly in education.
> >>>
> >>> E puor si muove! All those burdens have a balance of positive
> supporting
> >>> and negative discouraging influences, different in each era. Perhaps
> far
> >>> better in our times, but who knows... The good thing relating our
> discussi

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Mark e cari tutti,
non è facile esporre in poche parole una concezione economica diversa da
quella ritenuta "normale". Non v'è altro modo di comprendere una "Nuova
economia" che di leggere i vari saggi che raccontano la sua storia, analisi
e critica.
Qui posso dire che la mia teoria del valore è basata sulla legge
dell'INFORMAZIONE come processo che tende a dare o (far)perdere forma a
qualunque idea o cosa. Sicché acquista rilevanza la FORMA DEL VALORE o
VALORE DELLA FORMA di tutto ciò che viene creato o prodotto. Negli anni
passati nella rete Fis  abbiamo discusso sul PROCESSO DI TRAS-INFORMAZIONE
di cui v'ha traccia su Internet.
I fatti o fenomeni economici, compresi i prezzi, non possono essere
espressi mediante la DISTRIBUZIONE GAUSSIANA O MATEMATICI-FREQUENTISTA,
bensì con la GEOMETRIA O LOGICA FRATTALE (Rizzo F.,"Il giudizio del
valore", 1972).
Il giudizio del valore è basato sul VALORE NORMALE DAL PUNTO DI VISTA
SOGGETTIVO, cioè implica una PROBABILIT° SOGGETTIVA O PSICOLOGICA che non è
legata ad un fatto o evento (PROBABILITA' OGGETTIVA: fatti favorevoli/fatti
possibili), ma a un giudizio o proposizione che muta al variare del SISTEMA
DI CONOSCENZE posseduto (PROBABILITA' EPISTEMICA O SOGGETTIVA di J. M.
Keynes e Bruno de Finetti).
Questo significa che il giudizio di valore è basato su un RAPPORTO DI
COMPLEMENTARITA' tra i beni e gli operatori economici di volta in volta
considerati.
Inoltre non bisogna trascurare la LOGICA O FILOSOFIA O INCERTEZZA FUZZY,
secondo cui un valore o prezzo ha la probabilità di verificarsi al 30% e la
probabilità di non verificarsi al 70%: il che non significa che si può
verificare 30 volte interamente su le 100 volte possibili e viceversa,
bensì che ogni stesso o unico elemento ha probabilità di verificarsi
parzialmente o in una certa misura, non esattamente. Quindi sono gli
elementi degli insiemi, non gli insiemi stessi ad essere FUZZY. Ad es.,
nella mia TEORIA DEL CAPITALE O DELLA CAPITALIZZAZIONE, il valore di un
bene capitale è funzione di due componenti prese in proporzioni diverse: la
capitalizzazione del flusso dei redditi attesi o capitalizzazione della
LIQUIDITA' O MONETITA' ESPLICITA e la capitalizzazione della LIQUIDITA' O
MONETITA' IMPLICITA.
Sono consapevole che le cose dette così risultano apodittiche, dogmatiche,
probabilmente incomprensibili (in senso soggettivo) in ragione delle
conoscenze di scienza economica-estimativa acquisite. Ma non v'è
alternativa, se non quella di studiare l'economia attraverso la lettura dei
libri e degli articoli: i soli articoli delle riviste non bastano. Lo
stesso dicasi per quanto riguarda l'apprendimento-assimilazione della NUOVA
ECONOMIA che ho elaborato in 50 anni di ricerca ed è contenuta in una
trentina di libri.
Se qualcuno mi ha seguito, lo ringrazio; mentre mi scuso con coloro ai
quali questa mail non appare chiara.
Un saluto augurale e affettuoso.
Francesco

2016-10-30 1:34 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson :

> Dear Michel,
>
> I'm mindful that we're breaking the rules of the forum so I will
> follow this up off-list, but I think this is worth mentioning to the
> group.
>
> The starting point is a diagram, or a sequence of diagrams - certainly
> that's most appropriate for a systems theoretical approach like
> Keen's. Can you draw some pictures to explain your understanding? With
> a series of diagrams, a voice-over is easy to add. (Occasionally I
> start with the voice, and add the pictures)
>
> I also want to say that sometimes this process is a sticking point for
> people, because the precision of diagrams is much more demanding than
> the looseness of words: often when we start to draw something, we can
> see weaknesses in our position. Then it can become a matter of 'fight
> or flight': does one resist exposing potential weaknesses in one's
> position, and retreat back into the world of the academic paper and
> words, or does one draw the diagram anyway and acknowledge its
> limitations and assumptions? I am clearly encouraging people to do the
> latter, not least because I think exposing the limitations of a
> position is the most important thing to communicate in an uncertain
> world!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> On 29 October 2016 at 17:31, Michel Godron  wrote:
> > Dear Mark,
> >
> > It would certainly be interesting to prepare a video. But how to make it
> ?
> >
> > My contribution would be marginal : I can only explain (in french and you
> > would translate, as Richard Forman did for Landscape Ecology) why the
> ideas
> > of Keen are parallel with the main ecological models on the role of
> > informatioo in biology (La vie est une transmission et une gestion de
> > l'information qui permet à chaque être vivant et à chaque communaué
> d'êtres
> > vivants - y compris l'humanité -  de survivre).
> >
> > Cordialement.
> > M. Godron
> > Le 29/10/2016 à 15:25, Mark Johnson a écrit :
> >
> > Dear Michel,
> >
> > Ok. Steve Keen has been close to Tony Lawson's work (he presented Minsky
> at
> > Lawson's confer

Re: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? Logic

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Joseph, Arturo e tutti,
sto seguendo come meglio posso e so la discussione che si sta svolgendo. Mi
sembra una grande e intrigata foresta che si affronta intellettualmente,
mentalmente ed epistemologicamente passando da un approccio riduzionistico
(fisica classica) ad un approccio olistico (sistemi bio-eco-dinamici) e
viceversa. Beninteso, io non sono nè un matematico o fisico nè un filosofo
o semio-socio-logico, quindi alcuni fati o idee della scienza della natura
e della scienza umana non li conosco. Tuttavia, adotto una visione
onto-epistemo-logica che mi consente di comprendere la realtà dell'economia
o l'economia della realtà. Cioè uso un paradigma metodo-logico concreto,
fattuale, possibile basato su una "logica in realtà" (Lir simile a quella
di Lupasco-Brenner) che mi ha consentito di ri-elaborare, ri-comprendere e
ri-significare la scienza economica proponendo una "Nuova economia" di cui
evidenzio, tra i tanti, quattro punti fondamentali:
A.
-assume la dottrina dell'ESSERE della "Scienza della logica" di G. W. F.
Hegel fondata sul pensiero nella sua immediatezza, del concetto in quanto è
in sè e la dottrina dell'ESSENZA che studia il pensiero nella sua
riflessione o mediazione, cioè il concetto in quanto è per sé e dunque
aperto;
-la dottrina dell'ESSERE tratta delle categorie della quantità, qualità e
misura: i fatti della scienza o la scienza dei fatti non sono solo quantità
o qualità, ma quantità-qualitative o qualità-quantitative frutto o oggetto
della misura;
-dottrina dell'ESSERE e  dottrina dell'ESSENZA costituiscono per Hegel un
tutt'uno che egli chiama Logica "oggettiva" perchè  riferita alla realtà
che esiste indipendentemente dal soggetto che la pensa:
B.
-ritiene che la conoscenza della conoscenza abbia ineludibili fondamenti
biologici;
C.
-il pensiero economico svolge una indispensabile funzione di mediazione nel
campo dell'emo-ra-zionalità;
D.
-l'esistenza e la conoscenza (non solo economiche) sono basate su un
continuo processo di tras-in-form-azione avente come input e come output la
materia, l'energia e l'informazione e in-centrato sulla teoria del valore
consistente nel triangolo dei tre surplus:termodinamico o naturale,
eco-biologico, semiotico-ermeneutico.
Spero di essere stato utile, sempre pronto ad accogliere correzioni,
critiche e suggerimenti per i quali vi anticipo un grazie di cuore e un
augurio natalizio.
Francesco


2016-12-08 10:56 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner :

>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Joseph Brenner 
> *To:* fis 
> *Cc:* tozziart...@libero.it
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2016 3:15 PM
> *Subject:* Fw: [Fis] Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an
> Euclidean n-space ??? Logic
>
> Dear Folks,
>
> Arturo wrote:
>
> "therefore logic, in general, cannot be anymore useful in the description
> of our world. I'm sad about that, but that's all."
>
> The answer is to change logic from one of propositions (Lesniewski-Tarski)
> or mathematics (Zermelo-Fraenkel) to one of the states of real processes
> (Lupasco; Logic in Reality). Why this is not even considered as an option
> for serious discussion is a great mystery to me.
>
> Arturo also said:
>
> "The concepts of locality and of cause/effect disappear in front of the
> puzzling phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is intractable in terms
> of logic."
>
> Here, I fully agree; Logic in Reality also does not apply to quantum
> phenomena. It is limited to description of processes involving
> thermodynamic change in which there is a mutual interaction
> between elements as individuals, including people. I do not claim it allows
> causal prediction, but logical inference.
>
> Arturo:
>
> "The same stands for nonlinear chaotic phenomena, widespread in nature,
> from pile sands, to bird flocks and  to brain function. When biforcations
> occur in logistic plots and chaotic behaviours take place, the final
> systems' ouputs are not anymore causally predictable."
>
> Here, I agree with Arturo but for a different reason. The non-linear
> phenomena mentioned are *too simple. *In crowd behavior, individual
> interactions are absent or meaningless - information_as_data. Brain
> behavior of this kind is of lower complexity and interest, involving mostly
> lower level functionalities, although they they may accompany higher
> level cognitive functions.
>
> I look forward to point by point refutation of or agreement with the above.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* tozziart...@libero.it
> *To:* fis 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:10 AM
> *Subject:* [Fis] Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an
> Euclidean n-space ???
>
>  Messaggio inoltrato  Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: Jerry
> LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com Data: martedì, 06 dicembre 2016,
> 11:17AM +01:00 Oggetto: R: Re: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an
> Euclidean n-space ???
>
> Dear Jerry,
> thanks a lot for your interesting comments.
> I like ve

