Re: [Fis] Causation is transfer of information
an > merely as a representation) Information Originates in Symmetry Breaking > <http://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/infsym.pdf> (*Symmetry* 1996). > Very nice paper. I agree on symmetry breaking, I have similar ideas: https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1572 (published in the journal of Natural Computing) On how symmetric rules can produce assymetric information. Best, Hector Zenil http://www.hectorzenil.net/ > I adopt what I call dynamical realism, that anything that is real is > either dynamical or interpretable in dynamical terms. Not everyone will > agree. > > > > John Collier > > Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate > > Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* Guy A Hoelzer [mailto:hoel...@unr.edu] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 29 March 2017 1:44 AM > *To:* Sungchul Ji ; Terry Deacon < > dea...@berkeley.edu>; John Collier ; Foundations of > Information Science Information Science > > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Causation is transfer of information > > > > Greetings all, > > > > It seems that the indigestion from competing definitions of ‘information’ > is hard to resolve, and I agree with Terry and others that a broad > definition is preferable. I also think it is not a problem to allow > multiple definitions that can be operationally adopted in appropriate > contexts. In some respects, apparently competing definitions are actually > reinforcing. For example, I prefer to use ‘information’ to describe any > difference (a distinction or contrast), and it is also true that a subset > of all differences are ones that ‘make a difference’ to an observer. When > we restrict ‘information’ to differences that make a difference it becomes > inherently subjective. That is certainly not a problem if you are > interested in subjectivity, but it would eliminate the rationality of > studying objective ‘information’, which I think holds great promise for > understanding dynamical systems. I don’t see any conflict between > ‘information’ as negentropy and ‘information’ as a basis for decision > making. On the other hand, semantics and semiotics involve the attachment > of meaning to information, which strikes me as a separate and complementary > idea. Therefore, I think it is important to sustain this distinction > explicitly in what we write. Maybe there is a context in which > ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ are so intertwined that they cannot be > isolated, but I can’t think of one. I’m sure there are plenty of contexts > in which the important thing is ‘meaning’, and where the (more general, > IMHO) term ‘information’ is used instead. I think it is fair to say that > you can have information without meaning, but you can’t have meaning > without information. Can anybody think of a way in which it might be > misleading if this distinction was generally accepted? > > > > Regards, > > > > Guy > > > > > > On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > > > Hi Fisers, > > > > I agree with Terry that "information" has three irreducible aspects --- > *amount*, *meaning*, and *value*. These somehow may be related to > another triadic relation called the ITR as depicted below, although I don't > know the exact rule of mapping between the two triads. Perhaps, 'amount' = > f, 'meaning' = g, and 'value' = h ? . > > > > f g > >Object ---> Sign --> Interpretant > > | > ^ > | >| > | >| > | >| > |_| > > h > > > > *Figure 1.* The *Irreducible Triadic Relation* (ITR) of seimosis (also > called sign process or communication) first clearly articulated by Peirce > to the best of my knowledge. *Warning*: Peirce often replaces Sign with > Representamen and represents the whole triad, i.e., Figure 1 > itself (although he did not use such a figure in his writings) as the Sign. > Not distinguishing between these two very different uses of the same word > "Sign" can lead to semiotic confusions. The three processes are defined > as follows: f = sign production, g = sign interpretation, h = information > flow (other ways of labeling the arrows are not excluded). Each process > or arrow reads "determines", "leads", "is presupposed by", etc., and > the three arrows constitute a *commutative
Re: [Fis] Causation is transfer of information
With all due respect, I am still amazed how it is so much ignored and neglected all the science and math around information developed in the last 50-60 years! With most people here citing in the best case only Shannon Entropy but completely neglecting and ignoring algorithmic complexity, logical depth, quantum information and so on. Your philosophical discussions are quite empty if most people ignore the progress that computer science and math has done in the last 60 years! Please take it constructively. This should be a shame for the whole field of Philosophy of Information and FIS. Perhaps I can help alleviate this a little even if I feel wrong pointing you out to my own papers on subjects relevant to philosophical discussion: http://www.hectorzenil.net/publications.html They do care about the meaning and value of information beyond Shannon Entropy. For example, paper J21: - Natural Scene Statistics Mediate the Perception of Image Complexity (available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13506285.2014.950365 also available pdf preprint in the arxiv) and - Rare Speed-up in Automatic Theorem Proving Reveals Tradeoff Between Computational Time and Information Value (https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04349). And we even show how Entropy fails at the most basic level: Low Algorithmic Complexity Entropy-deceiving Graphs ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05972) Best Regards, Hector Zenil --- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the message. