Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

2018-06-02 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Tutti,

ho affrontato la questione dell’accoppiata energia−informazione altre
volte. Ora aggiungo, altrettanto brevi considerazioni in proposito.
L’energia è un modo di essere dell’informazione e l’informazione è un modo
di essere dell’energia.

In apodittica o estrema sintesi:

* *Informazione naturale o termodinamica*: *I* = −*S* = neg−entropia
(energia libera)  dipendente dalla *forma* o distribuzione/diffusione delle
molecole o particelle: *entropia* (energia degradata) è equilibrio o
diffusione omogenea o indifferenziata delle particelle o molecole, perché
il gradiente termico (separazione delle molecole calde e veloci da un lato
e fredde e lente dall’altro) salta: *neg**−**entropia* è dis−equilibrio o
disposizione eterogenea o  differenziata delle particelle o molecole dando
luogo ad un (talvolta verosimile) gradiente o differenziale termico;

* *Informazione genetica *è: informazione delle informazioni: moneta
biologica che riempie e determina la vita: comunicazione−trasmissione
genomica da cui dipende la *forma* struttural/funzionale o
funzional/strutturale degli organismi umani, animali e vegetali; energia
vitale connessa al codice inscritto nei geni: alla base del passaggio della
ricerca biologica dal metabolismo alla genetica;

* *Informazione matematica*: teoria strutturale delle proprietà statistiche
della fonte implicante studi di ingegneria della trasmissione
dell’informazione relativi a processi che trasmettono unità di informazione
non significanti; secondo Shannon e Weaver  [140] l’informazione è il
valore di equi probabilità che si realizza tra molte possibilità
combinatorie ed è direttamente proporzionale all’*entropia *(misurata in
bit) di un dato sistema ;

* *Informazione semiotico**−**semantica*: teoria strutturale delle
proprietà generative di un s−codice che sottendono processi in cui unità
significanti di informazione sono trasmesse a fini comunicativi; l’s−codice
sovrapposto alla equiprobabilità del sistema lo domina comunicativamente,
riducendone l’informazione matematica, ma rendendo possibile la
comunicazione di significati selezionati, trasmessi e ricevuti.

Se l’informazione può essere definita sia come entropia sia come neg−entropia,
questo discende dal fatto che nel primo caso si tratta di informazione
matematica, nel secondo caso di informazione semiotico−semantica. Allora
come si fa a dire o scrivere che l’informazione non ha niente a che vedere
con l’energia, quando l’energia è una forma di informazione e
l’informazione è una forma di energia?

Cari colleghi, Vi chiedo scusa per lo  stile espressivo (oltre che per la
lingua italiana) usato, oltre che per lo  schema assai sintetico che
propongo alla vostra significativa attenzione. Comunque, Vi ringrazio per
la compagnia che mi fate. Il tempo ci martirizza, rendendoci testimoni
della nostra e altrui storia. Un abbraccio affettuoso a tutti.

Francesco.








2018-05-31 17:28 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner :

> Stan,
>
>
>
> Good, but things can also run in the opposite direction. How about variety
> (plus more energy) generating more variety, more possibilities and allowing
> new ‘information’ to emerge? Standard logical analysis is inadequate
> because it cannot handle this picture.
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
> N Salthe
> *Sent:* jeudi, 31 mai 2018 16:21
> *To:* Burgin, Mark; fis
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis
>
>
>
> Mark -- What Shannon referred to as 'entropy' was 'variety'. 'Information'
> per se was achieved by way of a reduction or winnowing of this variety of
> possibilities, leaving 'information' to survive.
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Burgin, Mark 
> wrote:
>
> Dear Loet,
> Only one remark. There is no Shannon-type information but there is
> Shannon's measure of information, which is called entropy.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mark
>
>
> On 5/23/2018 10:44 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
>
> Dear Mark, Soren, and colleagues,
>
>
>
> The easiest distinction is perhaps Descartes' one between* res cogitans*
>  and* res extensa* as two different realities. Our knowledge in each case
> that things could have been different is not out there in the world as
> something seizable such as piece of wood.
>
>
>
> Similarly, uncertainty in the case of a distribution is not seizable, but
> it can be expressed in bits of information (as one measure among others).
> The grandiose step of Shannon was, in my opinion, to enable us to
> operationalize Descartes'* cogitans* and make it amenable to the
> measurement as information.
>
>
>
> Shannon-type information is dimensionless. It is provided with meaning by
> a system of reference (e.g., an observer or a discourse). Some of us prefer
> to call only thus-meaningful information real information because it is
> embedded. One can also distinguish it from Shannon-type information as
> Bateson-type information. The latter can be 

Re: [Fis] Are there 3 kinds of motions in physics and biology?

2018-05-07 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Caro Sung e cari tutti,

"I think information and energy are inseparable in reality": è vero anche
in economia.

La Parte Terza--Teoria del valore: energia e informazione--  di "Valore e
valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia o l'economia della scienza"
(FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1995-1999) è costituita dalle pagine 451-646
contenenti questa interessante e significativa problematica.

Grazie e auguri.
Francesco

2018-05-07 4:08 GMT+02:00 Sungchul Ji :

> Hi FISers,
>
> I think information and energy are inseparable in reality.  Hence to
> understand what information is, it may be helpful to understand what energy
> (and the associated concept of motion) is.  In this spirit, I am forwarding
> the following email that I wrote motivated by the lecture given by Dr.
> Grossberg this afternoon at the 119th Statistical Mechanics Conference.  In 
> *Table
> 1* in the email, I divided particle motions studied in physics and
> biology into three classes -- (i) *random*, (ii) *passive*, and (iii)
> *active*, and identified the field of specialization wherein these
> motions are studied as (i) *statistical mechanics*, (ii) *stochastic
> mechanics*, and (iii) *info-statistical mechanics*.  The last term was
> coined by me in 2012  in [1].  I will be presenting a short talk (5
> minutes) on* Info-statistical mechanics* on Wednesday, May 9, at the
> above meeting.   The abstract of the short talk is given below:
>
> Short talk to be presented at the *119th Statistical Mechanics Conference*,
> Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J., May 6-9, 2018).
>
>
>
> *Planckian Information** may be to Info-Statistical Mechanics what
> Boltzmann Entropy is to Statistical Mechanics. *
>
> Sungchul Ji, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Ernest Mario
> School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J. 08854
>
> Traditionally, the dynamics of any N-particle systems in statistical
> mechanics is completely described in terms of the 6-dimensional *phase
> space* consisting of the 3N positional coordinates and 3N momenta, where
> N is the number of particles in the system [1]. Unlike the particles dealt
> with in statistical mechanics which are featureless and shapeless, the
> particles in biology have characteristic shapes and internal structures
> that determine their biological properties.  The particles in physics are
> completely described in terms of energy and matter in the phase space but
> the description of the particles in living systems require not only the
> energy and matter of the particle but also their genetic information,
> consistent with the information-energy complementarity (or gnergy)
> postulate discussed in [2, Section 2.3.2].  Thus, it seems necessary to
> expand the dimensionality of the traditional phase space to accommodate the 
> *information
> *dimension, which includes the three coordinates encoding the *amount *(in
> bits), *meaning* (e.g., recognizability), and *value* (e.g., practical
> effects) of information [2, Section 4.3]. Similar views were expressed by
> Bellomo et al. [3] and Mamontov et al. [4].  The expanded “phase space”
> would comprise the 6N phase space of traditional statistical mechanics plus
> the 3N information space entailed by molecular biology.  The new space
> (to be called the “gnergy space”) composed of these two subspaces would
> have 9N dimensions as indicated in Eq. (1).  This equation also makes
> contact with the concepts of  *synchronic* and *diachronic* informations
> discussed in [2, Section 4.5].  It was suggested therein that the
> traditional 6N-dimensional phase space deals with  the *synchronic
> information* and hence was referred to as the *Synchronic Space* while
> the 3N-dimensional information space is concerned with the consequences of
> history and evolution encoded in each particle and thus was referred to as
> the *Diachronic Space*.  The resulting space was called the *gnergy space*
> (since it encodes not only *energy* but also *information*).
>
>
>
>*Gnergy Space* =  *6N-D Phase Space*  +  *3N-D  Information
> Space*(1)
>
> (*Synchronic Space*)   
> (*Diachronic
> Space*)
>
>
>
> The study of both *energy* and *information* was defined as
> “info-statistical mechanics” in 2012 [2, pp. 102-106, 297-301].  The
> Planckian information of the second kind, IPS, [5] was defined as the
> negative of the binary logarithm of the skewness of the long-tailed
> histogram that fits the Planckian Distribution Equation (PDE) [6].   In *Table
> 1*, the Planckian information is compared to the Boltzmann entropy in the
> context of the complexity theory of Weaver [8]. The inseparable relation
> between *energy *and *information* that underlies “info-statistical
> mechanics” may be expressed by the following aphorism:
>
>
> *“Information without energy is useless; Energy without information is
> valueless.”*
>
>
>
> *Table 1.*  A comparison between Planckian Information 

Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins

2018-03-11 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Caro Pedro, Caro Krassimir e Cari Tutti,
condivido la forma e la sostanza della stella a sei punte di Pedro, tra cui
l'economia.
La mia "Nuova economia" è fondata proprio su una teoria del valore
esagonale e sulla bit-moneta, comprendente la moneta biologica, in quanto
informazione. Ma non vengo opportunamente considerato.
 E dire che il mio approccio onto-logico e metodo-logico, contenuto in
almeno trenta libri, oltre gli innumerevoli articoli, presuppone una
visione armoniosa e olistica.
Pazienza. Io voglio bene a tutti e male a nessuno. Sono un poverino
esponenziale cristiano che deve amare tutti, soprattutto quelli che non mi
trattano bene.
Un abbraccio affettuoso.
Francesco

2018-03-11 23:34 GMT+01:00 Krassimir Markov :

>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> This letter contains more than one theme, so it is structured as follow:
>
> - next step in “mental model” explanation;
>
> - about “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.
>
>
>
> *1. The next step in “mental model” explanation:*
>
>
>
> Let remember shortly my letter from 05.03.2018.
>
>
>
> To avoid misunderstandings with concepts Subject, agent, animal, human,
> society, humanity, living creatures, etc., in [1] we use the abstract
> concept “INFOS” to denote every of them as well as all of artificial
> creatures which has features similar to the former ones.
>
>
>
> Infos has possibility to reflect the reality via receptors and to operate
> with received reflections in its memory. The opposite is possible - via
> effectors Infos has possibility to realize in reality some of its (self-)
> reflections from its consciousness.
>
>
>
> The commutative diagram on Figure 1 represents modeling relations. In the
> frame of diagram:
>
> - in reality: real models: s is a model of r,
>
> - in consciousness: mental models: si is a mental model of ri;
>
> - between reality and consciousness: perceiving data and creating mental
> models:  triple (si, ei, ri) is a mental model of triple (s, e, r).
>
>
>
> It is easy to imagine the case when the Infos realizes its reflections
> using its effectors, i.e. relation between consciousness and reality:
> realizing mental models and creating data. In this case the receptors’
> arrows should be replaces by opposite effectors’ arrows. In this case
> triple (s, e, r) is a realization of the mental model (si, ei, ri).
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: clip_image002]
>
> Figure 1
>
>
>
>
>
> After creating the mental model it may be reflected by other levels of
> consciousness. In literature several such levels are described. For
> instance, in [2], six levels are separated for humans (Figure 2). The
> complexity of Infos determines the levels. For instance, for societies the
> levels are much more, for animals with no neo-cortex the levels a less.
>
>
>
>
> [image: image]
>
>
>
> Figure 2.   [2]
>
>
>
> This means that the mental models are on different consciousness levels
> and different types (for instance - touch, audition, vision).
>
>
>
> In [2], Jeff Hawkins had remarked: “The transformation— from fast changing
> to slow changing and from spatially specific to spatially invariant— is
> well documented for vision. And although there is a smaller body of
> evidence to prove it, many neuroscientists believe you'd find the same
> thing happening in all the sensory areas of your cortex, not just in
> vision” [2].
>
>
>
> As it is shown on Figure 2 mental models are in very large range from
> spatially specific to spatially invariant; from fast changing to slow
> changing; from “features” and “details” to objects”.
>
> To be continued...
>
>
>
> *2.Aabout “Knowledge market”, FIS letters’ sequences and FIS Sci-coins.*
>
>
>
> The block-chain idea is not new. All forums and mailing lists have the
> possibility to organize incoming messages in internally connected
> sequences. The new is the Bit-coin, i.e. the price for including a message
> in the sequence received after successful solving a difficult task.
>
>
>
> What we have in FIS are letters’ sequences already created for many years.
> What is needed to start using them is to be strictly when we answer to any
> letter not to change the “Subject” of the letter. The list archive may help
> us to follow the sequences - only what is needed to ask sorting by [
> Subject ]
> . We
> may sort by [ Thread ]
>  [
> Subject ]
>  [
> Author ]  [
> Date ] .
>
> This means that the letter corresponds to the block, and the sequence of
> letters corresponds to the chain.
>
>
>
> What about the currency?
>
> In [3] we had introduced the new concept “Knowledge marked”. It is
> remembered in [4] where the approach for measuring the scientific
> 

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

2018-03-05 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Alex e Bruno, nonché Tutti,
ho pensato di fornirVi la traduzione in inglese del messaggio inviato 12
ore fa. Pur correndo il rischio di una infedele traduzione, desidero in tal
modo dirVi che quel che avete scritto dopo è compreso nel mio medesimo
messaggio.
Ancora auguri.
Francesco

Dear everyone, let me tell you some things: * IN-FORM-ACTION is a process
through which they take shape: people, animals, plants, ideas, things, etc.
* Information is preceded by signification and followed by communication; *
it is possible to classify four types of information: natural or
thermodynamics, genetics, mathematics and semantics; * one thing is the
concept-meaning of information, another thing is the MEASURE of information
that, following the "Science of Hegel's logic, can be quantitative,
qualitative and quantitative-qualitative or qualitative-quantitative; *
TRANSDUCTION is the transformation of a physical quantity, e.g. acoustic,
in another, e.g. electric, preserving the signal waveform: - in the
biological field it is the transfer of a hereditary character from one
bacterial cell to another without contact between the two particles; - in
the economic field it can coincide with the transmutation of liquidity -
the most important property of the currency - from a good-capital (which
loses value) to another an asset-capital (which gains value) by checking
the passage of a FORM D MONETARY WAVE which is conserved by enriching some
and impoverishing others, a sort of wealth effect or effect poverty; * in
my "New economy" I have defined financial entropy (monetary liquidity moves
from a low-value asset-capital to a good-value asset) and financial
neg-entropy (monetary liquidity moves from a high-value asset-capital to a
low-value asset-capital). This last point deserves a more complete and
mathematical exposure that is found in many of my books. Once again I beg
you to apologize for the use of the Italian language and I send you an
affectionate greeting. Really!
Francesco