Re: [Fis] A provocative issue

[Francesco Rizzo]

e set is finite then this number or any monotonic function of
> this number can be regarded as a measure of the information produced when
> one message is chosen from the set, all choices being equally likely.
>
>  A number of problems for biology emerge from this view of information.
> The first is that the number of possible messages is not finite because we
> are not able to prestate all possible preadaptations from which a
> particular message can be selected and therefore the Shannon measure breaks
> down. Another problem is that for Shannon the semantics or meaning of the
> message does not matter, whereas in biology the opposite is true. Biotic
> agents have purpose and hence meaning.
>
> The third problem is that Shannon information is defined independent of
> the medium of its instantiation. This independence of the medium is at the
> heart of a strong AI approach in which it is claimed that human
> intelligence does not require a wet computer, the brain, to operate but can
> be instantiated onto a silicon-based computer. In the biosphere, however,
> one cannot separate the information from the material in which it is
> instantiated. The DNA is not a sign for something else it is the actual
> thing in itself, which regulates other genes, generates messenger RNA,
> which in turn control the production of proteins. Information on a computer
> or a telecommunication device can slide from one computer or device to
> another and then via a printer to paper and not really change, McLuhan’s
> “the medium is the message” aside. This is not true of living things. The
> same genotype does not always produce the same phenotype.
>
> According to the Shannon definition of information, a structured set of
> numbers like the set of even numbers has less information than a set of
> random numbers because one can predict the sequence of even numbers. By
> this argument, a random soup of organic chemicals has more information that
> a structured biotic agent. The biotic agent has more meaning than the soup,
> however. The living organism with more structure and more organization has
> less Shannon information. This is counterintuitive to a biologist’s
> understanding of a living organism. We therefore conclude that the use of
> Shannon information to describe a biotic system would not be valid. Shannon
> information for a biotic system is simply a category error.
>
> A living organism has meaning because it is an autonomous agent acting on
> its own behalf. A random soup of organic chemicals has no meaning and no
> organization. We may therefore conclude that a central feature of life is
> organization—organization that propagates.
>
>
>
> __
>
>
>
> 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.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
>
> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 10:57 AM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear FISers,
>
> I know that some of you are going to kill me, but there’s something that I
> must confess.
>
> I notice, from the nice issued raised by Francesco Rizzo, Joseph Brenner,
> John Collier, that the main concerns are always energetic/informational
> arguments and accounts.
>
> Indeed, the current tenets state that all is information, information
> being a real quantity that can be measured through informational entropies.
>
> But… I ask to myself, is such a tenet true?
>
> When I cook the pasta, I realize that, by my point of view, the cooked
> pasta encompasses more information than the not-cooked one, because it
> acquires the role of something that I can eat in order to increase my
> possibility to preserve myself in the hostile environment that wants to
> destroy me.  However, by the point of view of the bug who eats the
> non-cooked pasta, my cooked pasta displays less information for sure.
> Therefore, information is a very subjective measure that, apart from its
> relationship with the observer, does not mean very much…  Who can state
> that an event or a fact displays more information than another one?
>
> And, please, do not counteract that information is a quantifiable,
> objective reality, because it can be measured through informational
> entropy… Informational entropy, in its original Shannon’s formulation,
> stands for an ergodic process (page 8 of the original 1948 Shannon’s
> seminal paper), i.e.: every sequence produced by the processes is the same
> in statistical properties, or, in other words, a traveling particle always
> crosses all the points of its phase space.  However, in physics and
> biology, the facts and events are never ergodic.  Statistical homogeneity
> is just a fiction, if we evaluate the world around us and our brain/mind.
>
> Therefore, the role of information could not be as fundamental as
> currently believed.
>
>
>
> P.S.: topology analyzes information by another point of view, but it’s an
> issue for the next time, I think…
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Arturo Tozzi*
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Fis] Fwd: What is life?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
In-form-azione significa formalmente, letteralmente e sostanzialmente un
processo-attività (AZIONE) mediante il quale si da FORMA o si fa prendere
FORMA:
- alle persone, agli animale, alle piante, cioè agli esseri viventi;
- all'Universo intero;
- alle cose;
- alle idee;
IN, nello spazio-tempo.
Quindi tutto è frutto di IN-FORM-AZIONE (neg-entropia) e a sua volta
IN-FORMA: ad esempio. una poesia, un quadro, un libro, uno spartito
musicale, un buco nero, una cellula, uno stato, una stella, un pianeta, un
fiore, un amore.
Il con-testo e la modalità con cui questo avviene danno luogo a quello che
io chiamo processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE del quale ci siamo occupati più
volte.
Il contrario dell'INFORMAZIONE è DIS-INFORMAZIONE o DE-FORMAZIONE o
DE-GRADAZIONE(entropia).
Questo è l'ESSENZA o il CUORE della NUOVA ECONOMIA che ho elaborato in
mezzo secolo di ricerca.
L'economia è una scienza mediatrice ecco perchè adotta o usa una
ONTO-LOGICA IN (nella) REALTA' (O.L.I.R.) di ogni scienza o di ogni scienza
della REALTA'.
Rinnovo gli auguri a Tutti.
Francesco

2016-12-18 5:23 GMT+01:00 Robert E. Ulanowicz :

> Alex,
>
> The problem is that information is not an absolute. The same code when
> measured against different references (English vs. Spanish in this case)
> will yield different measures. It's the obverse of the Third Law of
> Thermodynamics. See 
>
> Bob
>
> > The problem below is with the definition of the word, 'information'.
> > On an abstract level, a measurable quantity of what Shannon
> > called digital information has been transmitted.
> > Whether the receiver is then 'informed' by it is a question of
> > his ability to interpret it, which depends on semantics.
> > (I can understand the English emails far easier than the
> > occasional Spanish ones - the Shannon information will be
> > the same in both, but not what I get out of it.
> > I thought this distinction between these had long ago
> > been agreed upon in Fis discussions.
> > Where do you stand on it Krassimir?
> > Best wishes,
> > Alex Hankey
>
>
> ___
> 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] What is information? and What is life?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
ho scritto più volte le stesse cose per cui sono d'accordo con Voi,
specialmente con gli ultimi intervenuti. E dato che sono un forestiero
rispetto alle Vostre discipline, ma non uno straniero dell'armonia del
sapere o del sapere dell'armonia, questo è una bella cosa. Auguri di buon
Natale e per il nuovo anno.
Francesco

2016-12-24 7:45 GMT+01:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> Dear Terrence and colleagues,
>
>
>
> I agree that we should not be fundamentalistic about “information”. For
> example, one can also use “uncertainty” as an alternative word to
> Shannon-type “information”. One can also make distinctions other than
> semantic/syntactic/pragmatic, such as biological information, etc.
>
>
>
> Nevertheless, what makes this list to a common platform, in my opinion, is
> our interest in the differences and similarities in the background of these
> different notions of information. In my opinion, the status of Shannon’s
> mathematical theory of information is different  from special theories of
> information (e.g., biological ones) since the formal theory enables us to
> translate between these latter theories. The translations are heuristically
> important: they enable us to import metaphors from other backgrounds (e.g.,
> auto-catalysis).
>
>
>
> For example, one of us communicated with me why I was completely wrong,
> and made the argument with reference to Kullback-Leibler divergence between
> two probability distributions. Since we probably will not have “a general
> theory” of information, the apparatus in which information is formally and
> operationally defined—Bar-Hillel once called it “information calculus”—can
> carry this interdisciplinary function with precision and rigor. Otherwise,
> we can only be respectful of each other’s research traditions. J
>
>
>
> I wish you all a splendid 2017,
>
> Loet
>
>
> --
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Associate Faculty, 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 *Terrence
> W. DEACON
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2016 5:33 AM
> *To:* fis
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
>
>
>
> Against information fundamentalism
>
>
>
> Rather than fighting over THE definition of information, I suggest that we
> stand back from the polemics for a moment and recognize that the term is
> being used in often quite incompatible ways in different domains, and that
> there may be value in paying attention to the advantages and costs of each.
> To ignore these differences, to fail to explore the links and dependencies
> between them, and to be indifferent to the different use values gained or
> sacrificed by each, I believe that we end up undermining the very
> enterprise we claim to be promoting.
>
>
>
> We currently lack broadly accepted terms to unambiguously distinguish
> these divergent uses and, even worse, we lack a theoretical framework for
> understanding their relationships to one another.
>
> So provisionally I would argue that we at least need to distinguish three
> hierarchically related uses of the concept:
>
>
>
> 1. Physical information: Information as intrinsically measurable medium
> properties with respect to their capacity to support 2 or 3 irrespective of
> any specific instantiation of 2 or 3.
>
>
>
> 2. Referential information: information as a non-intrinsic relation to
> something other than medium properties (1) that a given medium can provide
> (i.e. reference or content) irrespective of any specific instantiation of 3.
>
>
>
> 3. Normative information: Information as the use value provided by a given
> referential relation (2) with respect to an end-directed dynamic that is
> susceptible to contextual factors that are not directly accessible (i.e.
> functional value or significance).
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, because of the history of using the same term in an
> unmodified way in each relevant domain irrespective of the others there are
> often pointless arguments of a purely definitional nature.
>
>
>
> In linguistic theory an analogous three-part hierarchic partitioning of
> theory IS widely accepted.
>
>
>
> 1. syntax
>
> 2. semantics
>
> 3. pragmatics
>
>
>
> Thus by analogy some have proposed the distinction between
>
>
>
> 1. syntactic information (aka Shannon)
>
> 2. semantic information (aka meaning)
>
> 3. pragmatic information (aka useful information)
>
>
>
> This has also often been applied to the philosophy of information (e.g.
> see The Stanford Dictionar

Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Terry, Joseph e Tutti,
anche se è più difficile da perseguire e realizzare l'armonia del
dis-accordo o la logica concreta o la filosofia pratica può essere "bella",
"buona", "giusta" e "vera", per comprendere la prassi dell'esistenza e il
dominio della conoscenza, nonché per svolgere la comunicazione tra gli
esseri umani come coordinazione comportamentale ricorsiva descritta
semanticamente. COMUNICAZIONE che non può prescindere dall'INFORMAZIONE (in
economia, ad es., utilizzo il valore della forma o la forma del valore che
secondo me vale in tutti i campi della fisica, della biologia, della
matematica, della musica, della poesia, dall'arte, della scultura, etc.):
un pezzo di ferro vale meno di un chiodo e un chiodo vale meno di una vite;
una cellula vale meno di un tessuto e un tessuto vale meno di un organo e
un organo vale meno di un organismo;una cellula staminale indifferenziata
(moneta biologica) vale più di una cellula differenziata; una nota o un
colore vale meno di uno spartito musicale o di un quadro; una parola vale
più delle singole vocali o consonanti e meno di una poesia; un simbolo
matematico vale meno di un'equazione o di una funzione; un punto o una
linea vale meno di una figura geometrica, etc. Qualunque forma deve essere
SIGNIFICATA, ecco perché la scienza dell'esistenza o l'esistenza della
scienza è SEMPRE BASATA sulla Triade: significazione, informazione,
comunicazione. Infine,il dis-equilibrio è vitale e la rottura delle
simmetrie o le discontinuità sono creative.
Quindi bisogna darsi da fare utilizzando le affinità elettive o sinergie
che sono nate anche tra alcuni di Voi o di Noi: per costruire, non per
distruggere arrivando dove si può arrivare per generalizzare il sapere:
piuttosto che toglierlo un mattone è meglio metterlo, non per costruire
muri di separazione o contrapposizioni, ma ponti di comunicazione. Saranno
quelli che vengono dopo a portare altri mattoni.
Francesco

2016-12-29 23:31 GMT+01:00 Terrence W. DEACON :

