Re: [Fis] Causation is transfer of information

2017-03-30 Thread Hector Zenil
y as a representation) Information Originates in Symmetry Breaking
> <http://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/infsym.pdf> (*Symmetry* 1996).
>

Very nice paper. I agree on symmetry breaking, I have similar ideas:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1572
(published in the journal of Natural Computing)
On how symmetric rules can produce assymetric information.

Best,

Hector Zenil
http://www.hectorzenil.net/


> I adopt what I call dynamical realism, that anything that is real is
> either dynamical or interpretable in dynamical terms. Not everyone will
> agree.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Guy A Hoelzer [mailto:hoel...@unr.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 29 March 2017 1:44 AM
> *To:* Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>; Terry Deacon <
> dea...@berkeley.edu>; John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>; Foundations of
> Information Science Information Science <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Causation is transfer of information
>
>
>
> Greetings all,
>
>
>
> It seems that the indigestion from competing definitions of ‘information’
> is hard to resolve, and I agree with Terry and others that a broad
> definition is preferable.  I also think it is not a problem to allow
> multiple definitions that can be operationally adopted in appropriate
> contexts.  In some respects, apparently competing definitions are actually
> reinforcing.  For example, I prefer to use ‘information’ to describe any
> difference (a distinction or contrast), and it is also true that a subset
> of all differences are ones that ‘make a difference’ to an observer.  When
> we restrict ‘information’ to differences that make a difference it becomes
> inherently subjective.  That is certainly not a problem if you are
> interested in subjectivity, but it would eliminate the rationality of
> studying objective ‘information’, which I think holds great promise for
> understanding dynamical systems.  I don’t see any conflict between
> ‘information’ as negentropy and ‘information’ as a basis for decision
> making.  On the other hand, semantics and semiotics involve the attachment
> of meaning to information, which strikes me as a separate and complementary
> idea.  Therefore, I think it is important to sustain this distinction
> explicitly in what we write.  Maybe there is a context in which
> ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ are so intertwined that they cannot be
> isolated, but I can’t think of one.  I’m sure there are plenty of contexts
> in which the important thing is ‘meaning’, and where the (more general,
> IMHO) term ‘information’ is used instead.  I think it is fair to say that
> you can have information without meaning, but you can’t have meaning
> without information.  Can anybody think of a way in which it might be
> misleading if this distinction was generally accepted?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Guy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Fisers,
>
>
>
> I agree with Terry that "information" has three irreducible aspects ---
> *amount*, *meaning*, and *value*.  These somehow may be related to
> another triadic relation called the ITR as depicted below, although I don't
> know the exact rule of mapping between the two triads.  Perhaps, 'amount' =
> f, 'meaning' = g, and 'value' = h ? .
>
>
>
>   f   g
>
>Object --->  Sign -->  Interpretant
>
> |
>   ^
> |
>|
> |
>|
> |
>|
> |_|
>
> h
>
>
>
> *Figure 1.*  The *Irreducible Triadic Relation* (ITR) of seimosis (also
> called sign process or communication) first clearly articulated by Peirce
> to the best of my knowledge. *Warning*: Peirce often replaces Sign with
> Representamen and represents the whole triad, i.e., Figure 1
> itself (although he did not use such a figure in his writings) as the Sign.
> Not distinguishing between these two very different uses of the same word
> "Sign" can lead to semiotic confusions.   The three processes are defined
> as follows: f = sign production, g = sign interpretation, h = information
> flow (other ways of labeling the arrows are not excluded).   Each process
> or arrow reads "determines", "leads", "i

Re: [Fis] Causation is transfer of information

2017-03-29 Thread Hector Zenil
With all due respect, I am still amazed how it is so much ignored and
neglected all the science and math around information developed in the last
50-60 years! With most people here citing in the best case only Shannon
Entropy but completely neglecting and ignoring algorithmic complexity,
logical depth, quantum information and so on. Your philosophical
discussions are quite empty if most people ignore the progress that
computer science and math has done in the last 60 years! Please take it
constructively. This should be a shame for the whole field of Philosophy of
Information and FIS.