2018-03-05 16:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal :

>
> On 5 Mar 2018, at 07:48, Alex Hankey  wrote:
>
> Current Information Science, particularly that purveyed by Fis,
> is far too poverty stricken to tackle this problem Xueshan.
>
> Metaphor is a rich purveyor of meaning utlised by human consciousness,
> even in the earliest epics written by mankind, like the Valmiki Ramayana,
> simply because human awareness adopts 'forms' as its mode of information
> content, and not digits.
>
>
> I agree with this.
>
>
>
>
>
> The way that forms are encoded in experience is now well understood.
>
>
> OK. But using the digital mechanist hypothesis, it is amenable to
> mathematical precision, and so we can progress, and benefits of tuns of
> results in theoretical computer science and mathematical logic.
>
>
>
>
>
> A proof has even been given that 'ideas' and not 'digits' are the primary
> content of human awareness.
>
>
> Absolutely! Indeed the proof has been given in arithmetic that any
> universal machine “enough rich" see this or get that conclusion.
> The rich universal machine can prove its own incompleteness, and its soul
> (identified with the knower(*)) can correctly prove that she is not
> identifiable to any digit nor actually anything third person describable.
> The first person knower is unformalisable, no digits nor any form. Yet, its
> propositional logic is meta-formalisable by the modal logic S4Grz (as
> explained elsewhere).
>
> If you add on the top of this the computationalist hypothesis, in the
> philosophy of mind, or fundamental cognitive science, then it becomes
> testable/refutable as physics should be retrieved by some variants of S4Grz.
>
> The "enough rich”universal machine says already very interesting
> propositions about itself, in different modes, with respect to the
> inexhaustible and undefinable truth. They can already defeat the theories
> trying to reduce them to their form, not to talk about digits. But some can
> bet on the digits or trust the numerical doctors. Eventually the question
> is “are you ok your sun marry a woman who got a digital brain transplant?”.
>
> Some people confuse computable and arithmetic. The computable is only a
> very tiny part of arithmetic, and the semi-computable, where the universal
> machine lives is really in between the computable and the non-computable.
> Most of the theoretical concerns have been about the degrees of
> unsolvability of the arithmetical problems.
>
> Before Gödel, we thought we could secure the use of the infinite with
> precise use of the finite, but after Gödel we know we need already the
> infinite to partially control and understand the finite realm.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bruno Marchal
>
> (*) Following Theatetus, as incompleteness saves it from Socrates critics.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Alex Hankey
>
>
>
>
> On 4 March 2018 at 06:47, Xueshan Yan  wrote:
>
>> Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet,
>>
>> I 

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

2018-03-04 Thread Francesco Rizzo
P.s.:
nel quarto rigo dal basso bisogna sostituire bene-capitale
ad ALTRO valoreconbene-capitale ad ALTO valore.
Grazie.
Francesco.

2018-03-05 6:21 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>:

> Cari tutti,
> permettetemi di dirVi alcune cose:
>
> * l'IN-FORM-AZIONE è un processo attraverso il quale prendono forma: le
> persone, gli animali, le piante, le idee, le cose, etc.
> * l'Informazione è preceduta dalla significazione e seguita dalla
> comunicazione;
> * è possibile classificare quattro tipi di informazione: naturale o
> termodinamica, genetica, matematica e semantica;
> * una cosa è il concetto-significato di informazione, un'altra cosa è la
> MISURA dell'informazione che, seguendo la "Scienza della logica di Hegel,
> può essere quantitativa, qualitativa e quantitativo-qualitativa o
> qualitativo-quantitativa;
> * la TRASDUZIONE è la trasformazione di una grandezza fisica, ad es.
> acustica, in un'altra,ad es. elettrica, conservando la forma d'onda del
> segnale:
> - nel campo biologico è il trasferimento di un carattere ereditario da una
> cellula batterica a un'altra senza contatto fra le due particelle;
> - nel campo economico può coincidere con la trasmutazione di liquidità--la
> proprietà più rilevante della moneta -- da un bene-capitale (che perde
> valore) a un altro un bene-capitale (che guadagna valore) verificandosi il
> passaggio di una FORMA D'ONDA MONETARIA che si conserva arricchendo alcuni
> e impoverendo altri, una sorta di effetto ricchezza o di effetto
> povertà;
> * nella mia "Nuova economia" ho definito l'entropia finanziaria (la
> liquidità monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale a basso valore ad un
> bene-capitale ad altro valore) e  la neg-entropia finanziaria (la liquidità
> monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale ad alto valore ad un bene-capitale
> a basso valore).
> Questo ultimo punto meriterebbe un'esposizione più completa e matematica
> che si ritrova in tanti miei libri.
> Ancora una volta Vi prego di scusarmi per l'uso della lingua italiana e Vi
> invio un saluto affettuoso. Davvero!
> Francesco.
>
> 2018-03-05 1:35 GMT+01:00 ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>:
>
>> Dear Colleagues and Syed:
>>   Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your
>> question(“Could you critique a view: Information is the container of
>> meaning ?”):
>>  Undoubtedly,the point of view “ information is the container of
>> meaning” is certainly wrong.
>>   For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing,
>> in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the
>> physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or
>> generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content
>> information.
>>Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified
>> in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to
>> disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come
>> from ambiguity.
>>   Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information
>> that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or
>> subject of information science).
>>  These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or
>> suggestions!
>>   Thank you!
>>
>>   Best wish!
>>
>>Zou Xiaohui
>>
>>
>> 发自我的iPhone
>>
>>
>> -- Original --
>> *From:* Syed Ali <doctorsyedal...@gmail.com>
>> *Date:* 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午
>> *To:* ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
>> *Cc:* 闫学杉 <y...@pku.edu.cn>, fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox
>>
>> Dear Colleagues:
>> Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?
>> Syed
>>   附中文:
>>
>>  谢谢关注!
>>
>>  让我来回答你的问题:
>>
>>  毋庸置疑,信息是容器的观点,它肯定是错误的。
>>
>>  因为,首先,除了具有质量和能量的载体之外,现象信息是无所不包的,它们可以是物质世界的任何表现,也可以是心智的任何情形,
>> 还可以是狭义和广义的语言,或广义文本。其中,既有形式信息,也有内容信息。
>>
>>  进而,再来看本体信息,它由多种形式简化之后再聚焦于同一内容,旨在排除歧义。人们的许多认知错误与误解,都源于歧义。
>>
>>  最后,实际上也是最重要的就是:可用真值计算的本质信息(这才是信息科学根本的研究对象)。
>>
>>  以上是邹晓辉的观点。请各位给予评价、意见或建议!
>>
>> 谢谢!
>>
>> 祝
>>
>> 愉快!
>>
>> 邹晓辉
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear colleagues and Xueshan,
>>>
>>>
>>> The relationship between meaning

Re: [Fis] A Paradox

2018-03-04 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari tutti,
permettetemi di dirVi alcune cose:

* l'IN-FORM-AZIONE è un processo attraverso il quale prendono forma: le
persone, gli animali, le piante, le idee, le cose, etc.
* l'Informazione è preceduta dalla significazione e seguita dalla
comunicazione;
* è possibile classificare quattro tipi di informazione: naturale o
termodinamica, genetica, matematica e semantica;
* una cosa è il concetto-significato di informazione, un'altra cosa è la
MISURA dell'informazione che, seguendo la "Scienza della logica di Hegel,
può essere quantitativa, qualitativa e quantitativo-qualitativa o
qualitativo-quantitativa;
* la TRASDUZIONE è la trasformazione di una grandezza fisica, ad es.
acustica, in un'altra,ad es. elettrica, conservando la forma d'onda del
segnale:
- nel campo biologico è il trasferimento di un carattere ereditario da una
cellula batterica a un'altra senza contatto fra le due particelle;
- nel campo economico può coincidere con la trasmutazione di liquidità--la
proprietà più rilevante della moneta -- da un bene-capitale (che perde
valore) a un altro un bene-capitale (che guadagna valore) verificandosi il
passaggio di una FORMA D'ONDA MONETARIA che si conserva arricchendo alcuni
e impoverendo altri, una sorta di effetto ricchezza o di effetto
povertà;
* nella mia "Nuova economia" ho definito l'entropia finanziaria (la
liquidità monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale a basso valore ad un
bene-capitale ad altro valore) e  la neg-entropia finanziaria (la liquidità
monetaria si sposta da un bene-capitale ad alto valore ad un bene-capitale
a basso valore).
Questo ultimo punto meriterebbe un'esposizione più completa e matematica
che si ritrova in tanti miei libri.
Ancora una volta Vi prego di scusarmi per l'uso della lingua italiana e Vi
invio un saluto affettuoso. Davvero!
Francesco.

2018-03-05 1:35 GMT+01:00 ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>:

> Dear Colleagues and Syed:
>   Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your
> question(“Could you critique a view: Information is the container of
> meaning ?”):
>  Undoubtedly,the point of view “ information is the container of
> meaning” is certainly wrong.
>   For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing,
> in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the
> physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or
> generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content
> information.
>Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified
> in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to
> disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come
> from ambiguity.
>   Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information
> that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or
> subject of information science).
>  These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or
> suggestions!
>   Thank you!
>
>   Best wish!
>
>Zou Xiaohui
>
>
> 发自我的iPhone
>
>
> -- Original --
> *From:* Syed Ali 
> *Date:* 周一,3月 5,2018 4:26 上午
> *To:* ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
> *Cc:* 闫学杉 , fis 
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Paradox
>
> Dear Colleagues:
> Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?
> Syed
>   附中文:
>
>  谢谢关注!
>
>  让我来回答你的问题:
>
>  毋庸置疑,信息是容器的观点,它肯定是错误的。
>
>  因为,首先,除了具有质量和能量的载体之外,现象信息是无所不包的,它们可以是物质世界的任何表现,
> 也可以是心智的任何情形,还可以是狭义和广义的语言,或广义文本。其中,既有形式信息,也有内容信息。
>
>  进而,再来看本体信息,它由多种形式简化之后再聚焦于同一内容,旨在排除歧义。人们的许多认知错误与误解,都源于歧义。
>
>  最后,实际上也是最重要的就是:可用真值计算的本质信息(这才是信息科学根本的研究对象)。
>
>  以上是邹晓辉的观点。请各位给予评价、意见或建议!
>
> 谢谢!
>
> 祝
>
> 愉快!
>
> 邹晓辉
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues and Xueshan,
>>
>>
>> The relationship between meaning and information:
>>
>>  1. Three levels to understand them
>>
>> 1.1  words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and
>> information.
>>
>> 1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of
>> information, where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use
>> of synonymy, respectively; if both mean something different then they are
>> two different concepts.
>>
>> 1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms
>> specifically refer to.
>>
>> 2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about
>> them both from an informational perspective. In principle, they should not
>> be discussed both in linguistics and in information science. Otherwise,
>> they will encounter the contradiction between the two.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Xiaohui, Zou
>>
>>
>> 附中文:
>>
>>
>> 意义与信息的关系:
>>
>>1. 分三个层次来理解
>>
>> 1.1.语言的词:意义与信息就是两个不同的词。
>>
>> 1.2.思想概念:意义的意义或含义,信息的含义或意义,两方面如果所指相同,那么在此它们就是同义项的一个用法分别采用了两个
>> 

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

2018-02-27 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Caro Sun, e cari tutti, ecco la traduzione in inglese del messaggio del 21
febbraio scorso.
Cari saluti.
Francesco

Dear everyone,
on February 8 I sent you a message whose content, without any presumption,
can be useful to resolve the over-epistemo-logical issues that have arisen.
Then I send it again.
Dear Terry extensible to everyone,
It is always a pleasure to read and understand you. The general theory of
information is preceded by a system (or semiotic) of signification and
followed by a system (or semiotic) of communication. Except when there is a
communicative process such as the passage of a Signal (which does not
necessarily mean 'a sign') from a Source, through a Transmitter, along a
Channel, to a Recipient. In a process between machine and machine, the
signal has no 'significant' power. In this case there is no signification
even if we can say that we have information. When the recipient is a human
being (and it is not necessary that the source is also a human being),
there is a process of signification. A system of signification is an
autonomous semiotic construction, independent of any possible act of
communication that actualizes it. On the other hand, every process of
communication between human beings - or between any type of intelligent
apparatus or structure, both mechanical and biological, - presupposes a
system of signification as its own or specific condition. In conclusion, it
is possible to have a semiotic of signification independent of a semiotic
of communication; but it is impossible to establish a semiotic of
communication independent of a semiotic of signification.
I learned a lot from Umberto Eco to whom I dedicated chapter 10. Umberto
Eco and the process of re-interpretation and re-enchantment of economic
science (pp. 175-217) of "Value and evaluations. 'economy of science'
(FrancoAngeli, Milan, 1997). In my own book you can find:
- chapter 15. Economic-estimative semiotics (pp. 327-361) that is part of a
global theory of all signification systems and communication processes;
- subparagraph 5.3.3 The genetic psychology of Jean Piaget and the
neurobiology of Humberto Maturana and Francesco Varela. a new experimental
epistemology of quality and uniqueness (pp. 120-130).
I apologize to everyone if I get tired of you or if once again my writing
in Italian creates some problems. I think the gift you give me is, in terms
of QUALITY and UNITY, much greater than the (for) gift I ask of you. Thank
you.
A warm greeting.
Francesco

2018-02-21 17:17 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>:

> Hi Francesco, FISers,
>
>
> Can someone translate your post in English so that everyone can understand
> what you are saying?
>
>
> Sung
>
>
> --
> *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Francesco Rizzo <
> 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 6:11 AM
> *To:* y...@pku.edu.cn
> *Cc:* FIS Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based
> on the cateogry theory
>
> Cari Tutti,
> l'8 febbraio Vi ho inviato un messaggio il cui contenuto, senza alcuna
> presunzione, può essere utile per dirimere le questioni
> onto-epistemo-logiche che sono sorte.
> Allora lo trasmetto nuovamente.
> Caro Terry estensibile a tutti,
> è sempre un piacere leggerTi e capirTi. La  general theory of information
> è preceduta da un sistema (o semiotica) di significazione e seguita da un
> sistema (o semiotica ) di comunicazione. Tranne che quando si ha un
> processo comunicativo come il passaggio di un Segnale (che non significa
> necessariamente 'un segno') da una Fonte, attraverso un  Trasmettitore,
> lungo un Canale, a un Destinatario. In un processo tra macchina e macchina
> il segnale non ha alcun potere 'significante'. In tal caso non si ha
> significazione anche se si può dire che si ha passaggio di informazione.
> Quando il destinatario è un essere umano (e non è necessario che la fonte
> sia anch'essa un essere umano) si è in presenza di un processo di
> significazione. Un sistema di significazione è una costruzione semiotica
> autonoma, indipendente da ogni possibile atto di comunicazione che
> l'attualizzi. Invece ogni processo di comunicazione tra esseri umani -- o
> tra ogni tipo di apparato o struttura 'intelligente, sia meccanico che
> biologico, -- presuppone un sistema di significazione come propria o
> specifica condizione. In conclusione, è possibile avere una semiotica della
> significazione indipendente da una semiotica della comunicazione; ma è
> impossibile stabilire una semiotica della comunicazione indipendente da una
> semiotica della significazione.
> Ho appreso molto da Umberto Eco a cui ho dedicato il capitolo 10. Umberto
> Eco e il processo di re-interpretazione e re-incantamento della scienza
> economica (pp. 175-2

Re: [Fis] "Mental model" ???