> Dear Loet and others,
>
> I feel as though we are in search of a common general theory, but from
> divergent perspectives and expectations. Of course we should not merely
> assume a common general theopry of information if one doesn't yet exist. We
> agree that such a theory is a ways off, though you some are far more
> pessimisitic about its possibility than me. I believe that we would do best
> to focus on the hole that needs filling in rather than assuming that it is
> an unfillable given.
>
> My modest suggestion is only that in the absence of a unifying theory we
> should not privilege one partial theory over others and that in the absence
> of a global general theory we need to find terminology that clearly
> identifies the level at which the concept is being used. Lacking this, we
> end up debating incompatible definitions, and defending our favored one
> that either excludes or includes issues of reference and significance or
> else assumes or denies the relevance of human interpreters. With different
> participants interested in different levels and applications of the
> information concept—from physics, to computation, to neuroscience, to
> biosemiotics, to language, to art, etc.—failure to mark this diversity will
> inevitably lead us in circles.
>
> I urge humility with precision and an eye toward synthesis.
>
> Happy new year to all.\
>
> — Terry
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Dai Griffiths  > wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stan,
>>
>> Yes, it's a powerful and useful process.
>> My problem is that in this list, and in other places were such matters
>> are discussed, we don't seem to be able to agree on the big picture, and
>> the higher up the generalisations we go, the less we agree.
>>
>> I'd like to keep open the possibility that we might be yoking ideas
>> together which it may be more useful to keep apart. We are dealing with
>> messy concepts in messy configurations, which may not always map neatly
>> onto a generalisation model.
>>
>> Dai
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/12/16 16:45, Stanley N Salthe wrote:
>>
>> Dai --
>>
>> {phenomenon 1}
>>
>> {phenomenon 2}   -->  {Phenomena 1 & 2} ---> {phenomena 1.2,3}
>>
>> {phenomenon 3}
>>
>> The process from left to right is generalization.
>>
>> ‘Information’ IS a generalization.
>>
>> generalities form the substance of philosophy. Info happens to a case
>>
>>  of generalization which can be mathematized, which in turn allows
>>
>>  it to be generalized even more.
>>
>> So, what’s the problem?
>>
>> STAN
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Dai Griffiths > > wrote:
>>
>>> >  Information is not “something out there” which “exists” otherwise
>>> than as our construct.
>>>
>>> I agree with this. And I wonder to what extent our problems in
>>> discussing information come from our desire to shoe-horn many different
>>> phenomena into the same construct. It would be possible to disaggregate the
>>> construct. It be possible to discuss the topics which we address on this
>>> list without using the word 'infor

Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Joseph, Loet, Pedro e Terry, Cari tutti,
grazie per le Vostre parole che ap-prezzo "molto", ma merito "poco". Ricchi
come siamo o siete di anni di giovinezza dobbiamo o dovete coltivare ed
usare la massima sapienza saggia o saggezza sapiente in modo da essere
garanzia onto-logica o memoria paradigmatica che non impedisca, ma stimoli
la creatività scientifica o la passione conoscitiva di coloro che avendo
meno anni di giovinezza  proiettano nel futuro con le loro profezie o
rivelazioni l'interminabile e fecondo  cammino della conoscenza.della
conoscenza. Beninteso, con la co-scienza dell'amore o l'amore della
co-scienza, perché la scienza da sola non ce la fa!
Che il 2017 sia un anno buono per colmare le nostre lacune. Insieme.
Francesco

2016-12-31 8:15 GMT+01:00 Loet Leydesdorff :

> We agree that such a theory is a ways off, though you some are far more
> pessimisitic about its possibility than me. I believe that we would do best
> to focus on the hole that needs filling in rather than assuming that it is
> an unfillable given.
>
>
>
> Dear Terrence and colleagues,
>
>
>
> It is not a matter of pessimism. We have the example of “General Systems
> Theory” of the 1930s (von Bertalanffy  and others). Only gradually, one
> realized the biological metaphor driving it. In my opinion, we have become
> reflexively skeptical about claims of “generality” because we know the
> statements are framed within paradigms. Translations are needed in this
> fractional manifold.
>
>
>
> I agree that we are moving in a fruitful direction. Your book “Incomplete
> Nature” and “The Symbolic Species” have been important. The failing options
> cannot be observed, but have to be constructed culturally, that is, in
> discourse. It seems to me that we need a kind of calculus of redundancy.
> Perspectives which are reflexively aware of this need and do not assume an
> unproblematic “given” or “natural” are perhaps to be privileged
> nonetheless. The unobservbable options have first to be specified and we
> need theory (hypotheses) for this. Perhaps, this epistemological privilege
> can be used as a vantage point.
>
>
>
> There is an interesting relation to Husserl’s *Critique of the European
> Sciences* (1935): The failing (or forgotten) dimension is grounded in
> “intersubjective intentionality.” Nowadays, we would call this “discourse”.
> How are discourses structured and how can they be translated for the
> purpose of offering this “foundation”?
>
>
>
> Happy New Year,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
> My modest suggestion is only that in the absence of a unifying theory we
> should not privilege one partial theory over others and that in the absence
> of a global general theory we need to find terminology that clearly
> identifies the level at which the concept is being used. Lacking this, we
> end up debating incompatible definitions, and defending our favored one
> that either excludes or includes issues of reference and significance or
> else assumes or denies the relevance of human interpreters. With different
> participants interested in different levels and applications of the
> information concept—from physics, to computation, to neuroscience, to
> biosemiotics, to language, to art, etc.—failure to mark this diversity will
> inevitably lead us in circles.
>
>
>
> I urge humility with precision and an eye toward synthesis.
>
>
>
> Happy new year to all.\
>
>
>
> — Terry
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Dai Griffiths 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Stan,
>
> Yes, it's a powerful and useful process.
>
> My problem is that in this list, and in other places were such matters are
> discussed, we don't seem to be able to agree on the big picture, and the
> higher up the generalisations we go, the less we agree.
>
> I'd like to keep open the possibility that we might be yoking ideas
> together which it may be more useful to keep apart. We are dealing with
> messy concepts in messy configurations, which may not always map neatly
> onto a generalisation model.
>
> Dai
>
>
>
> On 22/12/16 16:45, Stanley N Salthe wrote:
>
> Dai --
>
> {phenomenon 1}
>
> {phenomenon 2}   -->  {Phenomena 1 & 2} ---> {phenomena 1.2,3}
>
> {phenomenon 3}
>
> The process from left to right is generalization.
>
> ‘Information’ IS a generalization.
>
> generalities form the substance of philosophy. Info happens to a case
>
>  of generalization which can be mathematized, which in turn allows
>
>  it to be generalized even more.
>
> So, what’s the problem?
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Dai Griffiths 
> wrote:
>
> >  Information is not “something out there” which “exists” otherwise than
> as our construct.
>
> I agree with this. And I wonder to what extent our problems in discussing
> information come from our desire to shoe-horn many different phenomena into
> the same construct. It would be possible to disaggregate the construct. It
> be possible to discuss the topics which we address on this list without
> using the word 'information'. We could

Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Joseph, Loet, Pedro, Terry e Tutti,
anch'io non sono esperto di mini-buchi neri. Posso semplicemente (?) dire,
per essermene occupato nel contesto della "Nuova economia",
che:
- i buchi neri danno luogo e tempo ad un processo di tras-in-formazione i
cui "input" e "output" sono materia, energia e informazione, sebbene, in
stati diversi;
- Il mio "Il sistema fabbrica-mercato" (1979-2011) non è altro che
un'organizzazione-struttura che funziona come un buco nero o scatola magica;
- in diversi libri ho trattato questa problematica evidenziando, pur non
essendo un fisico (teorico), che S. Hawking  negli anni Settanta formulò
una difettosa o sbagliata concezione-definizione dei buchi neri, tanto da
fare-perdere una famosa scommessa  come lui stesso ha riconosciuto nel 2004;
- la mia teoria del valore (economico) è basata sulla combinazione creativa
di energia e informazione oppure, in modo più completo, sul triangolo dei
tre surplus o neg-entropie;
- non ho la pretesa di esporre-imporre punti di vista esclusivamente
economici implicanti approfondimenti specialistici tipici della scienza
delle valutazioni; etc.
Non sarebbe il caso di affrontare la discussione-confronto su i problemi
che di volta in volta la Fis-rete affronta senza fare uso di eccessive
specializzazioni concettuali e linguistiche, almeno nella prima fase
dell'analisi, onde consentire a tutti coloro che ne hanno titolo e voglia
di partecipare evitando la confusione-disordine che si traduce
inevitabilmente in entropia termodinamica o cibernetico-matematica, ma
esclude proprio la primaria importanza della neg-entropia della vita legata
all'ordine o all'informazione genetica e semantica?
Come bene dice (benedice) spesso Joseph senza un approccio ontologico (ed
io aggiungo un'apposita memoria paradigmatica) adeguato e condiviso da
tutti, non si fa molta strada e soprattutto chi è poverino come me non
apprende molto.
Comunque, grazie anche per le critiche e i suggerimenti che mi verranno.
Un saluto affettuoso.
Francesco Rizzo

2017-01-12 11:03 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner :

> Dear All,
>
> I am sorry but I am still not satisfied with the evolution of this
> discussion to date. I am still looking forward to some explicit comment on
> my initial question of why mini black holes would not evaporate. I note
> that both Alex and Bruno asked the same question, before we have seen
> Gyorgy's comment.
>
> I can confirm from my own small experience as an organic chemist that
> entities can be created in the laboratory that not only do not exist in
> nature but could not be produced by 'Nature' on its own. The reactants,
> reaction vessels, temperatures and pressures to produce certain
> fluorochemicals and fluoropolymers could not be brought together in the
> same place and time without human intervention.
>
> In contrast, I see nothing in the discussion here of mini black holes
> that, first, suggests they could be the consequence of intentionally
> prepared states, with large energies 'brought together' in such a way that,
> second, their development would not follow known paths. I do not claim
> that I could follow the detailed mathematical physics of the demonstration
> of the existence of a "5% probability" that such states would not
> evaporate. But I and probably others of you much better could still follow
> a scientific discourse on the basis of some background and internal
> structure.
>
> For example, the following statement from one of Otto's notes seems to me
> to be a *non sequitur:*
>
> "If black holes are always uncharged, electrons cannot be point-shaped as
> is usually assumed because they would then be black holes and hence
> uncharged. They are bound to have a finite diameter large enough to prevent
> them from becoming black holes and hence be uncharged."
>
> It is no longer valid to say that electrons are dimensionless points;
> experiments now establish a radius of the order of 10 to the -22 meters. If
> they are 'point-shaped' in the sense of being effectively spherically
> symmetrical, their putative fate as black holes seems irrelevant.
>
> Would it still be possible to see some such new statements regarding both
> formation and evolution of mini black holes? The reference article
> (Szilamandee) simply repeats the statements we have seen, albeit in an
> interesting poetic context.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Joseph
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Otto E. Rossler 
> *To:* Gyorgy Darvas  ; fis 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 10:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=
> publication&query=szilamandee
>
>
> --
> *From:* Otto E. Ros

Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
lasciateVi  e lasciatemi dire che le cellule, essendo detentrici e
portatrici di INFORMAZIONE genetica, COMUNICANO o scelgono di NON
COMUNICARE tra loro nel bene o nel male e non possono avere alcun altro
SIGNIFICATO-funzione. Sono stato sempre convinto di questo, come dimostrano
in maniera organica e sistematica, fra le tante altre, le pagine 115-121 di
"Etica dei valori economici o economia dei valori etici"  (FrancoAngeli,
Milano, 2003), Purtroppo, l'affermo con serenità e la pace dell'anima,
questo saggio non ha avuto il successo che meritava!
Un saluto cordiale.
Francecso Rizzo

2017-02-09 17:41 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear Marcus and Colleagues,
>
> Thanks for your interest. The Chengdu's Conference represented for me an
> occasion to return to my beginnings, in the 80's, when I prepared a PhD
> Thesis: "Natural Intelligence: On the evolution of biological information
> processing". It was mostly following a top down approach. But in some of
> the discussions outdoors of the conference (a suggestion for the next one
> in Shanghai: plenary discussion sessions should also be organized) I
> realized that biomolecular things have changed quite a lot. One could go
> nowadays the other way around: from the molecular-informational
> organization of cellular life, to intelligence of the cell's behavior
> withing the environment. The life cycle es essential. It provides the
> source of "meaning" (as I have often argued in discussions in the list) but
> it is also the reference for "intelligence". Communicating with the
> environment and self-producing by means of the environmental affordances
> have to be smoothly organized so that the stages of the life cycle may be
> advanced, and that the "problems" arising from the internal or the external
> may be adequately solved. It means signalling and self-modifying in front
> of the open-ended environmental problems, sensing and acting coherently...
> It strangely connects with the notion of human "story" and the
> communication cycle in the humanities. Relating intelligence to goal
> accomplishment or to an architecture of goals as usually done in
> computational realms implies that the real life course (or the surrogate)
> is reduced to a very narrow segment. True intelligence evaporates.
> These were some of my brute reflections that I have to keep musing around
> (I saw interesting repercussions for cellular signaling "narratives" too).
> Maybe this is also a good opportunity for other parties of that conference
> to expostulate their own impressions --very exciting presentations both
> from Chinese and Western colleagues there.
>
> Thanks again,
> --Pedro
>
>
> El 08/02/2017 a las 14:14, Marcus Abundis escribió:
>
> > In next weeks some further discussion might be started, but at the
> time being, the slot is empty (any ideas?)<
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
> For my part I would appreciate a chance to hear more about the thoughts
> you have been developing (even if they are very rough) as related to the
> talk you gave in China last summer.
>
> Alternatively, further thoughts on Gordana's talk would be nice to hear.
>
> For both of these talks, you both shared your presentation stack . . . but
> there was so much information in both of those talks, it would be nice to
> have some of "unpacked."
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing 
> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
> --
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& 
> 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

[Francesco Rizzo]

P. s.:
Ho dimenticato di digitare che le pagine citate sono fitte, intense e
pregnanti.
Francesco

2017-02-10 15:07 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:

> Cari colleghi,
> lasciateVi  e lasciatemi dire che le cellule, essendo detentrici e
> portatrici di INFORMAZIONE genetica, COMUNICANO o scelgono di NON
> COMUNICARE tra loro nel bene o nel male e non possono avere alcun altro
> SIGNIFICATO-funzione. Sono stato sempre convinto di questo, come dimostrano
> in maniera organica e sistematica, fra le tante altre, le pagine 115-121 di
> "Etica dei valori economici o economia dei valori etici"  (FrancoAngeli,
> Milano, 2003), Purtroppo, l'affermo con serenità e la pace dell'anima,
> questo saggio non ha avuto il successo che meritava!
> Un saluto cordiale.
> Francecso Rizzo
>
> 2017-02-09 17:41 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :
>
>> Dear Marcus and Colleagues,
>>
>> Thanks for your interest. The Chengdu's Conference represented for me an
>> occasion to return to my beginnings, in the 80's, when I prepared a PhD
>> Thesis: "Natural Intelligence: On the evolution of biological information
>> processing". It was mostly following a top down approach. But in some of
>> the discussions outdoors of the conference (a suggestion for the next one
>> in Shanghai: plenary discussion sessions should also be organized) I
>> realized that biomolecular things have changed quite a lot. One could go
>> nowadays the other way around: from the molecular-informational
>> organization of cellular life, to intelligence of the cell's behavior
>> withing the environment. The life cycle es essential. It provides the
>> source of "meaning" (as I have often argued in discussions in the list) but
>> it is also the reference for "intelligence". Communicating with the
>> environment and self-producing by means of the environmental affordances
>> have to be smoothly organized so that the stages of the life cycle may be
>> advanced, and that the "problems" arising from the internal or the external
>> may be adequately solved. It means signalling and self-modifying in front
>> of the open-ended environmental problems, sensing and acting coherently...
>> It strangely connects with the notion of human "story" and the
>> communication cycle in the humanities. Relating intelligence to goal
>> accomplishment or to an architecture of goals as usually done in
>> computational realms implies that the real life course (or the surrogate)
>> is reduced to a very narrow segment. True intelligence evaporates.
>> These were some of my brute reflections that I have to keep musing around
>> (I saw interesting repercussions for cellular signaling "narratives" too).
>> Maybe this is also a good opportunity for other parties of that conference
>> to expostulate their own impressions --very exciting presentations both
>> from Chinese and Western colleagues there.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> --Pedro
>>
>>
>> El 08/02/2017 a las 14:14, Marcus Abundis escribió:
>>
>> > In next weeks some further discussion might be started, but at the
>> time being, the slot is empty (any ideas?)<
>>
>> Hi Pedro,
>>
>> For my part I would appreciate a chance to hear more about the thoughts
>> you have been developing (even if they are very rough) as related to the
>> talk you gave in China last summer.
>>
>> Alternatively, further thoughts on Gordana's talk would be nice to hear.
>>
>> For both of these talks, you both shared your presentation stack . . .
>> but there was so much information in both of those talks, it would be nice
>> to have some of "unpacked."
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Fis mailing 
>> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -
>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
>> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
>> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
>> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
>> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& 
>> 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>> -
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Pedro e tutti,
a mio modesto giudizio l'unico principio-concetto comune  del mondo
organico e inorganico è l'INFORMAZIONE nei suoi diversi tipi, La creatività
o discontinuità o mutazione è figlia della vitale o neg-entropica
asimmetria armonica o della neg-entropica o vitale  armonia asimmetrica.
L'equilibrio, più invenzione dell'uomo che della natura, è entropico o
mortale.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco

2017-02-28 19:01 GMT+01:00 Dave Kirkland :

> Dear Arturo Tozzi and FISers
> Thank you for your *very* interesting ideas. For me they raise more
> questions:
> Why did the number of cosmic symmetries ever *start* diminishing?
> Could the whole process be eternally cyclical?
> I like your respectful use of capital letters.
> My mind boggles.
> Best rgds
> David
>
> On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:24, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
>
> Dear FISers,
>
> hi!
>
> A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!):
>
>
> *A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION*
>
> After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in thermodynamic entropy is
> occurring in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012).  Because of the relationships
> between entropy and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), the number of
> cosmic symmetries, the highest possible at the very start, is declining as
> time passes.  Here the evolution of living beings comes into play.  Life is
> a space-limited increase of energy and complexity, and therefore of
> symmetries.  The evolution proceeds towards more complex systems (Chaisson,
> 2010), until more advanced forms of life able to artificially increase the
> symmetries of the world.  Indeed, the human brains’ cognitive abilities not
> just think objects and events more complex than the physical ones existing
> in Nature, but build highly symmetric crafts too.  For example, human
> beings can watch a rough stone, imagine an amygdala and build it from the
> same stone.  Humankind is able, through its ability to manipulate tools and
> technology, to produce objects (and ideas, i.e., equations) with complexity
> levels higher than the objects and systems encompassed in the pre-existing
> physical world.  Therefore, human beings are naturally built by evolution
> in order to increase the number of environmental symmetries.  This is in
> touch with recent claims, suggesting that the brain is equipped with a
> number of functional and anatomical dimensions higher than the 3D
> environment (Peters et al., 2017).  Intentionality, typical of the living
> beings and in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able
> to increase symmetries.  As Dante Alighieri stated (*Hell,* *XXVI,
> 118-120*), “y*ou were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue
> and knowledge*”.
>
> In touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881) claims, it looks like
> evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in environmental
> complexity, and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017).  Life is
> produced in our Universe in order to restore the initial lost symmetries.
> At the beginning of life, increases in symmetries are just local, e.g.,
> they are related to the environmental niches where the living beings are
> placed.  However, in long timescales, they might be extended to the whole
> Universe.  For example, Homo sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able
> to build the Large Hadron Collider, where artificial physical processes
> make an effort to approximate the initial symmetric state of the Universe.
> Therefore, life is a sort of gauge field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g., a
> combination of forces and fields that try to counterbalance and restore, in
> very long timescales, the original cosmic symmetries, lost after the Big
> Bang.  Due to physical issues, the “homeostatic” cosmic gauge field must be
> continuous, e.g., life must stand, proliferate and increase in complexity
> over very long timescales.  This is the reason why every living being has
> an innate tendency towards self-preservation and proliferation.  With the
> death, continuity is broken. This talks in favor of intelligent life
> scattered everywhere in the Universe: if a few species get extinct, others
> might continue to proliferate and evolve in remote planets, in order to
> pursue the goal of the final symmetric restoration.   In touch with long
> timescales’ requirements, it must be kept into account that life has been
> set up after a long gestation: a childbearing which encompasses the cosmic
> birth of fermions, then atoms, then stars able to produce the more
> sophisticated matter (metals) required for molecular life.
>
> A symmetry-based framework gives rise to two opposite feelings, by our
> standpoint of human beings.  On one side, we achieve the final answer to
> long-standing questions: “*why are we here?*”, “*Why does the evolution
> act in such a way?*”, an answer that reliefs our most important concerns
> and gives us a *sense*; on the other side, however, this framework does
> not give us any hope: we are just micro-systems 

Re: [Fis] Information: a metaphysical word

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Arturo e cari colleghi,
come si fa ad escludere dal campo della conoscenza scientifica la
parola-concetto (di) INFORMAZIONE, se tutto ciò che esiste in cielo, in
terra e in ogni altro luogo è causa ed effetto di un processo che dà o
prende (in termini neg-entropici o anabolici)) e degrada o perde (in
termini entropici o catabolici) FORMA? Tutto l'esistente o il vivente,
prima o poi, è definibile, misurabile e scambiabile o comunicabile: a
prescindere dalle difficoltà tutto è possibile. Naturalmente, sono sempre
pronto ad apprendere idee diverse, specialmente se provengono da cuori
aperti e menti giovani. Grazie.
Saluti cordiali.
Francesco


2017-03-27 11:51 GMT+02:00 :

> Dear FISers,
> The current debate about information has just a possible development, I
> think.
>
> Everybody defines information in the way he prefers: subjective, biotic,
> bit, and so on.
> Therefore, every study that talks about "information" is meaningless.
> In particular, subjective accounts of information are useless, because, in
> their framework, the information is not measurable, but just depends on the
> observer: if me, John and Mary see the same can, I think that the Coke is
> good, John thinks that he is thirsty and Mary that the aluminium is a
> malleable material.
> On the other side, I suggested in a previous post how the information
> entropy (such as Shannon's, or Bekenstein's, or Hawking's) may change
> according to the relativistic speed of the hypothetical observer.
>
> Therefore, I suggest to fully remove the term "information" from every
> scientific account.  The term "information" refers, in Popper's terms, to a
> not falsifiable theory, to pseudoscience: it is a metaphysical claim, like
> the concepts of Essence, Being, God and so on.
>
> Therefore, by now, the term "information" is definitely out of my
> scientific  vocabulary.
>
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
> ___
> 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] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro John,
è sempre un grande piacere leggerti e seguire la teleologica dei tuoi
interventi. In questa stessa logica ritengo che si situino le seguenti
altre considerazioni che completano la e-mail trasmessa ai colleghi qualche
giorno fa.