Perhaps I can help alleviate this a little even if I feel wrong pointing
you out to my own papers on subjects relevant to philosophical discussion:

http://www.hectorzenil.net/publications.html

They do care about the meaning and value of information beyond Shannon
Entropy. For example, paper J21:

- Natural Scene Statistics Mediate the Perception of Image Complexity
(available online at
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13506285.2014.950365 also
available pdf preprint in the arxiv)

and

- Rare Speed-up in Automatic Theorem Proving Reveals Tradeoff Between
Computational Time and Information Value (https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04349).

And we even show how Entropy fails at the most basic level:

Low Algorithmic Complexity Entropy-deceiving Graphs (
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.05972)

Best Regards,

Hector Zenil

---
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
delete the message.

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu>
wrote:
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> I agree with John Collier that we should not assume to restrict the
concept of information to only one subset of its potential applications.
But to work with this breadth of usage we need to recognize that
'information' can refer to intrinsic statistical properties of a physical
medium, extrinsic referential properties of that medium (i.e. content), and
the significance or use value of that content, depending on the context.  A
problem arises when we demand that only one of these uses should be given
legitimacy. As I have repeatedly suggested on this listserve, it will be a
source of constant useless argument to make the assertion that someone is
wrong in their understanding of information if they use it in one of these
non-formal ways. But to fail to mark which conception of information is
being considered, or worse, to use equivocal conceptions of the term in the
same argument, will ultimately undermine our efforts to understand one
another and develop a complete general theory of information.
>
> This nominalization of 'inform' has been in use for hundreds of years in
legal and literary contexts, in all of these variant forms. But there has
been a slowly increasing tendency to use it to refer to the
information-beqaring medium itself, in substantial terms. This reached its
greatest extreme with the restricted technical usage formalized by Claude
Shannon. Remember, however, that this was only introduced a little over a
half century ago. When one of his mentors (Hartley) initially introduced a
logarithmic measure of signal capacity he called it 'intelligence' — as in
the gathering of intelligence by a spy organization. So had Shannon chose
to stay with that usage the confusions could have been worse (think about
how confusing it would have been to talk about the entropy of
intelligence). Even so, Shannon himself was to later caution against
assuming that his use of the term 'information' applied beyond its
technical domain.
>
> So despite the precision and breadth of appliction that was achieved by
setting aside the extrinsic relational features that characterize the more
colloquial uses of the term, this does not mean that these other uses are
in some sense non-scientific. And I am not alone in the belief that these
non-intrinsic properties can also (eventually) be strictly formalized and
thereby contribute insights to such technical fields as molecular biology
and cognitive neuroscience.
>
> As a result I think that it is legitimate to argue that information (in
the referential sense) is only in use among living forms, that an alert
signal sent by the computer in an automobile engine is information (in both
senses, depending on whether we include a human interpreter in the loop),
or that information (in the intrinsic sense of a medium property) is lost
within a black hole or that it can be used  to provide a more precise
conceptiont of physical cause (as in Collier's sense). These different uses
aren't unrelated to each other. They are just asymmetrically dependent on
one another, such that medium-intrinsic properties can be investigated
without considering referential properties, but not vice versa.
>
> It's tim

Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story

2017-01-10 Thread Hector Zenil
There is no way I could trust such a proof as it would completely rely on
the very particular and certainly arbitrary axiomatic theory in which such
a proof could be produced (there is no way we can take the 'universe' as
being operating on theories of relativity and quantum field, for
example). It makes little to no sense to rely on a mathematical proof or to
even give it more credit than some empirical evidence. I, myself, feel
pretty safe with the arguments provided so far (I do not pretend anyone
else to do so, perhaps you don't, but my understanding is that the people
that know and certainly would be concerned, are satisfied enough), of
course as long as the calculations were correct, i.e. that if nature does
not produce such black holes, CERN would therefore not produce them in the
same circumstances and at lower energies. For certain there will be still
people that feel unsafe and I think that is also good, always some
dissension helps to get things right and force the other side to be even
more convincing. What I definitely would think is definitely wrong, is that
a mathematical proof can give any definite proof of the real world. I once
worked in an animal behaviour lab where they wanted me to prove theorems
about animal behaviour and I told them they were insane =)