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Terrence W. DEACON wrote: > > Dear FIS colleagues, > > I agree with John Collier that we should not assume to restrict the concept of information to only one subset of its potential applications. But to work with this breadth of usage we need to recognize that 'information' can refer to intrinsic statistical properties of a physical medium, extrinsic referential properties of that medium (i.e. content), and the significance or use value of that content, depending on the context. A problem arises when we demand that only one of these uses should be given legitimacy. As I have repeatedly suggested on this listserve, it will be a source of constant useless argument to make the assertion that someone is wrong in their understanding of information if they use it in one of these non-formal ways. But to fail to mark which conception of information is being considered, or worse, to use equivocal conceptions of the term in the same argument, will ultimately undermine our efforts to understand one another and develop a complete general theory of information. > > This nominalization of 'inform' has been in use for hundreds of years in legal and literary contexts, in all of these variant forms. But there has been a slowly increasing tendency to use it to refer to the information-beqaring medium itself, in substantial terms. This reached its greatest extreme with the restricted technical usage formalized by Claude Shannon. Remember, however, that this was only introduced a little over a half century ago. When one of his mentors (Hartley) initially introduced a logarithmic measure of signal capacity he called it 'intelligence' — as in the gathering of intelligence by a spy organization. So had Shannon chose to stay with that usage the confusions could have been worse (think about how confusing it would have been to talk about the entropy of intelligence). Even so, Shannon himself was to later caution against assuming that his use of the term 'information' applied beyond its technical domain. > > So despite the precision and breadth of appliction that was achieved by setting aside the extrinsic relational features that characterize the more colloquial uses of the term, this does not mean that these other uses are in some sense non-scientific. And I am not alone in the belief that these non-intrinsic properties can also (eventually) be strictly formalized and thereby contribute insights to such technical fields as molecular biology and cognitive neuroscience. > > As a result I think that it is legitimate to argue that information (in the referential sense) is only in use among living forms, that an alert signal sent by the computer in an automobile engine is information (in both senses, depending on whether we include a human interpreter in the loop), or that information (in the intrinsic sense of a medium property) is lost within a black hole or that it can be used to provide a more precise conceptiont of physical cause (as in Collier's sense). These different uses aren't unrelated to each other. They are just asymmetrically dependent on one another, such that medium-intrinsic properties can be investigated without considering referential properties, but not v
Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story
There is no way I could trust such a proof as it would completely rely on the very particular and certainly arbitrary axiomatic theory in which such a proof could be produced (there is no way we can take the 'universe' as being operating on theories of relativity and quantum field, for example). It makes little to no sense to rely on a mathematical proof or to even give it more credit than some empirical evidence. I, myself, feel pretty safe with the arguments provided so far (I do not pretend anyone else to do so, perhaps you don't, but my understanding is that the people that know and certainly would be concerned, are satisfied enough), of course as long as the calculations were correct, i.e. that if nature does not produce such black holes, CERN would therefore not produce them in the same circumstances and at lower energies. For certain there will be still people that feel unsafe and I think that is also good, always some dissension helps to get things right and force the other side to be even more convincing. What I definitely would think is definitely wrong, is that a mathematical proof can give any definite proof of the real world. I once worked in an animal behaviour lab where they wanted me to prove theorems about animal behaviour and I told them they were insane =) All Best, - Hector P.s. Notice I am a mathematician by training, so I am not suggesting at all to throw away maths, but I think some people clearly overestimate the power of maths or math theories as if axioms were physical 'trues', when they are merely mathematical assumptions. Similar to people that have proven the Church thesis in the negative because they have created a theoretical model that computes beyond the Turing limit, the problem is not that one, the problem is to show it can be implemented and one can actually compute with such models. --- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the message. On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Terry and FISers, > > I know that there