   1.
   

   2.
   


L'anabolismo o biosintesi è una delle due parti del metabolismo e comprende
l'insieme dei processi di sintesi o bio-formazione delle molecole organiche
(bio-molecole) più complesse da quelle più semplici o dalle sostanze
nutritive. Questi processi richiedono energia, al contrario del catabolismo .
Invece con il
 termine catabolismo si intende l'insieme dei processi metabolici che hanno
come prodotti sostanze strutturalmente
 più semplici e povere di energia, liberando quella in eccesso sotto forma
di energia chimica (ATP) ed energia termica.
Non per niente la mia "Nuova economia" adotta una teoria del valore basata
sulla combinazione creativa di energia e/o
informazione. Difatti il mio processo di tras-in-form-azione, sul quale ci
siamo intrattenuti negli anni scorsi, è anabolico (o neg-entropico),
mentre il mio processo di tras-in-de-form-azione è catabolico (o entropico).
Per quanto riguarda il cosiddetto mondo inorganico, ad esempio quello dei
beni culturali, ho scritto:

 "L'ateniese Takis intende l'opera d'arte come simbolo di energia. S.
Hawking, rivedendo la sua teoria sostiene che i buchi neri
 non si limitano a perdere massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma
evaporano o rilasciano informazione. Essi non distruggono
 mai completamente quello che fagocitano. Con-tengono un'informazione, non
casuale e indefinibile, sulla materia di cui sono fatti
che con-sente di predirne il futuro. (...) In tal modo i buchi neri non
evaporano o irradiano un'energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di
 informazione come se fossero  delle inafferrabili e indecidibili entità
cosmiche, e non sfuggono alla (mia) super-legge della combinazione
 creativa (anche se stavolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I
buchi neri possono considerarsi quindi come speciali scatole
 nere o magici processi di tras-informazione produttivi (i cui "input" e
"output" sono materia, energia e informazione) e prospettici" ( Rizzo
F., "Un'economia della speranza per la città multi-etnica", FrancoAngeli,
Milano, 2007, pp. 312-313).

Quindi, con metodi analitici e processi intellettuali ragionevoli ho,
almeno in una dozzina dei miei libri, esposto questo
 convincimento coerente con il mio pensiero economico che non contiene o
presenta alcune verità assolute ed è aperto ad ogni critica.
 E in particolare ho dimostrato di avere anticipato di circa vent'anni quel che
Hawking ha scoperto dopo. Sia chiaro non perché non sia
grande la genialità del fisico inglese, rispetto al mio essere POVERINO
ESPONENZIALE, bensì perché quando si sceglie un corretto
 approccio onto-logico e paradigmatico la sua pregnanza conoscitiva vale
per tutte le scienze umane e naturali.
In questa prospettiva si vedano:
-Rizzo F., "La scienza non può non essere umana, civile, sociale,
economi(c)a, enigmatica, nobile, profetica", Aracne editrice,
 Roma, 2016;
-Rizzo F.,"Una nuova avventura tra l'idolatria del denaro e lo spirito
dell'amore con compassione o viscerale emo-ra-zionalità",
Aracne, Roma, 2017.
Grazie.
Francesco



2017-03-28 9:40 GMT+02:00 John Collier :

>
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* John Collier
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 28 March 2017 9:39 AM
> *To:* 'darvasg' 
> *Subject:* RE: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”
>
>
>
> I wrote this a few days ago, but it is still worth posting. I might add
> that biological entities making choices grades off into cases where there
> is only one choice. If determinism is true, then there are no real choices.
> If it is false, that doesn’t help either.
>
>
>
> There are cases that I have given references to on this list in which
> information, but no energy leads to step climbing, indicate transformation
> of information into energy. Though the example was constructed by
> experimenters, I see nothing that could not result from a fortuitous set of
> physical circumstances. The movement could be used to trigger an
> informational even (turn a switch, for example, or select a quantum state),
> though turning information into information.
>
>
>
> I suspect there are simpler examples, and leave the list to come up with
> the. All I wanted to do was to demonstrate principle.  We tend to give
> almost magical properties to life. Thai violates my understanding of
> General Systems Theory, which applies the s

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

[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&ie=UTF8&
> qid=1505562032&sr=1-1&keywords=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 throug

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

[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
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Fis] A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Pedro e cari tutti,
gli ingressi e le uscite delle cellule viventi con l'ambiente, non sono
altro che materia, energia e informazione che entrano (INPUT) ed escono
(OUTPUT)  dando luogo al processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE che ho elaborato
nella Nuova Economia a proposito dei sistemi produttivi entropici (energia
degradata o dis-informazione) e neg-entropici (energia libera o
informazione) che hanno un carattere generale. Tanto è vero che circa 20
anni fa ho applicato e riferito alla cellula che stabilisce con l'ambiente
(biologico-naturale) un rapporto simile a quello che l'intrapresa (azienda)
stabilisce con l'ambiente (sociale-economico). In fondo la bio-chimica e
l'economia risultano complementari nella vita degli uomini la cui esistenza
e conoscenza possono ben comprendersi secondo la onto-logica empirica o
concreta, altrimenti detta LIR, che la generosità di Joseph Brenner ha
intravisto anche nella mia analisi scientifica. Purtroppo  questa
problematica, ben espressa e sintetizzata dal processo di
TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE e più volte oggetto di confronto e discussione nel
dibattito Fis, è poco conosciuta perchè si ritrova esposta in una ventina
dei miei libri scritti in italiano.
Comunque il TEMPO è (sempre galantuomo e fornisce) l'INFORMAZIONE giusta
svolgendo la funzione della LINGUA delle LINGUE che tutti possono
com-prendere, prima o poi. Grazie, per l'opportunità che mi date a partire
da Pedro che ha il grande merito dell'iniziazione-mediazione in tal senso.
Un abbraccio, Francesco Rizzo.


2017-10-11 14:30 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear Arturo and colleagues,
>
> I think that relating information to free energy can be a good idea. I am
> not sure whether the expressions derived from Gibbs free energy (below)
> have sufficient generality; at least they work very well for chemical
> reactions. And it is in the biomolecular (chemical) realm where the big
> divide between "animate information" and "inanimate information" occurs. In
> that sense, I include herein the scheme we have just published of
> prokaryotic cells in their management of the "information flow". In a next
> message I will make suggestions on how the mapping of biological
> information may conduce to a more general approach that includes the other
> varieties of information (anthropocentric, physical, chemical,
> cosmological, etc). Biological information is the most fundamental and
> radical track to unite the different approaches!
>
> Best--Pedro
>
> Pedro C. Marijuán, Jorge Navarro, Raquel del Moral.
> *How prokaryotes ‘encode’ their environment: Systemic tools for organizing
> the information flow.*
> Biosystems <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032647>.
> October  2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.002
>
> *Abstract*
> An important issue related to code biology concerns the cell’s
> informational relationships with the environment. As an open self-producing
> system, a great variety of inputs and outputs are necessary for the living
> cell, not only consisting of matter and energy but also involving
> information flows. The analysis here of the simplest cells will involve two
> basic aspects. On the one side, the molecular apparatuses of the
> prokaryotic signaling system, with all its variety of environmental signals
> and component pathways (which have been called 1–2-3 Component Systems),
> including the role of a few second messengers which have been pointed out
> in bacteria too. And in the other side, the gene transcription system as
> depending not only on signaling inputs but also on a diversity of factors.
> Amidst the continuum of energy, matter, and information flows, there seems
> to be evidence for signaling codes, mostly established around the
> arrangement of life-cycle stages, in large metabolic changes, or in the
> relationships with conspecifics (quorum sensing) and within microbial
> ecosystems. Additionally, and considering the complexity growth of
> signaling systems from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, four avenues or “roots”
> for the advancement of such complexity would come out. A comparative will
> be established in between the signaling strategies and organization of both
> kinds of cellular systems. Finally, a new characterization of
> “informational architectures” will be proposed in order to explain the
> coding spectrum of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic signaling systems. Among
> other evolutionary aspects, cellular strategies for the construction of
> novel functional codes via the intermixing of informational architectures
> could be related to the persistence of retro-elements with obvious viral
> ancestry.
> ---
>
>
> El 10/10/2017 a las 11:14, tozziart...@libero.it escribió:
>
&

Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
la vita è creativo-costruttiva o ANABOLICA. L'energia libera che determina
lavoro utile o produttivo, non è entropia negativa, ma entropria presa o
assunta col segno negativo secondo un calcolo operativo, logico-matematico,
non necessariamente o esclusivamente legato alla vita fisica, ma
estensibile alla vita artistica, poetica, letteraria, filosofica, economica
etc. Ecco perchè, sulla scia di Erwin Schrodinger, ho inventato una Nuova
Economia o economia neg-entropica. Il contrario di anabolica (vitale) è
CATABOLICA (mortale) e corrisponde a tutto ciò che nel linguaggio
bio-chimico o ecologico è degradazione-distruzione. Così si passa
dall'anabolica INFORMAZIONE alla catabolica DIS-INFORMAZIONE.
L'informazione può assumere infiniti SIGNIFICATI che le danno senso o
funzione. Così, quasi senza accorgersene, si entra nel  campo della
(semantica, sintassi, pragmatica) semiologia che non può non essere
semiotico-ermeneutico. Nessuna scienza o conoscenza può fare a meno di
questo CAMPO DI FORMA. Quindi così come non si può separare l'entropia
dalla neg-entropia --difatti in base alle "strutture dissipative di I.
Prigogine che creano ordine (neg-entropia) dal dis-ordine (entropia)
mediante fluttuazioni o  instabilità-- non si devono contrapporre
INFORMAZIONI e SIGNIFICATI perchè ogni informazione ha uno o più
significati e ogni significato ha una o più informazioni.
In questa prospettiva, che ancora una volta ritengo onto-logica, ho
elaborato l'economia della CREAZIONE il cui contrario è la DISTRUZIONE
dell'economia. Lo ripeto, chiedendo scusa a tutti, nei miei non pochi libri
di economia, vi è davvero una nuova scienza economica che diventa alla
bisogna un'economia della scienza di non trascurabile importanza. Ma non è
facile l'accoglienza delle cose nuove, quando queste non sono adeguatamente
"sostenute". Difatti, ad es., in questi giorni passati è stato assegnato un
premio Nobel a Richard Thaler per avere formulato principi o pratiche
fondamentali al fine di comprendere la psicologia dell'economia. Ma coloro
che operano le scelte  per assegnare questo ambito riconoscimento
sicuramente non sanno che è dal 1971, anno di pubblicazione del mio IL
GIUDIZIO DI VALORE che tratto questa problematica.  Beninteso, non viene
meno la mia umiltà nè disconosco i meriti degli altri. Anzi!
Ora la pianto. Non non mi dispiacerebbe conoscere, com'e accaduto altre
volte, i Vostri giudizi, anche critici o correttivi. Grazie.
Un abbraccio, Francesco Rizzo.