All Best,

- Hector

P.s. Notice I am a mathematician by training, so I am not suggesting at all
to throw away maths, but I think some people clearly overestimate the power
of maths or math theories as if axioms were physical 'trues', when they are
merely mathematical assumptions. Similar to people that have proven the
Church thesis in the negative because they have created a theoretical model
that computes beyond the Turing limit, the problem is not that one, the
problem is to show it can be implemented and one can actually compute with
such models.






---
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
delete the message.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear Terry and FISers,
>
> I know that there is probably theoretical “no proof” or guarantee in the
> mathematical sense, but this should not mean that irresponsible experiments
> can be carried out on a large scale like Tesla did them a century ago. What
> you suggest about “experiments of nature” sounds reasonable. Hawking's
> argument is also good. But he was also wrong a couple of times.  What you
> say about maths is also true, but the issue is more about the moral and
> methodology of science. We cannot afford doing Frankenstein experiments on
> this small Earth. Do we know the consequences of all these experiments for
> our ecology? Polynesia is still suffering the French H-bomb tests in the
> 1950s: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/french-nuclear-tests-
> polynesia-declassified. As I told Lou, if the experiments were made in
> another remote galaxy, I would not have a problem as an observer. But they
> are made here, under our feet, and there is no guarantee that they cannot
> go wrong. We cannot escape anywhere. Again, this has nothing to do with the
> statistics of airplane or lift crashes. The entire human civilisation of
> 100.000 years can disappear within a minute. Maybe not with this
> experiment, but with the next one. Of course, this could happen also with
> an asteroid or  a comet hit, or a series of volcano eruptions and
> earthquakes, but don’t we have other,  more important problems to solve
> here on Earth?
>
> All the best.
>
> Plamen
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Terrence W. DEACON 
> wrote:
>
>> Mathematic analysis seldom provides "proof" of any physical theory or
>> prediction. This is of course why we do empirical experiments. So being
>> unpersuaded by either side's theoretical analysis and prior to running the
>> actual experiment on the LHC, what is the best approach? I think that there
>> is another option than simply avoiding performing any such experiment until
>> reaching mathematical certainty. I am much more persuaded by the results of
>> "experiments of nature" than by anyone's calculations. And there is ample
>> evidence from the results of such "experiments" that the predicted
>> catastrophic consequences will not occur (because they have not, despite
>> millions of replications). I quote again from
>>
>> http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc
>>
>> "Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the
>> earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."  Prof. Steven Hawking,
>> Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
>>
>> "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the
>> moon with more energy and have not produced a black 

Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics?

2016-06-29 Thread Hector Zenil
I think complaining about Shannon entropy as a measure of information is
completely justified because it is steam-engine physics unfortunately still
widely used despite its many flaws and limitations.

But to think that Shannon entropy is at the front-end in the mathematical
discussion of information is a mistake and this, and other groups, have
perpetually been entrapped in a 60s and 70s discussion on a fake ancient
theory of information that not even Shannon himself thought was worth to be
used for anything meaningful in information but for communication measuring
purposes only.

Indeed, Shannon entropy is nothing else but a counting function of
states/symbols, at best it is a measure of diversity, a bound on
information transfer. The technical and philosophical discussion here and
everywhere else should be (and has been among those at the scientific
front) focused on what has been done in the last 50 years to leave Shannon
entropy behind, but nobody here (and almost nowhere else) are people
discuss about algorithmic randomness, Levin's universal distribution,
measures of sophistication, etc. but prefer to be in a continuous state of
pre 60s Shannon entropy discussion.

