Re: [Fis] [FIS] A Curious Story

2017-01-24 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Dear  Otto: 

> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Otto E. Rossler  > wrote:
> 
> But as convincing as this may be, it is still not my main point. My main and 
> real point is: CERN refuses to update its official safety report LSAG for 
> exactly as long.
> 
> But there is an even more disturbing point. IF an organization openly refuses 
> to contradict evidence of committing a crime (even the biggest of history), 
> it is very very strange in my own eyes at least that no one in the world, 
> from the media to the profession, from Europe to Africa to America to Asia, 
> is even able to spot this fact as deserving to be alleviated or at least 
> publicly discussed. 
> 
> Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for this 
> historically unique phenomenon? 
> (Understanding is sometimes more important than surviving -- right? Forgive 
> me the pun.)
> 
> I am very grateful for the discussion,
> take care, everyone,
> Otto

I will offer some opinions that are related to the  “public” philosophy of 
science policy.  At the end, I will raise a question about the philosophy of 
epistemic mathematics as it manifests itself in the epistemology of physical 
“models” of natural phenomenological events.

My personal experience with the interface between “doing” experimental 
molecular biology and “doing” legally-enforcable public health standards lasted 
over a decade during my service in the US  Public Health Service.  

The vast gaps between specific experimental evidence and the subsequent 
emission of a public statements by senior government officials necessarily 
require a shift from the study of nature to the projections of future social 
behaviors.  The simple example of what I speak is the biological evidence for a 
physical-chemical structure to cause cancer in animals and the removal of that 
particular physical-chemical structure from commerce.  Vinyl chloride is one of 
many such examples where the professional communities preformed a “Risk 
Analysis” that resulted in restricting Vinyl Chloride usage.  In the early 
1980’s I was one of the founding members of the Society for Risk Analysis which 
seeks to illuminate the murky areas between scientific information and public 
policy.   

see: http://www.sra.org  
Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk 
characterization, risk communication, risk management, and policy relating to 
risk. Our interests include risks to human health and the environment, both 
built and natural. We consider threats from physical, chemical, and biological 
agents and from a variety of human activities as well as natural events. We 
analyze risks of concern to individuals, to public- and private-sector 
organizations, and to society at various geographic scales. Our membership is 
multidisciplinary and international.

Of course, the biological example is remote from the issues of risk analysis 
for CERN experiments, but many parallels exist.   The SRA journal articles may 
provide you deeper insights into "what is going on" behind the public facades.

With regard to your specific concern 
> Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for this 
> historically unique phenomenon?

I suggest that at least three principle possibilities exist:

1. Senior CERN officials have evaluated you assertions and rejected them as 
implausible. 

2. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted the 
mathematical truths but consider the risk to be so minuscule that this risk 
(and your logic) can be ignored.

3. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted your 
conclusions and have no plausible counter-arguments to the calculated levels of 
risk. Therefore, silence.

I would note that as public officials, senior CERN officials are keenly aware 
of the potential of a detailed risk analysis of experiments could endanger the 
continued public funding of CERN.

The reason the situation is “curious”, as you so adroitly express the current 
stalemate, is because of the deep, deep, deep traditions of the scientific 
community to insist upon the free thought, free speech, free discussions on 
matter of public policy, public risk analysis, …

Thus, I see this “curious” behavior as a political problem that can be 
addressed by seeking a political solution that respects scientific traditions 
and hence, to motivate senior CERN officials to act honorably in the best 
interests of all.


Now, for a comment about epistemic mathematics.  These thoughts are remote from 
the specific issues regarding the risk of local black holes.  These are generic 
w.r.t. the nature of scientific information its communication through logically 
distinctive symbol systems.

For my research on health risk analysis, I undertook a detailed study of the 
origin of scientific units of measure. By way of background, economic units of 
measure are 

Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics? - Species specific?