is probably theoretical “no proof” or guarantee in the > mathematical sense, but this should not mean that irresponsible experiments > can be carried out on a large scale like Tesla did them a century ago. What > you suggest about “experiments of nature” sounds reasonable. Hawking's > argument is also good. But he was also wrong a couple of times. What you > say about maths is also true, but the issue is more about the moral and > methodology of science. We cannot afford doing Frankenstein experiments on > this small Earth. Do we know the consequences of all these experiments for > our ecology? Polynesia is still suffering the French H-bomb tests in the > 1950s: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/french-nuclear-tests- > polynesia-declassified. As I told Lou, if the experiments were made in > another remote galaxy, I would not have a problem as an observer. But they > are made here, under our feet, and there is no guarantee that they cannot > go wrong. We cannot escape anywhere. Again, this has nothing to do with the > statistics of airplane or lift crashes. The entire human civilisation of > 100.000 years can disappear within a minute. Maybe not with this > experiment, but with the next one. Of course, this could happen also with > an asteroid or a comet hit, or a series of volcano eruptions and > earthquakes, but don’t we have other, more important problems to solve > here on Earth? > > All the best. > > Plamen > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Terrence W. DEACON > wrote: > >> Mathematic analysis seldom provides "proof" of any physical theory or >> prediction. This is of course why we do empirical experiments. So being >> unpersuaded by either side's theoretical analysis and prior to running the >> actual experiment on the LHC, what is the best approach? I think that there >> is another option than simply avoiding performing any such experiment until >> reaching mathematical certainty. I am much more persuaded by the results of >> "experiments of nature" than by anyone's calculations. And there is ample >> evidence from the results of such "experiments" that the predicted >> catastrophic consequences will not occur (because they have not, despite >> millions of replications). I quote again from >> >> http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc >> >> "Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the >> earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens." Prof. Steven Hawking, >> Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University >> >> "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the >> moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed >
Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics?
I think complaining about Shannon entropy as a measure of information is completely justified because it is steam-engine physics unfortunately still widely used despite its many flaws and limitations. But to think that Shannon entropy is at the front-end in the mathematical discussion of information is a mistake and this, and other groups, have perpetually been entrapped in a 60s and 70s discussion on a fake ancient theory of information that not even Shannon himself thought was worth to be used for anything meaningful in information but for communication measuring purposes only. Indeed, Shannon entropy is nothing else but a counting function of states/symbols, at best it is a measure of diversity, a bound on information transfer. The technical and philosophical discussion here and everywhere else should be (and has been among those at the scientific front) focused on what has been done in the last 50 years to leave Shannon entropy behind, but nobody here (and almost nowhere else) are people discuss about algorithmic randomness, Levin's universal distribution, measures of sophistication, etc. but prefer to be in a continuous state of pre 60s Shannon entropy discussion. Shannon entropy should not even be mentioned any longer in serious discussions about information, we moved on a long time ago (unfortunately not even many physicists have done) Trying to be constructive. All best, - Hector http://www.hectorzenil.net/ On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, joe.brenner wrote: > Dear Loet, > The way you have asked it, I think the answer to your question is known: > both order and disorder are universals, linked dialectically. Never one > without the other, as for symmetry and asymmetry, except in trivially > simple cases. > Cheers, > Joseph > > > Sent from Samsung Mobile. > > > Original message > From: Loet Leydesdorff > Date:29/06/2016 14:40 (GMT+01:00) > To: "'Pedro C. Marijuan'" , fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics? > > Dear Pedro and colleagues, > > > > The figure from Weaver in Loet's excellent posting leaves a few aspects > outside. The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other aspects > of the information phenomenon do not enter. By doing that we have > streamlined the phenomenon... and have left it ready for applying a highly > successful theory, in the technological and in many other realms > (linguistics, artif. intelligence, neurodynamics, molec. networks, ecol. > networks, applied soc. metrics, etc). Pretty big and impressive, but is it > enough? Shouldn't we try to go beyond? > > In my opinion, “The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other > aspects …” are subject to substantive theorizing. The type of answers will > be very different when studying biological or other systems of reference. > But then the information is provided with meaning by these