Shannon entropy should not even be mentioned any longer in serious
discussions about information, we moved on a long time ago (unfortunately
not even many physicists have done)

Trying to be constructive. All best,

- Hector
http://www.hectorzenil.net/


On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, joe.brenner  wrote:

> Dear Loet,
> The way you have asked it, I think the answer to your question is known:
> both order and disorder are universals, linked  dialectically. Never one
> without the other, as for symmetry and asymmetry, except in trivially
> simple cases.
> Cheers,
> Joseph
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile.
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Loet Leydesdorff
> Date:29/06/2016 14:40 (GMT+01:00)
> To: "'Pedro C. Marijuan'" , fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics?
>
> Dear Pedro and colleagues,
>
>
>
> The figure from Weaver in Loet's excellent posting leaves a few aspects
> outside. The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other aspects
> of the information phenomenon do not enter. By doing that we have
> streamlined the phenomenon... and have left it ready for applying a highly
> successful theory, in the technological and in many other realms
> (linguistics, artif. intelligence, neurodynamics, molec. networks, ecol.
> networks, applied soc. metrics, etc). Pretty big and impressive, but is it
> enough? Shouldn't we try to go beyond?
>
> In my opinion, “The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other
> aspects …” are subject to substantive theorizing. The type of answers will
> be very different when studying biological or other systems of reference.
> But then the information is provided with meaning by these theories and we
> discuss “meaningful information” as different from Shannon-type
> information. There will in this case a dimension to the information.
>
>
>
> For example, when particles collide, there is exchange of momenta and
> energy. The dissipation is then dimensioned as Joule/Kelvin (S = k H). In
> chemistry one assumes a mass balance and thus a redistribution of atoms
> over molecules, etc. The dimensionality of interhuman communication is
> hitherto not specified.
>
>
> I wonder whether a far wider "phenomenology of information" is needed
> (reminding what Maxine argued months ago about the whole contemplation of
> our own movement, or Plamen about the "war on cancer"?). If that inquiry is
> successful we could find for instance that:
>
> This is not successful. It does not lead to a research program, but to
> “philosophie spontanée des savant” (Althusser) as your comprehensive
> question for “The why, the what, the how long, the with whom, and other
> aspects” illustrates. The hidden program is biologistic:
>
>
> 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' SPECIFIC.
>
>
>
> “ESSENTIAL CORES” are discipline specific!
>
>
> 3. Those UNIVERSALS would be organized, wrapped, around an ESSENTIAL CORE.
> It would consist in the tight ingraining of self-production and
> communication (almost inseparable, and both information based!). In the
> human special case, it is the whole advancement of our own lives what
> propels us to engage in endless communication --about the universals of our
> own species-- but with the terrific advantage of an open-ended
> communication system, language.
>
> 4. Those UNIVERSALS would have been streamlined in very different ways and
> taken as "principles" or starting points for a number of
> disciplines--remembering the discussion about the four Great Domains of
> Science. A renewed Information Science should nucleate one of those
> domains.
>
> “Should” is an expression of uneasiness? In my opinion, the assumption of
> an origin is problematic: order is not given (ex ante) and then branching,
> but emerging (ex post) from disorder 

Re: [Fis] "Mechanical Information" in DNA

2016-06-08 Thread Hector Zenil
The original article
(http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0156905)
closes with:
"Analysis of two high resolution nucleosome maps revealed strong
signals that—even though they do not constitute a definite proof—are
at least consistent with such a view."

Physorg opens their popularizing note about the above article with:
"Second layer of information in DNA confirmed"

Interesting.


On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Hector Zenil <hzen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2016-06-08 16:40 GMT-03:00 John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>:
>>>
>>> A previously hypothesized “second layer” of information in DNA may have
>>> been isolated.
>
> This is not exactly new, possibly the reason this paper didn't make it
> to Nature or Science. See
> http://tinyurl.com/3Dgenomics
> http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(15)00063-3
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Moisés André Nisenbaum
> <moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br> wrote:
>> Also, you usually think "DNA" associated with Biological Sciences, but this
>> research is made at Leiden Institute of Physics! Of course, to work current
>> (complex, innovative) science you must have an interdisciplinary approach.
>
> Francis Crick was a physicist at the Physics Cavendish Laboratory in
> Cambridge with Watson, Frederick Sanger was a biochemist, etc.
>
> Best,
>
> - Hector Zenil
> http://www.hectorzenil.net/
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://phys.org/news/2016-06-layer-dna.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Collier
>>>
>>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>>>
>>> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>>
>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Moisés André Nisenbaum
>> Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
>> Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
>> Campus Rio de Janeiro
>> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
>>
>> ___
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>