2018-02-27 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Caro Krassimir e cari Tutti,
i fenomeni naturali e sociali sono dei messaggi da comprendere. Il "modello
mentale" è una specie di codice per interpretarli escludendo il rumore di
fondo.
Cambiando l'astrazione del codice muta il significato dei messaggi: quel
che erano le cose rilevanti diventano rumore e quel che era rumore diventa
un significato importante.
Scusate il mio italiano.
Francesco

2018-02-27 0:00 GMT+01:00 Guy A Hoelzer :

> Hi Krassimir,
>
> Thanks for asking this important question.  I’m curious to see how others
> might answer it.  For me, the “mental model” is a centralized system for
> information processing that receives inputs from multiple sensory
> mechanisms and can induce action as a consequence.  In biology, this can be
> a centralized nervous system and whole organism behavior as the form of an
> output.  We illustrate this process as we read and write FIS posts.
>
> Are you looking for more detail about the “mental model”, or is this the
> sort of thing you have in mind?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Guy
>
> Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
> Department of Biology
> University of Nevada Reno
>
> Phone:  775-784-4860 <(775)%20784-4860>
> Fax:  775-784-1302 <(775)%20784-1302>
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2018, at 2:48 PM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I understand that it is not so easy to answer to the simple question.
>
> But the mental models are very important for understanding the information
> and communication phenomena.
>
> So, again the same simple question: What is the “mental model”?
>
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%
> 2Flistinfo%2Ffis=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%
> 7Ca883742ff04d484d1daa08d57d6b369c%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd
> 31d8%7C1=beXJWaAc9BPQ5zBt5ABsB3mmGqjQGPeGXXITnwhDpKU%3D=0
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

2018-02-21 Thread Francesco Rizzo
o, Nikhil and you.
>
> ===
>
> Xueshan -- I think one can condense some of your insights hierarchically,
> as:
>
> In a system having language, information seemingly may be obtained in
> other ways as well. It would be a conceptually broader category. Thus
> (using the compositional hierarchy):
>
> [information [language [signal]]]
>
> Meaning that, when a system has language, all information will be
> understood or construed by way of linguistic constructs.
>
> (Here I am using ‘signal’ as being more specific than Peirce’s ‘sign’,
> where:
>
> [sign [information [...]]] )
>
> Then, more dynamically (using the subsumptive hierarchy):
>
> {language {signal {information}}}
>
> Information in a languaged system is derived by way linguistic formations,
> so that, even though it is an extremely broad category, information
> (informing) only emerges by way of linguistically informed transformations.
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Xueshan
>
> ===
>
> El feb 10, 2018 5:23 AM, "Xueshan Yan" <y...@pku.edu.cn> escribió:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I have read the article "The languages of bacteria" which Gordana
> recommended, and has gained a lot of inspiration from it. In combination
> with Sung's comparative linguistics exploration on cell language and human
> language, I have the following learning feelings to share with everyone:
>
> In this article, the author recognized that bacteria have evolved multiple
> languages for communicating within and between species. Intra- and
> interspecies cell-cell communication allows bacteria to coordinate various
> biological activities in order to behave like multicellular organisms. Such
> as AI-2, it is a general language that bacteria use for intergenera
> signaling.
>
> I found an interesting phenomenon in this paper: the author use the
> concept *information* 3 times but the concept *signal* (signal or
> signaling) 55 times, so we have to review the history and application of “
> information” and “signal” in biology and biochemistry, it is helpful for
> us to understand the relationship between language, signal, and information.
>
> The origin of the concept of signal (main the signal transduction) can be
> traced back to the end of the 1970s. But until 1980, biochemist and
> endocrinologist Martin Rodbell published an article titled: “The Role of
> Hormone Receptors and GTP-Regulatory Proteins in Membrane Transduction" in 
> *Nature,
> *in this paper he used the "signal transduction" first time. Since then,
> the research on signal transduction is popular in biology and biochemistry.
>
> As for any information transmission system, if we pay more attention to
> its transmission carrier instead of its transmission content, we are used
> to employing "signal transmission" instead of "signal transduction". From
> the tradition of the early use of information concept, the signal
> transduction study of cells is only equivalent to the level of
> telecommunications before 1948. Outwardly, before the advent of Shannon's
> information theory, the central issue of telecommunications is "signal"
> rather than "information". After that, the central issue of
> telecommunications is "information" rather than "signal".
>
> According to the application history of information concept, nearly all
> the essential problems behind the concepts of communication, messenger,
> signal and so on may be information problems. Just as the language problem
> what we are discussing here, our ultimate goal is to analyze the
> information.
>
>
>
> For the same reason, I recommend another two papers:
>
> 1. Do Plants Think?  (June 5, 2012, *Scientific American*)
>
> (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-
> daniel-chamovitz/#rd?sukey=fc78a68049a14bb24ce82efd8ef931
> e64057ce6142b1f2f7b919612d2b3f42c07f559f5be33be0881613ccfbf5b43c4b)
>
> 2. Plants Can Think, Feel and Learn  (December 3, 2014, *New Scientist*)
>
> (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429980-400-root-
> intelligence-plants-can-think-feel-and-learn)
>
> From which we can judge whether or not a plants informatics can exists.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Xueshan
>
>
>
> *From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]
> *On Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:10 PM
> *To:* Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>; Terrence W. DEACON <
> dea...@berkeley.edu>
> *Cc:* Fis, <fi

Re: [Fis] The unification of the theories of information based on the cateogry theory