2016-07-01 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
List:

> Your claim that information is SPECIES SPECIFIC is completely at variance 
> with the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I presented in my 3 week session that the 
> minds of different animal species have used the same encoding of gestalt 
> forms for the past 400 million years since the evolution of the amniotes.
> 

Pedro’s assertion that biological information is species specific is amply 
supported by massive amounts of molecular biological evidence.
One of the critical “differences that make a difference” between species is 
that each member of a specific species  has a DNA sequence that is compatible 
with reproduction within the species. (Even though the concept of a species is 
that of homology of individuals, not homogeneity of individuals.)

From a molecular biological perspective, the assertion of “same encoding” of 
information is contrary to fact.

Cheers

jerry



> On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:45 PM, Alex Hankey  wrote:
> 
> Pedro suggested that I send these comments to the whole group, so here they 
> are
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Alex Hankey" >
> Date: 29 Jun 2016 21:20
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Shannonian Mechanics?
> To: "Pedro C. Marijuan"  >
> Cc: 
> 
> Dear Pedro,
> 
> Your claim that information is SPECIES SPECIFIC is completely at variance 
> with the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that I presented in my 3 week session that the 
> minds of different animal species have used the same encoding of gestalt 
> forms for the past 400 million years since the evolution of the amniotes.
> 
> Study of response of plants to human intentions has simlar implications 
> related to Rupert Sheldrake's 'Sense of being stared at'. These WELL 
> authenticated phenomena have hugely important implications for our 
> understanding of information in Experience - the topic of my presentation. 
> Best wishes, 
> Alex Hankey
> 
> On 29 Jun 2016 4:24 pm, "Pedro C. Marijuan"  > wrote:
> Dear Marcus, Loet, Bob... and All,
> 
> Again very briefly, your exchanges make clear the limits of the received 
> Shannonian approach and the (narrow?) corridors left for advancement. I find 
> this situation highly reminiscent of what happened with Mechanics long ago: 
> an excellent theory (but of limited scope) was overstretched and used as a 
> paradigm of what All science should be... it contributed well to technology 
> and to some other natural science disciplines, but was far from useful 
> --nefarious?-- for humanities and for the future of psychological and social 
> science studies. 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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:
> 
> 1. There are UNIVERSALS of information. Not only in the transmission or in 
> the encoding used, well captured by the present theory, but also in the 
> generation, in the "purpose", the "meaning", the targeted subject/s, in the 
> duration, the cost, the value, the fitness or adaptive "intelligence", etc.
> 
> 2. Those UNIVERSALS are SPECIES' 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. 
> 
> Best regards to all, 
> (and particular greetings to the new parties joined for this discussion)
> --Pedro
>
> 
> El 27/06/2016 a las 12:43, Marcus Abundis escribió:
>> 
>> Dear Loet,
>> 
>> I hoped to reply to your posts sooner as of all the voices on FIS I 
>> often sense a general 

Re: [Fis] "Mechanical Information" in DNA

2016-06-10 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
John:

Is this just another example of the mis-communication between scientists 
trained in different disciplines?

Is it merely an artifact of the mis-use of terms?

In this case, can the mis-communication can be traced back to the 
mis-understanding of the difference between the semiosis of mass (Newton’s 
laws) and the semiosis of electricity (Coulomb’s Law)? 

So, John, I would ask for your interpretation:

What is the first layer, mass or electricity?
What form of type theory motivates you to select one type over the other type 
as either firstness or secondness?
Is the essential nature of the information in the putative first layer of the 
same essential character as the nature of the information in the putative 
second layer? 

Furthermore, is or is not the second layer quantum mechanical?
Or, is the first layer constrained by quantum chemistry and a second layer 
merely an existential QM-illiterate consequence of the electro-dynamics of 
atomism?

Cheers

Jerry

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:10 PM, Hector Zenil  wrote:
> 
>> 2016-06-08 16:40 GMT-03:00 John Collier > >:
>>> 
>>> A previously hypothesized “second layer” of information in DNA may have
>>> been isolated.
> 
> This is not exactly new, possibly the reason this paper didn't make it
> to Nature or Science. See
> http://tinyurl.com/3Dgenomics 
> http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525(15)00063-3 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Moisés André Nisenbaum
> > wrote:
>> Also, you usually think "DNA" associated with Biological Sciences, but this
>> research is made at Leiden Institute of Physics! Of course, to work current
>> (complex, innovative) science you must have an interdisciplinary approach.
> 
> Francis Crick was a physicist at the Physics Cavendish Laboratory in
> Cambridge with Watson, Frederick Sanger was a biochemist, etc.
> 
> Best,
> 
> - Hector Zenil
> http://www.hectorzenil.net/ 
> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://phys.org/news/2016-06-layer-dna.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> John Collier
>>> 
>>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>>> 
>>> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>> 
>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Moisés André Nisenbaum
>> Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
>> Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
>> Campus Rio de Janeiro
>> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
>> 
>> ___
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> 
> 
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es 
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> 
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