2017-10-15 9:22 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson :

> Dear Loet,
>
> I mean to be analytical too. The Pythonesque nature of my questioning
> leads naturally to recursion: What is the meaning of meaning? There's a
> logic in the recursion - Peirce, Spencer-Brown, Leibnitz, Lou Kauffman...
> and you have probed this.
>
> Were you or I to be part of a recursive symmetry, how would we know? Where
> would the scientia be? How would we express our knowledge? In a journal?
> Why not in a symphony? (the musicologists miss the point about music:
> Schoenberg commented once on the musical graphs of Heinrich Schenker:
> "where are my favourite tunes? Ah! There.. In those tiny notes!")
>
> I agree that operationalisation is important. But it can (and does) happen
> in ways other than those expressed in the content of discourse.  If this
> topic of "information" is of any value, it is because it should open our
> senses to that.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
> --
> From: Loet Leydesdorff 
> Sent: ‎15/‎10/‎2017 07:17
> To: Mark Johnson ; Terrence W. DEACON
> ; Sungchul Ji 
> Cc: foundationofinformationscience 
> Subject: Re[2]: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information
>
> Dear Mark:
>
> Do we want to defend a definition of meaning which is tied to scientific
> practice as we know it? Would that be too narrow? Ours may not be the only
> way of doing science...
>
> I meant my remarks analytically. You provide them with a normative turn as
> defensive against alternative ways of doing science.
>
> A non-discursive science might be possible - a science based around shared
> musical experience, or meditation, for example. Or even Hesse's
> "Glasperlenspiel"... Higher level coordination need not necessarily occur
> in language. Our communication technologies may one day give us new
> post-linguistic ways of coordinating ourselves.
>
> Why should one wish to consider this as science? One can make music
> together without doing science. Musicology, however, is discursive
> reasoning about these practices.
>
> Codification is important in our science as we know it. But it should also
> be said that our science is blind to many things. Its reductionism prevents
> effective interdisciplinary inquiry, it struggles to rec

Re: [Fis] mind-mind

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
la distinzione tra materialisti e idealisti, corpo e anima (o spirito),
materia e energia è interfacciata o intermediata dall'informazione.
L'informazione è indispensabile per la conoscenza di tutto ciò che
costituisce la realtà dell'esistenza o l'esistenza della realtà del mondo.
Se ciò è vero la materia è un modo o una forma di essere dell'energia e
l'energia è un modo o una forma di essere della materia. Se la conoscenza
di questo mondo è costituita dall'informazione tutto è quantizzato in bit.
Ma i bit non bastano. Bisogna andare oltre la comunicazione di
Shannon inventando una teoria che consideri l'informazione come il concetto
fondamentale, non solo della fisica, ma anche dell'economia, etc.
Nella materia l'energia prende una forma particolare, come nell'energia la
materia prende una forma particolare. Un bene economico è
 contemporaneamente o alternativamente un essere merce (materiale) e un
essere segno (immateriale) o moneta. Quindi la realtà economica è
 ad un tempo liquida e illiquida, monetaria o non monetaria.Si tratta
quindi di "modellizzare" l'intreccio o complementarità o compenetrazione
 o entanglement degli elementi che costituiscono la realtà della vita o la
vita della realtà. I dati o le idee diventano fatti quando le loro forme
significano qualcosa che diventa oggetto di comunicazione. In conclusione
la nostra mente, con la collaborazione di tutti gli organi del nostro corpo,
 fornisce l'informazione ad-atta e ad-attabile per comunicare con gli
altri, perchè comunicando si vive, non vivendo si comunica. In estrema
sintesi,
senza scadere in ragionamenti cervellotici, per informazione  si deve
intendere un'azione o processo che consente di dare forma alle persone
 (non agli individui) e a tutti gli altri esseri viventi (animalii e
vegetali), alle idee e alle cose. Mentre dis-informazione è un'azione o un
processo contrario
al prendere forma, ma significa perdere o degradare la forma.
Un saluto cordiale espresso senza alcuna presunzione o arroganza. Il
miglior modo per comunicare è rispettare tutti, anche quelli che la pensano
e la dicono diversamente da noi.
Francesco Rizzo

2017-11-02 0:25 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji :

> Hi Michell and FISers,
>
>
> "*Data* is that what we see by using the *eyes*. *Information* is that
> what
> we do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the *brain*;
> because it is the background to that what we see by using the eyes."
>
>
> This paragraph contains the following pairs or relations:
>
>
> Data ~ eyes
>
> Information ~ brain
>
>
> Since eyes cannot function without the brain but the brain can without
> eyes, I wonder if the above tetrad can be reduced to a triad:
>
>
> Data ~ eyes/brain ~ information
>
>
> which in turn may be explained in more detail using the ITR (Irreducible
> Triadic Relation) diagram thus:
>
>
>
>f
> g (*eyes/brain*)
>
>Reality --> Sign
>  --> Interpretant
>
> |(*Data*)
> ^
>
> |
>  |
>
> |___
> |
>
>h (*information*)
>
>
>
>  *Figure 1.  * The *data-information relation* explained on the basis of
> ITR (Irreudicible Triadic Relation).  The arrows read "determines" and
> "interpretant is the effect the sign has on the mind of the interpreter
> (biotic or abiotic).  f = measurement; g = mental process *; *h =
> correspondence or information flow.
>
>
>
>
> If you have any question or comments, let me know.
>
>
> Sung
>
>
>
>
>
>f  g (
> *eyes/brain*)
>
>   Reality >  Sign --->
> Interpretant
>
>|  (*Data*)
>^
>
>|
>   |
>
>|
> __|
>
>   h (information)
>
>
>  Figure 1.f = measurement or *eyes*; g = mental process or *brain; h
> = correspondence or *information flow
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Fis  on behalf of Michel Petitjean <
> petitjean.chi...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesd

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

[Francesco Rizzo]

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 

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

[Francesco Rizzo]

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 
>>&

Re: [Fis] I do not understand some strange claims

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Bruno,
condivido il Tuo pensiero. Coincide o assomiglia al mio. approccio
onto-epistemo-logico empirico o concreto. Le metafisiche idee della mente
sono necessarie per conoscere la realtà. Tutte le scienze ne fanno uso,
compresa la matematica. Quando la matematica non ce la fa
a farci comprendere (la teoria del) tutto ci  rivolgiamo all'arte o poesia
della musica (John D. Barrow, "Teorie del tutto. La ricerca della
spiegazione ultima", Adelphi, Milano, 1992).  Ilya Prigogine sostiene che
la musica dovrebbe diventare il paradigma della scienza proprio
 per la funzione svolta dal tempo che è una variabile creativa.
Ho dedicato numerosi libri allo studio del rapporto tra fede religiosa,
teologia-filosofia e scienza, al fine di ri-comprendere, re-incantare,
 re-interpretare e ri-significare l'economia. Da questo processo che ha
contrassegnato più di mezzo secolo. di ricerca è nata una NUOVA
ECONOMIA. Per comprenderla- a partire da "Il giudizio di valore",
Università di Catania, 1972 - cfr.il mio pentateuco costituito dai miei
ultimi
cinque libri::
* "Nuova economia", Aracne editrice, Roma, 2013;
* "Incontro d'amore tra il cuore della fede e l'intelligenza della
scienza", Aracne editrice, Roma, 2014;
* "Una vita. Il figlio del garzone", Aracne editrice, Roma, 2015;
* "La scienza non può non essere umana, civile, sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,
enigmatica, nobile, profetica", Aracne editrice, Roma, 2016;
* "Una nuova avventura tra l'idolatria del denaro e lo spirito dell'amore
con compassione o viscerale emo-ra-zionalità", Aracne editrice, Roma,
2017.
Peccato che siano scritti in italiano!
Un saluto augurale.
Francecso


2017-11-10 18:12 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :

> Dear Arturo, dear FISers,
>
>
> On 08 Nov 2017, at 22:11, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
>
> Dear FISers,
>
> science talks about observables, i.e., quantifiable parameters.
>
>
> I can't agree more. Science measure numbers, and infer relations among
> them. But we know also that untestable ideas can be powerful tool. Most
> progress in mathematics and physics have relied on the axiom of infinity in
> mathematics, or belief in a physical reality. So let us be precise that
> indirect testing should be allowed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Therefore, describing the word "information" in terms of philosophers'
> statements, hypothetical useless triads coming from nowhere, the ridicolous
> Rupert Sheldrake's account, mind communication,
>
>
> I can understand up to here.
>
>
>
> qualitative subjective issues of the mind, inconclusive phenomelogical
> accounts with an hint of useless husserlian claims, and such kind of
> amenities is simply: NOT scientific.
>
>
> Hmm... I disagree. This is NOT scientific. A reasoning which takes into
> account the "qualitative issues of the mind" (which is rather normal when
> we discuss information in some larger sense than Shannon one) MIGHT (and
> SHOULD) have observable quantitative consequences. You talk like if that
> was impossible, without providing an argument, which would be refuted by my
> contribution. Even point in "theology" becomes testable, when the
> definitions and reasonings are made clear and precise enough (which is the
> case when we use the suitable hypothesis to do just that.
>
> Here it seems to me that you throw out the baby with the water bath. You
> seem to ask for direct testability, which is close to metaphysical
> positivism (which has been logically refuted).
>
>
>
>
> It could be interesting, if you are a magician or a follower of Ermetes
> Trismegistus, but, if you are (or you think to be) a  scientist, this is
> simply not science.
>
>
>
> It is science if it leads to a simpler theory fitting with the
> quantitative facts, or a more complex theory, being alone to fit some known
> quantitative facts.
> But of course, such theories should not deny known and admitted
> psychological realities;   if not "information" itself stops to make any
> larger sense than the  one in the theory of Shannon or of
> Feynman-Deutsch-Landauer-Zurek. In that case we might suspect the
> widespread confusion between physics, and metaphysical physicalism, which
> is not scientific.
>
> When working on "information", a theory fitting with the quantitative
> facts, but not with "common" qualitative facts should be considered
> unscientific, because it denies undoubtable and important aspect of
> information and reality. It hides data.
>
>
>
> Such claims are dangerous, because they are the kind of claims that lead
> to NO-VAX movements, religious stuff in theoretical physics, Heideggerian
> metapyhsics.  Very interesting, but NOT science.
>
>
>
> You might go a bit far on this. If you deny the use of the scientific
> method on the religious terrain, you condemn that domain to remain in the
> realm of the superstition. Also, some people talk like if the existence of
> primary matter was a scientific fact: this too is unscientific. If we want
> related information and reality, I doubt we can progress if we don't try to
> make clear the me