2018-02-07 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Caro Terry estensibile a tutti,
è sempre un piacere leggerTi e capirTi. La  general theory of information è
preceduta da un sistema (o semiotica) di significazione e seguita da un
sistema (o semiotica ) di comunicazione. Tranne che quando si ha un
processo comunicativo come il passaggio di un Segnale (che non significa
necessariamente 'un segno') da una Fonte, attraverso un  Trasmettitore,
lungo un Canale, a un Destinatario. In un processo tra macchina e macchina
il segnale non ha alcun potere 'significante'. In tal caso non si ha
significazione anche se si può dire che si ha passaggio di informazione.
Quando il destinatario è un essere umano (e non è necessario che la fonte
sia anch'essa un essere umano) si è in presenza di un processo di
significazione. Un sistema di significazione è una costruzione semiotica
autonoma, indipendente da ogni possibile atto di comunicazione che
l'attualizzi. Invece ogni processo di comunicazione tra esseri umani -- o
tra ogni tipo di apparato o struttura 'intelligente, sia meccanico che
biologico, -- presuppone un sistema di significazione come propria o
specifica condizione. In conclusione, è possibile avere una semiotica della
significazione indipendente da una semiotica della comunicazione; ma è
impossibile stabilire una semiotica della comunicazione indipendente da una
semiotica della significazione.
Ho appreso molto da Umberto Eco a cui ho dedicato il capitolo 10. Umberto
Eco e il processo di re-interpretazione e re-incantamento della scienza
economica (pp. 175-217) di "Valore e valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia
o l'economia della scienza" (FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1997). Nello mio stesso
libro si trovano:
- il capitolo 15. Semiotica economico-estimativa (pp. 327-361) che si
colloca nel quadro di una teoria globale di tutti i sistemi di
significazione e i processi di comunicazione;
- il sottoparagrafo 5.3.3 La psicologia genetica di Jean Piaget e la
neurobiologia di Humberto Maturana e Francesco Varela. una nuova
epistemologia sperimentale della qualità e dell'unicità (pp. 120-130).
Chiedo scusa a Tutti se Vi ho stancati o se ancora una volta il mio
scrivere in lingua italiana Vi crea qualche problema. Penso che il dono che
mi fate è, a proposito della QUALITA' e dell'UNICITA',  molto più grande
del (per)dono che Vi chiedo. Grazie.
Un saluto affettuoso.
Francecso


2018-02-07 23:02 GMT+01:00 Terrence W. DEACON :

> Dear FISers,
>
> In previous posts I have disparaged using language as the base model for
> building a general theory of information.
> Though I realize that this may seem almost heretical, it is not a claim
> that all those who use linguistic analogies are wrong, only that it can be
> causally misleading.
> I came to this view decades back in my research into the neurology and
> evolution of the human language capacity.
> And it became an orgnizing theme in my 1997 book The Symbolic Species.
> Early in the book I describe what I (and now other evolutionary
> biologists) have come to refer to as a "porcupine fallacy" in evolutionary
> thinking.
> Though I use it to critique a misleading evolutionary taxonomizing
> tendency, I think it also applies to biosemiotic and information theoretic
> thinking as well.
> So to exemplify my reasoning (with apologies for quoting myself) I append
> the following excerpt from the book.
>
> "But there is a serious problem with using language as the model for
> analyzing other
>
> species’ communication in hindsight. It leads us to treat every other form
> of communication as
>
> exceptions to a rule based on the one most exceptional and divergent case.
> No analytic method
>
> could be more perverse. Social communication has been around for as long
> as animals have
>
> interacted and reproduced sexually. Vocal communication has been around at
> least as long as frogs
>
> have croaked out their mating calls in the night air. Linguistic
> communication was an afterthought,
>
> so to speak, a very recent and very idiosyncratic deviation from an
> ancient and well-established
>
> mode of communicating. It cannot possibly provide an appropriate model
> against which to assess
>
> other forms of communication. It is the rare exception, not the rule, and
> a quite anomalous
>
> exception at that. It is a bit like categorizing birds’ wings with respect
> to the extent they possess or
>
> lack the characteristics of penguins’ wings, or like analyzing the types
> of hair on different mammals
>
> with respect to their degree of resemblance to porcupine quills. It is an
> understandable
>
> anthropocentric bias—perhaps if we were penguins or porcupines we might
> see more typical wings
>
> and hair as primitive stages compared to our own more advanced
> adaptations—but it does more to
>
> obfuscate than clarify. Language is a derived characteristic and so should
> be analyzed as an
>
> exception to a more general rule, not vice versa."
>
>
> Of course there will be analogies to linguistic forms.
>
> This is 

Re: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic

2018-01-17 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Tutti,
ho riflettuto molto sulle parole dei messaggi di Joseph, Loet, Karl e Sung.
Non sono un superficiale o un illuso, ma per natura e cultura privilegio la
dimensione empatica dell'esistenza e della conoscenza. Questo mi porta a
valorizzare quel poco o quel tanto di talentuoso e valido che v'è in ogni
donna o uomo, allievo o collega. Con non poca fatica compensata dai
risultati ottenuti, pur essendo un POVERINO ESPONENZIALE.
Armonizzare le divergenze richiede l'arte artigiana di integrare le
diversità perseguendo e raggiungendo l'unità, NON l'appiattimento, il
livellamento e l'uniformità. Tessere l'unità è un modo di ricostruire la
storia della vita e della scienza. Rifiuto, quindi, ogni forma di
"riduzionismo" (tendenzialmente atomistico, meccanicistico e statico), al
contrario ricerco l'approccio "olistico"(essenzialmente molecolare,
evolutivo, sistemico ed eco-dinamico).
Essere artigiani di unità nella realtà delle possibilità o nelle
possibilità della realtà è una cosa che fa diventare grandi i piccolini
come me!
Il mio non è uno sfoggio epistemologico, ma una riflessione onto-logica che
mi aiuta a valorizzare l'armonia del dis-accordo nei limiti del possibile,
attuale o potenziale..
Un abbraccio affettuoso a Tutti e scusatemi se sono (stato) noioso.
Francesco

2018-01-14 19:56 GMT+01:00 Sungchul Ji :

> Hi Soren,
>
>
> Which comment is for me?
>
>
> Also, I want to clarify the following:
>
>
> (1) 'Semiotics' is the name given to the study of signs generally and
> existed since long before Peirce's time (1839-1914).
>
> (2) If we represent 'semiotics' as a large circle, it will contain many
> small sub-circles representing various theories about sign processes,
> including Peirce's own, yours, mine, and many others', each sub-circles
> contributing to the complete description of the large circle.
>
> (3) In this Venn diagrammatic sense, 'neo-semiotics' is a sub-circle
> belonging to the large circle of Semiotics that should have some overlap
> with the Peircean semiotics since it is an extension of the latter.
> Further, neo-semiotics has many new features not contained in the Peircean
> semiotics (e.g., molecular signs and their mechanisms of action driven by
> free energy dissipation, the essential thermodynamic requirement for
> semiosis, and the relation between micro- and macrosemiotics, etc.) and
> hence cannot be completely contained within the sub-circle of the Peircean
> semiotics.
>
>
> All the best.
>
>
> Sung
>
>
> --
> *From:* Søren Brier 
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:32 AM
> *To:* Loet Leydesdorff; Joseph Brenner; Terrence W. DEACON; Alex Hankey;
> Fis,
> *Cc:* Emanuel Diamant; Sungchul Ji
> *Subject:* RE: [Fis] Response to Sungchul. Generative Logic
>
>
> Dear Pedro
>
>
>
> Their seems to be some malfunction in the system. Three comments – the
> last one to Sung – have not appeared on the list. Could you investigate?
>
>  Best
>
>   Søren Brier
>
> ___
> 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] I salute to Sungchul

2018-01-13 Thread 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]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture

2018-01-11 Thread 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 

Re: [Fis] Social Information Structure: SOCIOTYPE

2017-12-18 Thread 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 

Re: [Fis] some notes

2017-11-19 Thread 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 <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Francesco Rizzo <
> 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 19 November 2017 at 07:56
> *To: *"y...@pku.edu.cn" <y...@pku.edu.cn>
> *Cc: *FIS Group <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *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 inadequa

Re: [Fis] some notes

2017-11-18 Thread 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 

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

2017-11-11 Thread 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

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

2017-11-06 Thread 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:
>
>> 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:
>>
>>> 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, Josep

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

2017-11-06 Thread 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:

> 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:
>
>> 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 <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>
>> 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 underst

Re: [Fis] mind-mind

2017-11-02 Thread 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 <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>:

> 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 <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Michel Petitjean <
> petitjean.chi...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* We

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

2017-10-12 Thread 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:

> 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:
>
> D

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

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

2017-10-04 19:49 GMT+02:00 <tozziart...@libero.it>:

>  Messaggio inoltrato  Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: Alex
> Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com Data: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM
> +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] Heretic
>
> Dear Prof. Hankey,
> I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in
> particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.
> The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
> mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankey
> alexhan...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Dear Professor Tozzi,
>
> Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,
> as you evidently do not wish to participate in what
> the rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.
>
> As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of
> 'information',
> and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally different
> mathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.
>
> With all good wishes,
>
> Alex Hankey
>
>
> On 4 October 2017 at 02:30, <tozziart...@libero.it> 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] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

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

2017-09-16 13:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson <johnsonm...@gmail.com>:

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

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

2017-02-28 Thread 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: 

Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . .

2017-02-10 Thread 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:
>
>> 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 . . .

2017-02-10 Thread 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] Fw: A Curious Story

2017-01-12 Thread 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 <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>:

> 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 <oeros...@yahoo.com>
> *To:* Gyorgy Darvas <darv...@iif.hu> ; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 10:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=
> publication=szilamandee
>
>
> --

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

2016-12-29 Thread 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 

Re: [Fis] A provocative issue

2016-12-12 Thread Francesco Rizzo
notonic 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] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? Logic

2016-12-08 Thread 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
> 

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

2016-10-26 Thread Francesco Rizzo
 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
> <javierwe...@gmail.com> 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> >:
> >>>
> >>> 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 bo

Re: [Fis] An Agenda of Control

2016-07-28 Thread 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 

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

2016-07-22 Thread 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=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] Fw: "Mechanical Information" in DNA

2016-06-10 Thread 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 

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

2016-06-02 Thread 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

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

2016-05-19 Thread 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 

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

2016-05-14 Thread 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 

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

2016-05-06 Thread 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] _ Re: _ Re: re Gödel discussion

2016-05-03 Thread 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] _ Re: _ Fwd: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self

2016-04-30 Thread 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 

Re: [Fis] The phenomenology of life

2016-04-29 Thread 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, 

Re: [Fis] DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

2016-04-10 Thread 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 <karl.javors...@gmail.com>:

> 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 <l...@leydesdorff.net>:
>>
>>> 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] _ Re: _ DISCUSSION SESSION: INFOBIOSEMIOTICS

2016-04-02 Thread 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 

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

2016-03-30 Thread 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] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

2016-03-11 Thread 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] Miracles and Natural Order Fis Digest, Vol 23, Issue 24

2016-02-23 Thread 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" <u...@umces.edu> 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
> <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>
> <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es%3E>> on
> behalf of Loet Leydesdorff
> <l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>
> <l...@leydesdorff.net%3E>>
> Organization: University of Amsterdam
> Reply-To: "l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>
> <l...@leydesdorff.net%3E>"
> <l...@leydesdorff.net<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>
> <l...@leydesdorff.net%3E>>
> Date: Monday 22 February 2016 at 20:36
> To: 'Bruno Marchal' <marc...@ulb.ac.be<mailto:marc...@ul

[Fis] Fwd: Pedro's trinity

2016-01-06 Thread 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 <henrikrit...@gmail.com>:

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

2015-12-17 Thread 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 <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>:

> 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 

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

2015-12-13 Thread 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 

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research:

2015-12-02 Thread 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 <john.pr...@ltu.se>:

> ​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=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 <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Pedro C. Marijuan
> <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
> *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, a

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

2015-11-27 Thread 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 

Re: [Fis] Tragedy in France

2015-11-17 Thread 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 <petitjean.chi...@gmail.com>:

> 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 <jmst...@hotmail.com>:
> > 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] Five Momenta

2015-10-29 Thread 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:
>
>> 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 

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

2015-10-20 Thread 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 <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>:

> 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 science Pedro and we are seeking.
>
> Than

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

2015-10-02 Thread 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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:

> 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 the

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

2015-09-30 Thread 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 <dea...@berkeley.edu>:

> 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 <witz...@sbg.at> 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 coordi

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

2015-09-29 Thread 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 <m...@aiu.ac.jp>:

> 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
> rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
> *How I Accidentally Started the 

Re: [Fis] Information and Locality.

2015-09-22 Thread 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 <ste...@iase.us>:

> 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. It is the dualism 

Re: [Fis] Information and Locality Introduction

2015-09-11 Thread 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 <u...@umces.edu>:

> 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 human societies. Alternatively we may think that
&g

Re: [Fis] Answer to Mark. Phenomenology and Speculative Realism

2015-08-02 Thread 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 l...@leydesdorff.net
 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 with the meta-individual phenomena. This is close to
 Mannheim's position: one cannot analyze the content of the sciences
 sociologically, but only the manifestations. The strong program in the
 sociology of science (SSK: sociology of scientific knowledge) positioned
 that socio-cognitive interests can explain the substantive development of
 the sciences (Bloor, Barnes, and others) in the 1970s. It returns to a kind
 of materialism.



 Luhmann criticized Husserl for not taking the next step and to consider
 meaning

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

2015-06-16 Thread 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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es:

   Original Message   Subject: RE: [Fis] It from Bit redux
 . . . MODERATION  Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:45:59 +0800  From: Xueshan
 Yan y...@pku.edu.cn y...@pku.edu.cn  Reply-To: y...@pku.edu.cn
 y...@pku.edu.cn  Organization: CHINA  To: 'Pedro C. Marijuan'
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es



   ==

  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] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

2015-06-13 Thread 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 colli...@ukzn.ac.za:

  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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch

 *To:* fis fis@listas.unizar.es

 *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 Markov mar...@foibg.com

 *To:* John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za ; Stanley N 

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

2015-06-12 Thread 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 mar...@foibg.com:

   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 colli...@ukzn.ac.za
 *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
 *To:* Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu ; fis
 fis@listas.unizar.es
 *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-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


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


Re: [Fis] It From Bit video

2015-05-27 Thread 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 colli...@ukzn.ac.za:

  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
 physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or
 even that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering
 classical electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for
 galactic distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the
 large scale structure of the universe

Re: [Fis] It From Bit video

2015-05-26 Thread 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 kher...@hamilton.edu:

 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] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro)

2015-05-19 Thread 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 l...@leydesdorff.net:

 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] New Year Lecture – The Correct Level of Analysis?