2016-01-18 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of human 
communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the immediate issue. 

 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.

The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication between the 
general community and, say, the music (operatic and ballad) communities.

Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining terms as 
“metaphor” in another discipline.

Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly known and 
understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities.  In the chemical 
community, the understanding is at the level of intuition because ordinary 
usage within the discipline requires an intuitive understanding of the way 
symbolic usage manifests itself in different disciplines.  

(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, Gracewings, 
Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)

The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings and 
definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES.  For example, ordinary public 
language is necessary for expression of meaning of mathematical symbolic logic. 
 But, from the basic mathematical language, once it grounded in ordinary 
grammar, develops new set of symbols and new meanings for relations among 
mathematical symbols.  Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of 
terms that are have different meanings in its technical language. 

 The meaning of mathematical terms is developed from an associative logic that 
is foreign to ordinary language.  From these antecedents, the consequences are 
abundantly clear. The communication between the meta-languages fail. The 
mathematicians have added vast symbolic logical structures to their symbolic 
communication with symbols. In other words, the ordinary historian and 
scientist are not able to grasp the distinctive meanings of mathematical 
information.  

Physical information is restricted to physical units of measure and hence 
constrained to borrowing mathematical symbols and relating to the ordinary 
language as its meta-language.

The perplexity of chemical information theory is such that it is not 
understandable in any one meta-language or any pair of meta-languages.  In 
order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language must go far 
beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction among forces, such as 
centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.  

The early metalanguage of chemistry was merely terms within ordinary language, 
such as the names of elements. Or, the common names for oils from various 
sources. Around the turn of the 19 th Century, the metalanguage of chemistry 
started it century-long journey to become a meta-language of mathematics with 
the development of the concepts of atomic weights for each singular elements 
and molecular weight, and molecular formula for each different molecule. 

The critical distinction that separates the meta-language of chemistry from 
other metalanguages is the absolute requirement for specification of the name 
of any object on the basis of it’s distinction from other signs or collections 
of signs. 

Thus, chemical information theory, in terms of metalanguages, requires the 
exact usage of the meta-languages of both physics and mathematics in order to 
define the origin of its symbolic logic, as well as the natural metalanguage of 
ordinary human communication. 

Biological information theory is grounded on chemical information theory, using 
a particular encoding of meaning within dynamical systems, to communicate among 
the 5 essential metalanguages necessary for the practice of the medical arts.  
And, I might add, for human history. 

The failure of luke-warm physics to serve as a foundation for a generalized 
information theory is the lack of terminology that can be used to communicate 
among the symbolic logics used in more advanced modes of human communication.

In summary, in the 21 st Century, the foundation of human symbolic 
communication  requires multiple metalanguages and symbol systems, that is, a 
generalized information theory.  Such a generalized theory  of information must 
necessarily include the symbolic logic of chemistry, which is essential to span 
the  symbolic gaps between the disciplines. 

(For those of you who are familiar with my background, this email illuminates 
some of the reasoning behind the development of the perplex number system and 
perplex systems theory within the associative symbolic logic of graph theory.)

Cheers

Jerry 


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Cho 2016 The social life of quarks
> Date: January 18, 2016 at 5:50:40 AM CST
> To: 'fis' 
> 
> Dear Howard and 

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

2015-10-02 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Steven, Pedro, List:

Steven:  Your posts are a breath of fresh air.  

I have long wondered about how you were associating information theory with 
biophysics and the Peirce philosophic notions of information and symbols.  This 
is now partially clarified.