theories and we > discuss “meaningful information” as different from Shannon-type > information. There will in this case a dimension to the information. > > > > For example, when particles collide, there is exchange of momenta and > energy. The dissipation is then dimensioned as Joule/Kelvin (S = k H). In > chemistry one assumes a mass balance and thus a redistribution of atoms > over molecules, etc. The dimensionality of interhuman communication is > hitherto not specified. > > > I wonder whether a far wider "phenomenology of information" is needed > (reminding what Maxine argued months ago about the whole contemplation of > our own movement, or Plamen about the "war on cancer"?). If that inquiry is > successful we could find for instance that: > > This is not successful. It does not lead to a research program, but to > “philosophie spontanée des savant” (Althusser) as your comprehensive > question for “The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other > aspects” illustrates. The hidden program is biologistic: > > > 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' SPECIFIC. > > > > “ESSENTIAL CORES” are discipline specific! > > > 3. Those UNIVERSALS would be organized, wrapped, around an ESSENTIAL CORE. > It would consist in the tight ingraining of self-production and > communication (almost inseparable, and both information based!). In the > human special case, it is the whole advancement of our own lives what > propels us to engage in endless communication --about the universals of our > own species-- but with the terrific advantage of an open-ended > communication system, language. > > 4. Those UNIVERSALS would have been streamlined in very different ways and > taken as "principles" or starting points for a number of > disciplines--remembering the discussion about the four Great Domains of > Science. A renewed Information Science should nucleate one of those > domains. > > “Should” is an expression of uneasiness? In my opinion, the assumption of > an origin is problematic: order is not given (ex ante) and then branching, > but emerging (ex post) from disorder (entropy). Is “disorder”
Re: [Fis] "Mechanical Information" in DNA
The original article (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0156905) closes with: "Analysis of two high resolution nucleosome maps revealed strong signals that—even though they do not constitute a definite proof—are at least consistent with such a view." Physorg opens their popularizing note about the above article with: "Second layer of information in DNA confirmed" Interesting. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Hector Zenil wrote: >> 2016-06-08 16:40 GMT-03:00 John Collier : >>> >>> A previously hypothesized “second layer” of information in DNA may have >>> been isolated. > > This is not exactly new, possibly the reason this paper didn't make it > to Nature or Science. See > http://tinyurl.com/3Dgenomics > http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(15)00063-3 > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Moisés André Nisenbaum > wrote: >> Also, you usually think "DNA" associated with Biological Sciences, but this >> research is made at Leiden Institute of Physics! Of course, to work current >> (complex, innovative) science you must have an interdisciplinary approach. > > Francis Crick was a physicist at the Physics Cavendish Laboratory in > Cambridge with Watson, Frederick Sanger was a biochemist, etc. > > Best, > > - Hector Zenil > http://www.hectorzenil.net/ > >>> >>> >>> >>> http://phys.org/news/2016-06-layer-dna.html >>> >>> >>> >>> John Collier >>> >>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate >>> >>> University of KwaZulu-Natal >>> >>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 de Janeiro >> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br >> >> ___ >> 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] "Mechanical Information" in DNA
> 2016-06-08 16:40 GMT-03:00 John Collier : >> >> A previously hypothesized “second layer” of information in DNA may have >> been isolated. This is not exactly new, possibly the reason this paper didn't make it to Nature or Science. See http://tinyurl.com/3Dgenomics http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(15)00063-3 On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote: > Also, you usually think "DNA" associated with Biological Sciences, but this > research is made at Leiden Institute of Physics! Of course, to work current > (complex, innovative) science you must have an interdisciplinary approach. Francis Crick was a physicist at the Physics Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge with Watson, Frederick Sanger was a biochemist, etc. Best, - Hector Zenil http://www.hectorzenil.net/ >> >> >> >> http://phys.org/news/2016-06-layer-dna.html >> >> >> >> John Collier >> >> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate >> >> University of KwaZulu-Natal >> >> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 de Janeiro > moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br > > ___ > 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] CFP: Big data in complex systems, network theory, cybernetics, and artificial life