2015-04-27 Thread 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] New Year Lecture: Aftermath

2015-04-25 Thread 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 l...@leydesdorff.net:

 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.htmlBeijing;

 Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of
 London;

 http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=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 rule.*My
 suggestion concerns the absence phenomenon (it also has appeared in some
 previous discussion in this list --notably from Bob's). You imply that
 there is an entity capable  of dynamically building upon  an external
 absences, OK quite clear,  but what about internal absences? I mean at
 the origins of communication there could be the sensing of the internal--
 lets call it functional voids, needs, gaps, deficiencies, etc. Cellularly
 there are some good arguments about that, even in the 70's there was a
 metabolic code

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

2015-04-07 Thread 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 zh...@cdut.edu.cn:

 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 ignore such precious resource of hearts, of
 intelligence, of their meaning they bringing as information. They are
 powerful and efficient.
 3.  Here a star, there a star, By the way let me point another stars
 for you and please add/invite them to our FIS liker

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

2015-03-18 Thread 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 z...@bupt.edu.cn:

 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 z...@bupt.edu.cn
 *抄送:*JohnPrpic pr...@sfu.ca,fis fis@listas.unizar.es
 *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 z...@bupt.edu.cn:


 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 pr...@sfu.ca
 *收信人:*钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn
 *抄送:*fis fis@listas.unizar.es
 *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 z...@bupt.edu.cn
 *To: *joe brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *Cc: *dai.griffiths.1 dai.griffith...@gmail.com, 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

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

2015-03-15 Thread 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 z...@bupt.edu.cn:


 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 pr...@sfu.ca
 *收信人:*钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn
 *抄送:*fis fis@listas.unizar.es
 *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 z...@bupt.edu.cn
 *To: *joe brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *Cc: *dai.griffiths.1 dai.griffith...@gmail.com, 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 regarded as almost the same
 as that of information science, provided that the studies of information
 science willcontain not only information itself but also the products of
 information,in which knowledge andintelligent strategy for problem solving
 are major components.In other words, the studies of information science
 should adopt the view of ecological system. This is also the reason why the
 topic of intelligence science be brought to FIS forum

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

2015-03-13 Thread 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 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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 *收信人:*fis fis@listas.unizar.es
 *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, 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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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 dai.griffith...@gmail.com:

  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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es 
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 *收信人:*fis fis@listas.unizar.es fis@listas.unizar.es
 *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 

[Fis] (sin asunto)

2015-03-05 Thread 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] Intelligence Science

2015-03-04 Thread 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  dalleidee 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 ssal...@binghamton.edu:

 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 I mentioned above, our
 civilization has achieved a high degree of maturity in what is now a
 precious wealthy and peaceful 

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

2015-01-30 Thread 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 ste...@iase.us:

 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 dea...@berkeley.edu
 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 ste...@iase.us 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's advocacy of necessary duality. But
  then, it is not entirely clear what he is implying. He could, for
 example,
  simply be an advocate of a universal property not widely considered and
  advocated by myself as the basis of experience or as Benjamin Peirce's
  universal will or Charles' (weaker) matter as effete mind, all being
  the universal equal of gravitation and of light and to be found
 ultimately
  in the same equations as a force that have an effect upon the world,
 in
  this case in the flexible closed structures that form biophysics. A
 theory
  based upon such a premise, even though it requires something physically
  extra today, is clearly not at all dualist.
 
  I, naturally enough, am sympathetic to Terry's denial

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

2015-01-19 Thread 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 dea...@berkeley.edu
 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
 assume that nucleic acids are intrinsically informational or that
 information is just pattern replication, as has become a common
 assumption in many evolutionary theories.

 As I have said a number of times, my goal is not to deal with all
 aspects of the information concept, and certainly not at the level of
 human thought. I merely propose to dissolve the implicit dualism in
 our current concepts

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

2015-01-12 Thread 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 dea...@berkeley.edu:

 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 l...@leydesdorff.net 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 in terms of expectations of next-moment
  of time states. The former are considered incursive, whereas the latter
 are
  hyper-incursive ones. One can easily write the equations, and then it is
  obvious that the dynamics are very different from biological systems.
  Hyper-incursive systems operate against the arrow of time.
 
 
 
  Whereas the teleological dimension is only one among

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

2014-12-07 Thread 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 hoel...@unr.edu:

  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 mar...@foibg.com 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 lo...@physics.utoronto.ca
 *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:54 PM
 *To:* Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *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 u...@umces.edu
 To: Carolina Isiegas cisie...@gmail.com
 Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
 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

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

2014-12-07 Thread 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 hoel...@unr.edu:

  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 mar...@foibg.com 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 lo...@physics.utoronto.ca
 *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:54 PM
 *To:* Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *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 u...@umces.edu
 To: Carolina Isiegas cisie...@gmail.com
 Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
 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

Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?

2014-12-04 Thread 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 mar...@foibg.com:

   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 lo...@physics.utoronto.ca
 *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:54 PM
 *To:* Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *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 u...@umces.edu
 To: Carolina Isiegas cisie...@gmail.com
 Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
 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

 backgound

 (Molecular Neuroscience), I would like to hear your point of view on the

 topic of neuroinformation, how information exists within the Central

 Nervous Systems. My task was experimental; I was interested in

 investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and memory,

 specifically, the role of the cAMP-PKA-CREB signaling pathway in such

 brain

 functions (In Ted Abel´s

Re: [Fis] The Travellers

2014-10-27 Thread 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 colli...@ukzn.ac.za:

 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...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -

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



 --
 John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
 Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa
 T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292   F: +27 (31) 260 3031
 Http://web.ncf.ca/collier

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

2014-09-17 Thread 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 malcolmd...@gmail.com:


 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=ptbm=bksq=inauthor:%22Philip+Mirowski%22source=gbs_metadata_rcad=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] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?

2014-08-31 Thread 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 ssal...@binghamton.edu:

 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 colli...@ukzn.ac.za 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 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

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

2014-08-21 Thread 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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch:

  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 mbur...@math.ucla.edu
 *To:* Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *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
 part of the strategy.

 Best wishes,

 Joseph





 - Original Message -
 *From:* Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com
 *To:* Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com ; FIS
 fis@listas.unizar.es ; Pridi Siregar pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.com
 *Sent:* Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42 AM
 *Subject:* [Fis] Information quadruple

  Dear Jerry

Re: [Fis] information.energy

2014-08-04 Thread 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 ssal...@binghamton.edu:

 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 u...@umces.edu
 wrote:

  Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu
  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] call for vienna 14

2014-07-25 Thread 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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es:

 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] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation

2014-07-16 Thread 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 s...@ecs.soton.ac.uk:

 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
 sufficient difference that makes a difference.
 And yes, there's often a too hasty rush to view
 analogue computing through pixellated perspectives.
 
 I'm not sure if this is well known to members of
 this list, but Bill Bialek's biophysics text is
 a profound reflection of the interplay between
 the analogue and the digital, with selection
 pressure forcing the sufficiency of the grainy
 difference

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

2014-06-08 Thread 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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch:

  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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *Cc:* Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es ;
 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.
 Ribadisco, però, che non intendo menare alcun vanto.
 Cordiali saluti.
 Francesco Rizzo.



 2014-06-06 9:49 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch:

  Dear

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

2014-06-08 Thread 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 raf...@capurro.de:

  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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch:

  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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *Cc:* Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es ;
 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

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

2014-06-07 Thread 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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch:

  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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 *Cc:* Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es ; 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.
 Ribadisco, però, che non intendo menare alcun vanto.
 Cordiali saluti.
 Francesco Rizzo.



 2014-06-06 9:49 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch:

  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

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

2014-06-06 Thread 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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch:

  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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 *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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es:

 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

Re: [Fis] Information Science and the City

2014-06-05 Thread 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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es:

 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] New Year Lecture wrap-up

2014-01-19 Thread 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 henrikrit...@gmail.com

 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 arxiv.org. (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 kicks
 in. (In order to do that, the mechanism has to make use of an accurate
 model of the system's performance, so that it can PREDICT how the system
 will react.  I think it's an exaggeration to call this maneuver inverting
 the cause-and-effect sequence, but it comes close.)  I learned about
 instrumentalism, and will try to understand how it relates to pragmatism