Re: [Fis] some notes

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari colleghi,
l'esistenza implica la conoscenza articolata nelle diverse scienze della
natura, umane e sociali. Quindi la "Science of Logic" , non la logica della
scienza,
di Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1812-1816) vale per qualsiasi tipo di
scienza. Difatti la scienza pura della ragione si divide in tre dottrine:
- dell'essere (quantità, qualità e misura);
- dell'essenza, che studia il pensiero nella sua riflessione o mediazione,
cioè il concetto in quanto è "per sè" e dunque appare;
- del concetto, che studia il concetto "in sè e per sè".
Il primo presentarsi della realtà avviene nelle forme immediate, intuitive,
della qualità, quantità e misura, ma bisogna cogliere ciò che è all'origine
nascosto
nella realtà dell'essere: l'essenza che rappresenta la "verità dell'essere".
La rilettura di Hegel fornisce i fondamenti ontologici al(la teoria del)
valore economica concepita come una combinazione o una relazione
energia/informazione basata sulla
dialettica quantità/qualità e sulla "quantità qualitativa" o misura. Hegel
non contrappone la quantità alla qualità, ma tenta di coglierne la
complementarità facendo derivare la prima dalla seconda. La quantità è la
negazione della qualità. Quantità e qualità variano continuamente, sono
caratterizzate dalla variabilità, ma la variazione quantitativa è
indifferente nei confronti della qualità che non cambia al mutare della
dimensione quantitativa. Se la quantità è un momento di esteriorità
indifferente alla sfera della qualità si giustifica o spiega la scarsa
consi derazione di Hegel per le trattazioni puramente quantitative e dunque
per quelle scienze matematiche quantitative o dure.  Egli ritiene che le
proposizioni della geometria e dell'aritmetica abbiano una natura
esclusivamente analitica e dunque tautologica, negando loro ogni efficacia
euristica.
Questa forte critica al rigore e alla validità scientifica dei modelli
matematici non gli impedisce di svolgere un'analisi che evidenzia
l'insufficienza delle determinazioni,
quantitative per la stessa matematica nella quale, secondo questa
impostazione filosofica che influenza fortemente l'epistemologia
scientifica, irrompono criteri qualitativi facendola divenire  "dolce". Se
la matematica è costretta  incorporare criteri qualitativi o ordinali, deve
far proprio il passaggio alla sfera della misura o "quantità qualitativa".
Beninteso, la scienza della logica mi è servita per elaborare la Nuova
economia (Cfr. in particolare Rizzo F., "La scienza non può non essere
umana, civile, sociale, economi(c)a, enigmatica, nobile, profetica",
Aracne, Roma, 2016, pp. 604-615; oppure Rizzo F.,  "La città dell'uomo.
Sottesa dalla fede", in Human Rights and The City Crisis a cura di Corrado
Beguinot ed altri, Giannini, Napoli, 2012).
Quindi, per farla breve, "quantità qualitativa", "emo-ra-zionalità" e
"significazione, informazione, comunicazione" sono fondamentali per
l'INTERA  conoscenza.
Chiedo scusa per essermi dilungato e vi ringrazio anticipatamente per la
vostra attenzione critica.
Francesco.

2017-11-19 6:34 GMT+01:00 Xueshan Yan :

> Dear Terry and Loet，
>
> I think both of your posts put forward a very important concept to
> information studies, i.e., HIERARCHY.
>
> Terry stated: "Communication needs to be more carefully distinguished from
> mere transfer of physical differences, …… Any transfer of physical,
> physical differences in this respect can be utilized to communicate, and
> all communication requires this physical foundation."
>
> I hope to raise a similar question: what is the mode of the existence of
> information? My answer is: No information can exist in a bare way. That is
> to say, any existence of information is premised on the existence of
> substrate, and the substrate can be hierarchical. In the same way, no
> information can be communicated or processed in a bare way if and only if
> it has been embedded in the substrate. In human information, substrate can
> be divided into sign, paper, etc., or other electronic devices. In genetic
> information, substrate can be divided into base, DNA or RNA, chromosome,
> cell, and organism. The study about the mode of existence of information is
> an important aspect of ontological research of information science.
>
> In Terry’s statement: "Simply collapsing our concept (compression,
> collapse) of 'communication' to its physical substrate ……", or in Loet’s
> words: "One should not confuse communication with the substance of
> communication." Again, this is a hierarchy problem. Because no information
> can be communicated in a bare way, so the communication of information is
> premised on the communication of substrate, the same is true in the
> processing of information. Then, any communication of information is
> twofold: communication of information and communication of substrate. The
> study about the mode of communication and processing of information is the
> important aspect of dynamical research of information science.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Xueshan
>

Re: [Fis] some notes

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Gordana,
grazie per l'apprezzamento del mio messaggio. Messaggio che in sintesi
significa questo: il pensiero esposto è quello di Hegel; la quantità
qualitativa è fondamentale per la Nuova economia che ho elaborato; non
considero la matematica una scienza quantitativa; ho discusso di queste
cose con Enrico Bombieri, il più grande teorico dei numeri vivente;
soprattutto abbiamo parlato della funzione d'onda di B. Riemann; il
penultimo rigo è molto importante. Io non sono un matematico, ma assegno
alla matematica una funzione importante e insostituibile. Nonostante la mia
ignoranza di "poverino esponenziale", sono molto interessato al rapporto
che passa tra i numeri primi, la funzione d'onda di Riemann, la meccanica
quantistica e  i numeri primi o complessi.
Un abbraccio affettuoso.
Francesco.

2017-11-19 9:00 GMT+01:00 Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>:

> Dear Francesco,
> Thank you so much for your enlightening post on logic that is rising the
> topic one level up.
> You refer to Hegel who recognised complementary relationship between
> quality, quantity and their synthesis – measure, which is very central for
> the current discussion.
> I made English translation of your mail (below) and I hope it is adequate
> enough.
>
> However, in your mail, if I understand it correctly, and in the rest of
> the current discussion, it is assumed that *mathematics is quantitative
> science.*
> As we are in the beginning of the era of big data that makes people
> believe that “data speak for themselves” and that sciences just collect
> and summarise/systematically represent data, it is very important to
> point out that mathematics is much, much more than data and its processing.
> It is qualitative science in the same sense that logic is. Algebra is not
> quantitative science. Algebra is the study of mathematical symbols and
> the rules for manipulating these symbols. Topology is not quantitative
> science. Topology is the study of qualitative properties of topological
> spaces that are invariant under certain kinds of transformations.
>
> Here is an explanation why it is essential not to identify quantitative
> literacy with mathematics.
> https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/qr/qr_and_the_disciplines.html
>
> All the best,
> Gordana
>
>
>
> *From: *Fis  on behalf of Francesco Rizzo <
> 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:56
> *To: *"y...@pku.edu.cn" 
> *Cc: *FIS Group 
> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] some notes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
> existence implies articulate knowledge in the various sciences of nature,
> human and social. So the "Science of Logic", not the logic of science, by
> Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1812-1816) applies to any kind of science.
> In fact, pure science of reason is divided into three doctrines of:
> - *being* (quantity, quality and their unity - measure)
> https://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slbeing.htm;
> - *essence*, which studies thought in its reflection or mediation, that
> is, the concept as it is "per se" and thus appears;
> - *concept*, study of the concept "in itself and for itself".
> The first presentation of reality takes place in the immediate, intuitive
> forms of quality, quantity and measure, but one must grasp what is hidden
> origin in the reality of being: the essence that represents the "truth of
> being".
>
> Hegel's reinterpretation provides ontological foundations to (the theory
> of) economic value conceived as a combination or energy / information
> relationship based on dialectical quantity / quality and "qualitative
> quantity" or measure. Hegel does not contrast the quantity with quality,
> but tries to gain complementarity by deriving the first from the second.
> Quantity is the denial of quality. Quantity and quality vary continuously,
> they are characterized by variability, but quantitative variation is
> indifferent to the quality that does not change with the change in the
> quantitative dimension. If the quantity is a time of outwardness
> indifferent to the sphere of quality, it justifies or explains Hegel's
> lack of consideration for purely quantitative considerations and therefore
> for those quantitative or hard mathematical sciences. He believes that
> the propositions of geometry and arithmetic have an exclusively analytical
> and therefore tautological nature, denying them all heuristic efficacy.
> This strong criticism of the rigor and scientific validity of mathematical
> models does not prevent him from carrying out an analysis that highlights
> the inadequacy of determinations,
> quantitative for the same mathematics, in 

Re: [Fis] Social Information Structure&dynamics: SOCIOTYPE

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Pedro e colleghi Fis,
la triade geno-tipo, feno-tipo e socio-type è fondamentale per com-prendere
lo sviluppo onto-genetico e il processo onto-logico di un essere umano.
Ho sempre pensato, sin da "Il giudizio di valore" (1972) che le scienze
sociali dovevano tener nel dovuto conto i meccanismi naturali del
comportamento
degli organismi sociali, affrancandosi dalla caricatura dell'Homo
oeconomicus. Solo così si possono analizzare. spiegare e prevedere i
fenomeni economici.
basando  l'azione umana sulla psicologia del ragionamento e della decisione
in-centrate sugli effetti cognitivi ed emozionali dei suoi comportamenti
effettivi.
L'esistenza e la conoscenza degli esseri viventi si fondano sul triangolo
dei tre surplus o delle tre neg-entropie termodinamici o naturali,
eco-biologici e storico-culturali (o semiotico-ermeneutici). In "Valore e
valutazioni" (specialmente nel capitolo 11) ho accostato questo mio
triangolo dei tre surplus alla costruzione BIO-logica, SO-ciale, MA-cchine
(BIO-SO-MA,) di Giuseppe Bugliarello e ai tre mondi di Popper.
Ovviamente l'informazione genetica ha un ruolo fondamentale in questa
prospettiva onto-logica concreta e empirica, ma  l'ambiente naturale e
l'ambiente culturale contribuiscono a creare quell'armonia meravigliosa che
è l'uomo studiato dalle scienze della natura e dalle scienze umane.
Quindi  questa è la strada epistemologica e/o paradigmatica che bisogna
seguire e che Pedro e i suoi collaboratori hanno fatto bene a rimarcare e
richiamare. Non v'ha società senza informazione e informazione senza
società.
Grazie. Un abbraccio natalizio a Tutti.
Francesco.