13th IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC2016) April 28-30, 2016, Mexico City, Mexico http://www.icnsc2016.org Special Session On “Big data in complex systems, network theory, cybernetics, and artificial life” CALL FOR PAPERS Complex systems have been studied for some time, but it was not until recently that sampling complex systems became possible, systems ranging from computational methods such as high-throughput biology, to systems with sufficient storage capacity to store and analyze prize market transactions. The advent of Big Data is therefore the result of the availability of computing power to process these complex systems, from social to economic, from physical to biological systems. Much has been said on the importance of being able to deal with large amounts of data but little about how to model, represent and better analyze the dynamics of complex systems. The special session will stimulate a strong national participation. Challenges in Mexico represent a great opportunity for complex systems research and theory development to tackle current and future challenges of the country and the future world ranging from biodiversity, security, social impact, population dynamics, epidemiology, genetic modified food, technology development, cultural aspects, violence, waste disposal and so on. Topics of interest are not limited to basic and applied research in complexity science and artificial life from the perspectives of computer science, mathematics, physics, biology and the social sciences. Topics related to computational modeling methods such as: - Cellular automata - Agents and distributed computing - Neural networks - Complex networks - Patterns - L-systems - Dynamical systems - Quantum systems to mention some examples. The 13th IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC´2016) will be held in Mexico City, Mexico. This conference will provide a remarkable opportunity for the academic and industrial communities to address new challenges and share solutions, and discuss future research directions. It will feature plenary speeches, industrial panel sessions, and funding agency panel sessions, interactive sessions, invited/special sessions and tutorials. Contributions are expected from academia, industry, and management agencies. All accepted papers will be published in conference proceedings and in IEEE Xplore. IMPORTANT DATES - Submission deadline: January 15, 2015 (oral presentations in Spanish will be considered but papers and slides must be in English) - Camera-ready: February 15, 2016 - Early registration: before February, 15, 2016 KEYNOTE (main conference): - Dr. Ljiljana Trajkovic Other keynote speakers may be later confirmed PAPER SUBMISSION Complete manuscripts must be electronically submitted through the conference website: http://www.icnsc2016.org Submitted manuscripts in English should be six (6) pages in IEEE two-column format, including figures, tables, and references. Please use the templates at Manuscript Templates for IEEE Conference Proceedings from the conference website to prepare your paper. PUBLICATIONS High quality contributions may be considered (in extended versions) for journals such as: - Journal of Cellular Automata (JCA) - International Journal of Unconventional Computation (IJUC) ORGANIZING COMMITTEE - Dr. Aida HUERTA (Centro de Ciencias de la Complejidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) - Dr. María Elena LARRAGA (Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) - Dr. Genaro JUAREZ MARTINEZ (Escuela Superior de Cómputo, Instituto Politécnico Nacional; Centre for Unconventional Computing, University of the West of England & LABORES) - Dr. Juan Carlos SECK TUOH MORA (Área Académica de Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo) - Dr. Hector ZENIL (Department of Computer Science, Oxford University; Karolinska Institutet & LABORES) SPONSORS & ORGANIZING INSTITUTIONS - IEEE (https://www.ieee.org/) - CONACYT (http://www.conacyt.mx/) - CINVESTAV (http://www.cinvestav.mx/) - IPN (http://www.ipn.mx/english/) - UNAM (https://www.unam.mx/) - CCC (http://c3.fisica.unam.mx/) - LCCOMP (http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Home.html) - LABORES (http://labores.eu/) ABOUT MEXICO CITY Safety: Mexico is the 14th largest country in the world (by area, 11th by population, 14th by GDP, 11th GDP parity) and the largest Spanish-speaking country. Much has been said on the news but while some parts of Mexico have been affected by drug-related violence (in their way to the U.S. the largest illegal drug market in the world), safety in Mexico City is not different to other cities in North America and Asia and visitors should not particularly worry. Mexico City has a crime rate of 22 per 100K people, comparable to Pennsylvania and not far from Philadelphia’s (16) or Washington, DC (15), far below the city of Detroit (43.5) and way far from many other cities in Latin America i
Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 11 May 2012, at 13:10, Hector Zenil wrote: > > Information that readers may find interesting: > > > Stephen Wolfram has written the first in a series of blogs posts about > > NKS titled "It's Been 10 Years; What's Happened with A New Kind of > > Science?": http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-whats-happened-with-a-new-kind-of-science/ > > > Stephen will also be hosting an Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit, where > > he will be taking questions about NKS and his research program on > > Monday, May 14 at 3pm EST. > > > I think it is a good opportunity to start an interesting discussion > > about several topics, including of course information and computation. > > > It looks like advertising for a type of universal system, the cellular > automata. Coincidently, Wolfram wrote today (http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/living-a-paradigm-shift-looking-back-on-reactions-to-a-new-kind-of-science/): "Looking through reviews, there