Numerous, very numerous questions are raised by you posts and Pedro's 
translations into his views of molecular biology.

First, a general comment on the suggested background primer on Kahn which is 
laced with weak metaphors.
I particularly object to the notion (at about minute 2:45 of the first segment) 
that information is the answer to a single question, yes or no.

First objection to the Kahn video is that only an infinitesimal fraction of all 
scientific questions yield a "yes" or "no" answer.

Second objection is that, thus far, no one has constructed a general method for 
coding from the fundamental level of electrical particles to either chemical 
information or biological information.  For QM reasons, this coding problem 
appears to an intractable mathematical problem for any biological theory of 
information emerging from physical principles. 

In these cases, the rich physical behavior of relationships between polar 
opposites, positive and negatively charges apparently requires  the emergence 
of new codes  This is a critical fact that haunts any theoretical attempt to 
invoke Shannon information theory to either chemistry or biology.  

None-the-less, I strongly endorse the intimate linkage between communication 
and information.  This linkage appears necessary for a structural mathematics 
that can be used to exchange meanings.

But, lets ignore that issue for the moment. Let me start with the concepts that 
appears to me to motivate your notion of locality as information.  It is this 
notion that Pedro seeks to translate from a spatial concept, locality, to 
material concepts based on the physics of collections of atomic numbers 
arranged into biological patterns, such as DNA, RNA, and the usual list of 
acronyms that can not be literally (factually) translated into philosophical or 
rhetorical languages.

I am puzzled by the sentence:
It should be clear that the bit alone is local and that any organization of 
>> the bit what-so-ever, be it in the form of a word, a Turing machine tape, in 
>> some form on a disk drive or in a text book is, to some degree, lacking that 
>> locality.

In mathematical terms, what is locality?  
How would express this usage of "locality" in terms of topological spaces 
(another mathematical form of locality) and yet exclude QM theory?

In other words, how does "locality" know where it is at?

In mathematical terms, how is the concept of locality related to message 
content?
For a simple example, what happens to the notion of "locality" when a message 
is compressed 2 fold? 5 fold? 20 fold? Is this concept of locality consistent 
and complete under compression?

An alternative view could be that a bit has meaning only within the context of 
a bit string. In this case, the meaning of the bit string, as a combinatorial 
object, can be assigned a list of rules which change the order of the bit 
string with conservation of the meaning of the string as a whole. 

(As an aside, the preceding suggestion is a rough analogy with the 
"information" content of biological processes such as the flow of information 
from an inducer to a transport protein, as in the Lac operon.) 

On a more constructive avenue, 
> Engineering-wise I believe that a simplified genomics is both possible and 
> ultimately programmable. Enabling us to devise organisms with particular 
> behaviors able to serve our inevitable causes.


is a foundational conjecture seeking to link mathematics, physics, chemistry 
and biology.

First, I would note that molecular biologists, using well-understood chemical 
structural principles, can now
 
> "devise organisms with particular behaviors able to serve our inevitable 
> causes."
so that the second sentence is experimentally used now.

So, it appears that the principle (doctrine) of locality should work if a path 
from the conceptualization of "locality" to chemical structures can be 
constructed?

That is, the paths from quantitative "biophysical" symbolic representations to 
quantitative biochemical symbolic representations (and hence to subjective 
"biosemiotic representations) can be abstractly conceptualized and calculated.

Is this conjecture consistent with your conceptualization of biophysics?

Again, thanks for the highly original and stimulating posts. 

Cheers

Jerry






On Oct 2, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:

> 
> Dear Pedro,
> 
> I greet your response with thanks and a sigh of relief. At least someone is 
> paying attention. :-)
> 
> I understand your concern re. multiple parts and apparent complexity in the 
> full "life-cycle" as you speak of it.  I suspect that there underlie it all a 
> few very simple rules, and this is my premise.  
> 
> Central to this view is 

Re: [Fis] Information and Locality Introduction

2015-09-11 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Dear Steven, Pedro and List:

Two excellent posts!

Steven:  I look forward to your ratiocinations and there connectivity with 
symbolic logic. 