2017-12-18 14:16 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear All,
>
> In response to the comments received:
>
> Stan (offline), you are right about the subsumptive hierarchy among these
> three concepts or levels (genotype-phenotype-sociotype). In our opinion
> the essential aspect becomes the specific "information flow" that underlies
> the emergence/construction of each one. Rather than energy flow it is a
> matter of energy flow. For instance, multicellular phenotypes are possible
> via the information flow of a number of intercellular messengers that are
> received and processed by the "cellular signaling systems" of individual
> cells. In the sociotype case, the specific information flow becomes the
> human language... all human societies are indeed information societies.
>
> John Prick, thanks for your cordial acknowledgment. We hope that social
> science parties will take into account not only the interesting
> questionnaire, but also the new point of view developed in the
> introduction. It is really information science "in action" within the
> social realm.
>
> Joseph, the main goal of this work is to provide both a new vision and a
> new practical tool. The "epidemics of loneliness" of contemporary societies
> demands quite many changes of view. Paradoxically, it is also a product of
> the new "information society". Our face-to-face exchanges, the flesh and
> bones of our social bonds, are jeopardized by the addiction to the new
> forms of weak communication via cellphones, internet, etc. It is a problem
> we also discuss in our paper.
>
> Sung, you may be right! the attention economy working in our social
> contacts seems to be similar to the transcription economy of our cells and
> to the metabolic trade-offs of our organs in the overall optimization of
> the organism. The PDE (Planckian Distribution Equation) that you describe,
> which was already presented months ago in a FIS session, becomes a very
> intriguing "form of information" that we are also finding within a number
> of sociotype components: for instance, family number, friends and
> acquaintances numbers, etc. and also in the corresponding conversation
> times. We thank you for your cooperation in this ongoing exploratory work.
>
> In a few days I will send the customary Season Greetings and some
> highlight of the discussion sessions programmed for the next course.
>
> All  the best--Pedro
>
>
> El 16/12/2017 a las 6:38, Sungchul Ji escribió:
>
> Hi Pedro,
>
>
> I read your Plos One article with great interest, and I am particularly
> intrigued by the notion of the genotype-phenotype-sociotype triad.
>
>
> I think PDE (Planckian Distribution Equation) may be one of the few, if
> not the only, mathematical equation(s) now available that can be applied to
> fitting long-tailed histograms generated at the genotype (mRNA), phenotype
> (sentence length frequency distribution in speech), and sociotype levels
> (the dramatic shift in the shapes of the US annual income distributions in
> 1996 and 2013) as shonw in Figure 1 attached.
>
>
> Also the diagram of ITR (Irreversible Triadic Relation) shown below may be
> useful in invetigating the relation among genes, phenotypes and sociotypes,
> in the sense that ITR may shed  new light on the relation between genes and
> sociotypes which are "indirect" or "informaiton flow-mediated" unlike the
> dyadic real

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari tutti,
i messaggi di Pedro e Sungchul sono decisivi e riportano il dibattito
nell'alveo della scienza che si proietta nel futuro. Ho elaborato una
Nuova economia in cui la biologia dell'informazione o l'informazione della
biologia è fondamentale per l'esistenza e la conoscenza umane in-centrate
sulla triade semiologica o semiotica della significazione, informazione,
comunicazione. Per quanto gli studiosi abbiano fatto di tutto per separare
e contrapporre campi diversi  del sapere, la legge dell'informazione li
unisce e univoca tutti.
Grazie e auguri.
Francesco. .

2018-01-11 23:25 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji :

> Hi Pedro, John and other FISers,
>
> (*1*)  Thank you John for the succinct summary of your cell-based
> evolutionary theory.  As I indicated offline, I too proposed a cell-based
> evolutionary theory in 2012 [1] and compared it with the gene-centered
> evolutionary theory of Zeldovich and Shankhnovich (see Table 14.10 in [1]).
>
>
> (*2*) I agree with Pedro that
>
> ". . . ..  essential informational ideas are missing too, and this absence
> of the informational perspective in the ongoing evo discussions is not a
> good thing. . . . "
>
>
> I often wonder if this situation has arisen in biology because biologists
> blindly apply to their problems the information theory as introduced by
> Shannon almost 7 decades ago in the context of communication engineering
> without due attention paid to the fact that  the Shannon-type information
> theory is not designed to handle the "meaning" or semantics of messages but
> only the AMOUNT of the information they carry.  If we agree that there are
> three essential aspects to information, i.e., *amount* (e.g., my USB
> stores 3 Megabytes of information), *meaning *(e.g., the nucleotide
> triplet, ACG, encodes threonine),  and *value* (e.g., the same message,
> 'Yes', can have different monetary values, depending on the context), we
> can readily see that the kind of information theory most useful for
> biologists is not (only) the Shannon-type but (also) whatever type that can
> handle the semantics and pragmatics of information.
>
>
> (*3*) One way to avoid the potential confusions in applying information
> theory to biology may be to recognize two distinct types of information
> which, for the lack of better terms, may be referred to as the "meaningless
> information" or I(-)  and "meaningful information" or I(+), and what Pedro
> regarded as the missing "essential informational ideas" above may be
> identified with I(+) (?)
>
>
> (*4*)  There may be many forms of the I(+) theories to emerge in the
> field of "new informatics" in the coming decades.  Based on my research
> results obtained over the past two decades, I am emboldened to suggest that
> "linguistics" can be viewed as an example of the I(+) theory. The term
> "linguistics" was once fashionable in Western philosophy and humanities (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn) in the form of "linguistic
> turn" but apparently became outmoded (for some unknown reason to me, a
> non-philosopher), but I am one of the many (including Chargaff who
> discovered his two parity rules of DNA sequences; https://en.
> wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargaff%27s_rules) who believes that linguistics
> provide a valuable tool for elucidating the workings of living structures
> and processes [2, 3].  In fact we may refer to the emerging trend in the
> early 21st century that explore the basic relations between linguistics and
> biology as the "Linguistic Return", in analogy to the "Linguistic Turn"
> referring to the  "major development in Western philosophy during the
> early 20th century, the most important characteristic of which is the
> focusing of philosophy and the other humanities primarily on the
> relationship between philosophy and language." ((https://en.wikipedia.org/
> wiki/Linguistic_turn)
>
> (*5*)  So, linguistics played an important role in philosophy in the
> early 20th century and may play a similarly important role in biology in
> the coming decades of the 21st century.  What about physics?  Does physics
> need linguistics to solve their basic problems ?   If not
> linguistics, perhaps semiotics, the study of signs?  The latter possibility
> was suggested by Brian Josephson in his lecture
>
> "*Biological Organization as the True Foundation of Reality"*
>
>
>  given at the 66th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting held in Lindau, Germany,
> stating that
>
>
> “*Semiotics will eventually overtake quantum mechanics in the same way **as
> quantum mechanics overtook classical physics.”*
>
> I referred to this statement as the "Josephson conjecture" in [3].  When I
> visited him in Cambridge last summer to discuss this statement, he did not
> object to his name being used in this manner.
>
>
> (*6*)  If the concepts of the "Linguistic Return" in biology and
> the Josephson conjecture  in physics prove to be correct in the coming
> decades and centuries, it may be possible to conclude that *philosophy*,
> *biol

Re: [Fis] I salute to Sungchul

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Emanuel, Loet, Sung, Alex, Terry,
tutti insieme costituite un bel coro. Siete un'armonia meravigliosa. La
musica è il paradigma della scienza della vita o della vita della scienza.
E' un vero piacere dell'anima leggerVi. Siete forti, chiari e
incontrovertibili. Credo che il regista Pedro sia molto contento. Questa è
la strada da seguire. Non bisogna inseguire chimere o illusioni. Tutto ciò
che si conosce esiste e tutto ciò che esiste si conosce (lo dedico a
Giuseppe Brenner). Grazie, grazie, grazie.
Da parte di un economista della felicità.
Un abbraccio affettuoso.
Francesco

2018-01-14 4:37 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji :

> Hi Alex,
>
>
> Thanks for raising the thought-provoking question.
>
>
> According to the dual theory of information (i.e, the physical vs.
> semantic information theory (PSIT)) [1] as I understand it, there is no  
> "Information
> that you cannot put in a data set ".  That is, all the information
> discussed in natural and human sciences must be grounded in the physical
> upon which the semanticity (or functionality) of any structure must arise.
> For example, all heritable traits (including the kind of sensory
> experiences you described) must be grounded in DNA structures as
> clearly pointed out by Petoukhov [2, 3], for instance.   Unlike the current
> textbook version of DNA viewed as a set of linear sequences of genes
> composed of just one alphabet of 4 letters, A, C. G and T,  my
> interpretation of the mathematical analyses of DNA-sequences (as summarized
> in the concept of the tetra-groups of DNA sequences [4]) carried out by
> Petoukhov [2, 3] indicates that DNA is a linear sequences of the 4
> nucleotides structured (or partitioned) into n alphabets (or languages),
> each consisting of 4^n letters, where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., of which we
> may currently be aware of only the simplest alphabet with n = 1.  The n = 5
> alphabet (i.e., the n^th alphabet or the n^th cell language) should consist
> of 4^5 = 1,024 letters, and the n = 6 alphabet should contain 4,096
> letters, etc.  Having these multiple alphabets or molecular languages may
> have been beneficial for biological evolution, probably because they
> increased the information storage and processing capacities of the cell.
>  I am not a computer scientist but it seems to me that the situation is
> similar to computer scientists using two different alphabets -- one with 2
> digits (i.e., o, 1) and the other with 2^3 = 8 digits (i.e., ,
> 1000, 1100, 0011, . . .) in order to increase the
> information storage and processing capacities of computers.
>
>
> All biological communications including cell-cell, cell-organ, cell-human,
> humnan-human communications must be mediated by messages (or signs)
> (i) written in an alphabet with n letters, where n can be 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, .
> . . .10^6?, thus having varying information storage and processing
> capacities, and (ii) obeying a set of syntactic rules  so that (iii) the
> sender and the receiver can understand the messages using a common set (or
> dictionary) of rules of interpretation.
>
>
> In conlusion, my breif answer to Alex's question would be that human
> brains have evolved to perform the kind of sensory functions you describe
> based on "molecular data", not necessarily macroscopic physical or
> linguistic data employed in macrosciences and engineering.
>
>
> All the best.
>
>
> Sung
>
>
>
> References:
>
>   [1] Emanuel Diamant, *The brain is processing information, not data.
> Does anybody care?, *ISIS Summit Vienna 2015, Extended Abstract.
> http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2842
> 
>
> 
> [2] Petoukhov, S. (2017).  Genetic coding and united-hypercomplex systems
> in the models of algebraic biology.*BioSystems* *158*: 31-46.
> [3] Petoukhov, S. (2016).  The system-resonance approach in
> modeling genetic structures. *BiosySystems* *139*:1-11.
>[4] Petoukhov, S. (2018). The rules of long DNA-sequences and
> tetra-groups of oligonucleotides. arXiv:1709.04943v4 [q-bio.OT]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>