are some other common themes. One is that A New Kind of Science is a book about cellular automata—or worse, about the idea (not in fact suggested in the book at all) that our whole universe is a giant cellular automaton. For sure, cellular automata are great, visually strong, examples for lots of phenomena I discuss. But after about page 50 (out of 1280), cellular automata no longer take center stage—and notably are not the type of system I discuss in the book as possible models for fundamental physics." People keep repeating what other say about others... (in this case, that his view is all about cellular automata). ... > Digital physics implies computationalism, but if you take the 1/3 person > points of view distinction into account, computationalism entails a non > digital physics. So digital physics is conceptually erroneous. > > See the references in my URL for a proof of that statement. You need only > Church's Turing thesis, and the assumption that consciousness is invariant > for *some* digital transformation (which follows from computationalism). > > This does not preclude that cellular automaton are very interesting, and can > have many applications, but it is not clear to make it into a new science. > We want to ask what about that science is, for it does not seem to address > the most fundamental questions. Then perhaps you can ask him next Monday on his Reedit session. I think he has some concerns about the place of observers in a digital world scenario. As for computationalism, he as I do, think that the question is about physics, the answer won't come therefore from a model of math or computation. > > Bruno Marchal > > > > > > Sincerely. > > ___ > > fis mailing list > > fis@listas.unizar.es > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday
Information that readers may find interesting: Stephen Wolfram has written the first in a series of blogs posts about NKS titled "It's Been 10 Years; What's Happened with A New Kind of Science?": http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-whats-happened-with-a-new-kind-of-science/ Stephen will also be hosting an Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit, where he will be taking questions about NKS and his research program on Monday, May 14 at 3pm EST. I think it is a good opportunity to start an interesting discussion about several topics, including of course information and computation. Sincerely. ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK
Steven, More than an objection I wanted to understand what the book was being credited for. But yes, a book that is credited to advance the field of information and overlooks to talk about Turing computation I think should be considered, at least, incomplete (perhaps intended along the lines of the book's title). Moreover, if the author ignores the progress (even if he, you or me may not agree on whether Turing computation may or may not capture in full or a part of what information may be), then I think one is missing not only part of the story but perhaps the most important part of the story after Shannon. But I'm not assuming that Deacon ignores the topic, but that his intention was a complete change of direction. But then I find contradictory to credit Shannon with such a status in his approach, and then ignore everything else in the process to take an opposite direction. But as I also said, I think he never intended to contribute to the field of information, but that his approach to information is accessory to his main goal: the point of his "incomplete nature". Sincerely, Hector On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: > Dear Hector, > > What, exactly, is your objection to it? It's anti-reductionism (that I would > object to also) or it's claim that Turing computation is insufficient (to > which I have no objection)? > > With respect, > Steven > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering > http://iase.info > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Hector Zenil wrote: > >> Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed >> breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS >> enthusiasts? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan >> wrote: >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a >>> FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info >>> avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman >>> and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular >>> discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of >>> voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan >>> could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh >>> discussion session for the coming months. >>> >>> Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the >>> filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together. >>> Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as >>> as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one. >>> >>> best >>> >>> ---Pedro >>> (fis list coordination) >>> >>> - >>> Pedro C. Marijuán >>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group >>> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud >>> Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª >>> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain >>> Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 >>> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es >>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ >>> - >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> fis mailing list >>> fis@listas.unizar.es >>> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> ___ >> fis mailing list >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK
y > self-organize, they have agency, They are obligate symbionts and hence there > energy is provided by their hosts but they assist their hosts to acquire > energy and do work. > > If we look again at the characteristics on p. 267 i.e. Living: a. > trajectories run counter to 2nd law, b. heterogeneous in structure and > dynamics, c. cannot be described algorithmically, d. have system properties, > and e. reflect the effects of deep historical contingencies that may no > longer be existent in their present context. > > Then LCTS a. contribute to countering thermodynamic dissipation, b. they are > heterogeneous in structure and dynamics, c. they defy a compact algorithmic > description, d. they have systemic properties not possessed by their > components. They are emergent phenomena and e. they reflect the effects of > deep historical contingencies. > > “The process of evolution, rather than merely maintaining and reproducing > dynamical form, exhibits a spontaneous tendency for its dynamics to > diversify and complexify these forms, both intrinsically and in their > relationship to their contexts.” > > This is also true of LCTS! – rkl > > 276 “The incessant need to replace and reconstruct organism components > depends on synthetic form-generating processes, not merely resistance to > breakdown.” > > LCTS are also self-correcting and maintaining.-rkl > > “So the dependence of teleodynamic on morphodynamics and morphodynamics on > thermodynamics constitutes a three-stage nested hierarchy of modes of > dynamics, which ultimately links the most basic ortthhograde process–the > second law of thermodynamics –with the teleodynamic logic of living and > mental processes.” > > 278 Reproduction of life is “the construction of a dynamical physical > system, which is a replica of the system that constructed it, in both its > structural and functional respects, though not necessarily a faithful > replica in every detail. > > This is true of LCTS. They reproduce themselves like life. > > John Von Neumann’s “criterion for for self-reproduction is that the system > in question must be able to construct a copy of itself, that also possesses > this constructive capability. > > LCTS each have this capacity to reproduce reproducibility.-rkl > > 280 “Life requires the constant acquisition of energy and raw materials from > its environment, and an incessantly active, tightly orchestrated use of > these to stay ahead of the ravages of thermodynamic decay.” LCTS acquire > their energy from their hosts as they are obligate symbionts. > > 282 Schroedinger’s attention to the thermodynamic riddle of life, and his > intuition that these two mysteries must be intrinsically linked, fell into > the background of biological discussion, to be followed up by a > comparatively small group of theoretical biologists. > > On 2012-04-27, at 4:39 PM, Hector Zenil wrote: > > Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed > breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS > enthusiasts? > > Thanks. > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan > wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a > > FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info > > avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman > > and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular > > discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of > > voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan > > could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh > > discussion session for the coming months. > > > Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the > > filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together. > > Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as > > as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one. > > > best > > > ---Pedro > > (fis list coordination) > > > - > > Pedro C. Marijuán > > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > > Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª > > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > > Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 > > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > > - > > > > ___ > > fis mailing list > > fis@listas.unizar.es > > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > __ > > Robert K. Logan > Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD > Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto > www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan > > > > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK
Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS enthusiasts? Thanks. On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a > FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info > avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman > and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular > discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of > voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan > could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh > discussion session for the coming months. > > Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the > filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together. > Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as > as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one. > > best > > ---Pedro > (fis list coordination) > > - > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > - > > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