It is my view that one of the foundational stumbling blocks to communication 
about syntactical information theory (and its exactness!) is the multi-meanings 
that emerge from the multiple symbol systems used by the natural sciences.

Stan's post is a superb example of how anyone change the semantic meaning of 
words and talk about personal philosophy in context that ignores the 
syntactical meaning of the same word such that the exact sciences are 
generated.  Of course, this personal philosophy remains a private conversation. 

 Steven and Pedro (and I), by way of contrast, are seeking a discussion of 
public information and the exactness of public information theory.  

Cheers

Jerry


Words to live by:

"The union of units unifies the unity of the universe"


 

On Sep 11, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 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
> the accelerated digitalization of our world and the cyborg-symbiosis of
> human information and computer information do not demand much brain
> teasing, as it is a matter that social evolution is superseding by itself.
> 
> The point I have ocasionally raised in this list is whether all the new
> molecular knowledge about life might teach us about a fundamental
> difference in the "way of being in the world" between life and inert
> matter (& mechanism & computation)---or not. In the recent compilation
> by Plamen and colleagues from the former INBIOSA initiative,  I have
> argued about that fundamental difference in the intertwining of
> communication/self-production, how signaling is strictly caught in the
> advancement of a life cycle  (see paper "How the living is in the
> world"). Life is based on an inusitate informational formula unknown in
> inert matter. And the very organization of life provides an original
> starting point to think anew about information --of course, not the only
> one.
> 
> So, to conclude this "tangent", I find quite exciting the discussion we
> are starting now, say from the classical info positions onwards, in
> particularly to be compared in some future with another session (in
> preparation) with similar ambition but starting from say the
> phenomenology of the living. Struggling for a
> convergence/complementarity of outcomes would be a cavalier effort.
> 
> All the best--Pedro
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
>> ...The subject is one that has concerned me ever since I completed my PhD in 
>> 1992. I came away from defending my thesis, essentially on large scale 
>> parallel computation, with the strong intuition that I had disclosed much 
>> more concerning the little that we know, than I had offered either a 
>> theoretical or engineering solution. 
>> For the curious, a digital copy of this thesis can be found among the 
>> reports of CRI, MINES ParisTech, formerly ENSMP, 
>> http://www.cri.ensmp.fr/classement/doc/A-232.pdf, it is also available as a 
>> paper copy on Amazon.
>> 
>> Like many that have been involved in microprocessor and instruction 
>> set/language design, using mathematical methods, we share the physical 
>> concerns of a generation earlier, people like John Von Neumann, Alan Turing, 
>> and Claude Shannon. In other words, a close intersection between physical 
>> science and machine engineering.
>> 
>> ...I will then discuss some historical issues in particular referencing 
>> Benjamin Peirce, Albert Einstein and Alan Turing. And finally discuss the 
>> contemporary issues, as I 

[Fis] Economy of Information -The concept underlying the Information Foundation of the Act of F.Flores L.deMarcos?

2015-07-24 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Fernando, Luis, List:

This is a further commentary on your paper, focusing on the section labelled:  
Agnumetry, quantifying modernization.

First, your original thinking in this area is clearly expressed and logically 
justified.  Congratulations.

This synthesis of the motivations for human actions with the means to get them 
done is a novel feature that I like very much. The simple comparison of 
artifacts to objective allows enumeration of a form of necessary information 
for the particular act under consideration.  

The postulate of the ratio of relations between human and the count of 
artifacts at different points in time is a clear and concise statement, and, 
within this context, compelling.  

Your paper is a very substantial contribution to cultural information, in my 
view.

In more general terms, I have constructed a mathematical concept of economy of 
relations which, I suspect, has similar motivations.  The general notion of an 
economy of relations is foundational to Shannon information theory because 
the goal of an exact encoding, transmission and decoding of symbols is to 
preserve the informational content of the message, which is analogous to the 
ratio you describe on page 31.  

It may be helpful to you that in my unpublished work, I first construct a 
number spine based on the count of attributes of mathematical objects that 
contain form.   This number spine encode the count concept without 
constraining the meaning of the number, which can be assigned on the basis of 
attributes of the number.  In other words, the the informational count can be 
assigned realistic units (of being), as you have done. 