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


Re: [Fis] "Mechanical Information" in DNA

2016-06-08 Thread Hector Zenil
> 2016-06-08 16:40 GMT-03:00 John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>:
>>
>> A previously hypothesized “second layer” of information in DNA may have
>> been isolated.

This is not exactly new, possibly the reason this paper didn't make it
to Nature or Science. See
http://tinyurl.com/3Dgenomics
http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(15)00063-3


On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Moisés André Nisenbaum
<moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br> wrote:
> Also, you usually think "DNA" associated with Biological Sciences, but this
> research is made at Leiden Institute of Physics! Of course, to work current
> (complex, innovative) science you must have an interdisciplinary approach.

Francis Crick was a physicist at the Physics Cavendish Laboratory in
Cambridge with Watson, Frederick Sanger was a biochemist, etc.

Best,

- Hector Zenil
http://www.hectorzenil.net/

>>
>>
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2016-06-layer-dna.html
>>
>>
>>
>> John Collier
>>
>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>>
>> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>
>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Moisés André Nisenbaum
> Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
> Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
> Campus Rio de Janeiro
> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>

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


[Fis] CFP: Big data in complex systems, network theory, cybernetics, and artificial life

2015-12-13 Thread Hector Zenil
13th IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control
(ICNSC2016)
April 28-30, 2016, Mexico City, Mexico
http://www.icnsc2016.org

Special Session On “Big data in complex systems, network theory,
cybernetics, and artificial life”

CALL FOR PAPERS
Complex systems have been studied for some time, but it was not until
recently that sampling complex systems became possible, systems ranging
from computational methods such as high-throughput biology, to systems with
sufficient storage capacity to store and analyze prize market transactions.
The advent of Big Data is therefore the result of the availability of
computing power to process these complex systems, from social to economic,
from physical to biological systems. Much has been said on the importance
of being able to deal with large amounts of data but little about how to
model, represent and better analyze the dynamics of complex systems. The
special session will stimulate a strong national participation. Challenges
in Mexico represent a great opportunity for complex systems research and
theory development to tackle current and future challenges of the country
and the future world ranging from biodiversity, security, social impact,
population dynamics, epidemiology, genetic modified food, technology
development, cultural aspects, violence, waste disposal and so on. Topics
of interest are not limited to basic and applied research in complexity
science and artificial life from the perspectives of computer science,
mathematics, physics, biology and the social sciences.

Topics related to computational modeling methods such as:
- Cellular automata
- Agents and distributed computing
- Neural networks
- Complex networks
- Patterns
- L-systems
- Dynamical systems
- Quantum systems
to mention some examples.

The 13th IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control
(ICNSC´2016) will be held in Mexico City, Mexico. This conference will
provide a remarkable opportunity for the academic and industrial
communities to address new challenges and share solutions, and discuss
future research directions. It will feature plenary speeches, industrial
panel sessions, and funding agency panel sessions, interactive sessions,
invited/special sessions and tutorials. Contributions are expected from
academia, industry, and management agencies. All accepted papers will be
published in conference proceedings and in IEEE Xplore.

IMPORTANT DATES

- Submission deadline: January 15, 2015
(oral presentations in Spanish will be considered but papers and slides
must be in English)
- Camera-ready: February 15, 2016
- Early registration: before February, 15, 2016

KEYNOTE (main conference):
- Dr. Ljiljana Trajkovic
Other keynote speakers may be later confirmed

PAPER SUBMISSION

Complete manuscripts must be electronically submitted through the
conference website:
http://www.icnsc2016.org
Submitted manuscripts in English should be six (6) pages in IEEE two-column
format, including figures, tables, and references. Please use the templates
at Manuscript Templates for IEEE Conference Proceedings from the conference
website to prepare your paper.

PUBLICATIONS

High quality contributions may be considered (in extended versions) for
journals such as:
- Journal of Cellular Automata (JCA)
- International Journal of Unconventional Computation (IJUC)

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

- Dr. Aida HUERTA (Centro de Ciencias de la Complejidad, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México)
- Dr. María Elena LARRAGA (Instituto de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México)
- Dr. Genaro JUAREZ MARTINEZ (Escuela Superior de Cómputo, Instituto
Politécnico Nacional; Centre for Unconventional Computing, University of
the West of England & LABORES)
- Dr. Juan Carlos SECK TUOH MORA (Área Académica de Ingeniería, Universidad
Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo)
- Dr. Hector ZENIL (Department of Computer Science, Oxford University;
Karolinska Institutet & LABORES)

SPONSORS & ORGANIZING INSTITUTIONS

- IEEE (https://www.ieee.org/)
- CONACYT (http://www.conacyt.mx/)
- CINVESTAV (http://www.cinvestav.mx/)
- IPN (http://www.ipn.mx/english/)
- UNAM (https://www.unam.mx/)
- CCC (http://c3.fisica.unam.mx/)
- LCCOMP (http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Home.html)
- LABORES (http://labores.eu/)

ABOUT MEXICO CITY

Safety: Mexico is the 14th largest country in the world (by area, 11th by
population, 14th by GDP, 11th GDP parity) and the largest Spanish-speaking
country. Much has been said on the news but while some parts of Mexico have
been affected by drug-related violence (in their way to the U.S. the
largest illegal drug market in the world), safety in Mexico City is not
different to other cities in North America and Asia and visitors should not
particularly worry. Mexico City has a crime rate of 22 per 100K people,
comparable to Pennsylvania and not far from Philadelphia’s (16) or
Washington, DC (15), far below the city of Detroit (43.5) and way far from
many other cities in Latin America i

Re: [Fis] Stephen Wolfram discussing his ANKS in Reedit this Monday

2012-05-11 Thread Hector Zenil
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 11 May 2012, at 13:10, Hector Zenil wrote:

 Information that readers may find interesting:


 Stephen Wolfram has written the first in a series of blogs posts about

 NKS titled It's Been 10 Years; What's Happened with A New Kind of

 Science?: http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/its-been-10-years-whats-happened-with-a-new-kind-of-science/


 Stephen will also be hosting an Ask Me Anything (AMA) on Reddit, where

 he will be taking questions  about NKS and his research program on

 Monday, May 14 at 3pm EST.


 I think it is a good opportunity to start an interesting discussion

 about several topics, including of course information and computation.


 It looks like advertising for a type of universal system, the cellular
 automata.

Coincidently, Wolfram wrote today
(http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2012/05/living-a-paradigm-shift-looking-back-on-reactions-to-a-new-kind-of-science/):

Looking through reviews, there are some other common themes. One is
that A New Kind of Science is a book about cellular automata—or worse,
about the idea (not in fact suggested in the book at all) that our
whole universe is a giant cellular automaton. For sure, cellular
automata are great, visually strong, examples for lots of phenomena I
discuss. But after about page 50 (out of 1280), cellular automata no
longer take center stage—and notably are not the type of system I
discuss in the book as possible models for fundamental physics.

People keep repeating what other say about others... (in this case,
that his view is all about cellular automata).

...

 Digital physics implies computationalism, but if you take the 1/3 person
 points of view distinction into account, computationalism entails a non
 digital physics. So digital physics is conceptually erroneous.

 See the references in my URL for a proof of that statement. You need only
 Church's Turing thesis, and the assumption that consciousness is invariant
 for *some* digital transformation (which follows from computationalism).

 This does not preclude that cellular automaton are very interesting, and can
 have many applications, but it is not clear to make it into a new science.
 We want to ask what about that science is, for it does not seem to address
 the most fundamental questions.

Then perhaps you can ask him next Monday on his Reedit session. I
think he has some concerns about the place of observers in a digital
world scenario.

As for computationalism, he as I do, think that the question is about
physics, the answer won't come therefore from a model of math or
computation.


 Bruno Marchal





 Sincerely.

 ___

 fis mailing list

 fis@listas.unizar.es

 https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK

2012-04-27 Thread Hector Zenil
Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed
breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS
enthusiasts?

Thanks.


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:
 Dear colleagues,

 Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a
 FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info
 avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman
 and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular
 discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of
 voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan
 could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh
 discussion session for the coming months.

 Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the
 filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together.
 Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as
 as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one.

 best

 ---Pedro
 (fis list coordination)

 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -


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

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


Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK

2012-04-27 Thread Hector Zenil
, tightly orchestrated use of
 these to stay ahead of the ravages of thermodynamic decay.” LCTS acquire
 their energy from their hosts as they are obligate symbionts.

 282 Schroedinger’s attention to the thermodynamic riddle of life, and his
 intuition that these two mysteries must be intrinsically linked, fell into
 the background of biological discussion, to be followed up by a
 comparatively small group of theoretical biologists.

 On 2012-04-27, at 4:39 PM, Hector Zenil wrote:

 Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed
 breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS
 enthusiasts?

 Thanks.


 On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:

 Dear colleagues,


 Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a

 FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info

 avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman

 and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular

 discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of

 voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan

 could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh

 discussion session for the coming months.


 Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the

 filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together.

 Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as

 as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one.


 best


 ---Pedro

 (fis list coordination)


 -

 Pedro C. Marijuán

 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud

 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª

 50009 Zaragoza, Spain

 Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554

 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/

 -



 ___

 fis mailing list

 fis@listas.unizar.es

 https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


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


 __

 Robert K. Logan
 Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
 Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
 www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan





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


Re: [Fis] POSTS ON TERRY' S BOOK

2012-04-27 Thread Hector Zenil
Steven,

More than an objection I wanted to understand what the book was being
credited for. But yes, a book that is credited to advance the field of
information and overlooks to talk about Turing computation I think
should be considered, at least, incomplete (perhaps intended along the
lines of the book's title).

Moreover, if the author ignores the progress (even if he, you or me
may not agree on whether Turing computation may or may not capture in
full or a part of what information may be), then I think one is
missing not only part of the story but perhaps the most important part
of the story after Shannon.

But I'm not assuming that Deacon ignores the topic, but that his
intention was a complete change of direction. But then I find
contradictory to credit Shannon with such a status in his approach,
and then ignore everything else in the process to take an opposite
direction. But as I also said, I think he never intended to contribute
to the field of information, but that his approach to information is
accessory to his main goal: the point of his incomplete nature.

Sincerely,

Hector


On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith ste...@iase.us wrote:
 Dear Hector,

 What, exactly, is your objection to it? It's anti-reductionism (that I would 
 object to also) or it's claim that Turing computation is insufficient (to 
 which I have no objection)?

 With respect,
 Steven

 --
        Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
        Institute for Advanced Science  Engineering
        http://iase.info







 On Apr 27, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Hector Zenil wrote:

 Could someone summarize why Terrence Deacon's book is such a presumed
 breakthrough judging by the buzz it has generated among FIS
 enthusiasts?

 Thanks.


 On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:
 Dear colleagues,

 Krassimir Markov's suggestion is excellent. Next year we could have a
 FIS conference in his place, centered in the exploration of the new info
 avenue drafted by Terrence Deacon's book, and started by Stuart Kauffman
 and others. Previously my suggestion is that we have a regular
 discussion session (like the many ones had in this list). A couple of
 voluntary chairs, and an opening text would be needed. Sure Bob Logan
 could handle this (perhaps off list) and we would have a fresh
 discussion session for the coming months.

 Technical Note: the current messages are not entering in the list; the
 filter is rejecting them as there are too many addresses together.
 Please, send the fis address single, and all the others separated or as
 as Cc. Otherwise I will have to enter them one by one.

 best

 ---Pedro
 (fis list coordination)

 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -


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

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


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