My question to you is:

Can you enumerate a number of examples of agnumery from various cultures and 
time periods.

Please note that I am NOT commenting on various presuppositions and assumptions 
of your paper.  I believe that you will find ways to modify the strong rhetoric 
in such a way that the basic numeric argument is sustained and can be further 
developed.  (At least, I would encourage you to attempt to do this, but it will 
be a daunting rhetorical task.)  

Perhaps other contributors to the list (Raf?) who are highly skilled 
rhetoricians, can be of help?

In summary, an excellent beginning toward quantifying a meaningful theory of 
information content associated with cultural developments.   It is pleasing to 
see the potential for convergence of various approaches to the meaning of 
information.

Cheers

Jerry 








On Jul 24, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

 Hola Fernando  Luis,
 
 Many thanks for your contribution, quite interesting to read. I really second 
 the previous comments from Joseph, Gyuri and Jerry. I also see a few other 
 points:
 --The relationship between entropy and culture taken as order is rather 
 risky. I think there is a misunderstanding of entropy on which I strongly 
 recommend the work of Arieh Ben-Naim (2013, entropy and the second law), 
 quite a lot of fuzzy mysticism has been produced around.  That the artificial 
 work reduces human information to the simple world of a cyborg is dubious 
 (how many informational decisions made by the cavemen versus the urbanite?) 
 The respective emotional rewards of their choices are another matter.
 --About the complexity of human acts everyday activities apparently are 
 conceptually simple, quite deceptively--they become the most difficult ones 
 to be performed by robots versus the complex but easy industrial operations. 
 These everyday activities look easy because of a previous learning process 
 only. For instance in my trip to Vienna, after arrival I got lost three times 
 while taking the airport bus, the tram, the metro, etc. Terrible experience 
 that forced myself into a lot of informational (wrong) choices and 
 explorations. However next day I was just the master (in spanish el puto 
 amo). The tremendous initial complexity had been assimilated and my 
 transportation acts were now very easy. Not including these crucial aspects 
 on the relative complexity, and how it is transformed when navigated by the 
 sophisticated deep learning strategies of our nervous system is not OK in 
 my opinion.
 --When computing the informational value of human acts, the number of bit 
 attributed to fingers, hands, limps, body, etc. look rather arbitrary. The 
 same for the law of information conservation as presently formulated. (How do 
 this dovetail with the cyclic nature of human life? There is information 
 generation and non-conservation, no?)
 --When analyzing technologies the procedure followed does not look very 
 clear, in particular regarding the invariability of the total level of 
 information value. However, the final two pages on the relationship between 
 informational value and price look quite interesting and in my opinion they 
 are the best  section of the paper.
 Overall the attempt is quite brave and full of suggestions...
 
 Best--Pedro
 
 Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
 
 

Re: [Fis] Information Foundation of the Act--F.Flores L.deMarcos

2015-07-23 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

List:

This comment is restricted to the proposed use of mathematical structures in 
context of the social.

The mathematical structure of a tree is restricted by the notion of a cycle. 
A tree is readily converted into a cycle by simply adding a new edge between 
leaves or joints.
The simple logic of a tree is lost by including cyclic relations.

It appears to me that the rhetorical arguments may include inferences requiring 
cycle relations.

What would be the nature of the inferences if the hypotheses allowed for cyclic 
social processes, such as learning on the basis of annual agricultural or 
hunting cycles?

Cheers

Jerry

 

On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:33 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

 
 The informational foundation of the act
 Fernando Flores
 Lund University
 fernando.flo...@kultur.lu.se
 
 Luis de-Marcos
 University of Alcalá
 luis.demar...@uah.es
 
 See the whole text at: http://fis.sciforum.net/resources/
 
 Our introducing paper (35 pages) presents a theory that quantifies the 
 informational value of human acts. We argue that living is functioning 
 against entropy and following Erwin Schrödinger we call this tendency 
 “negentropy”. Negentropy is for us the reason behind “order” in social and 
 cultural life. Further, we understand “order” as the condition that the world 
 reaches when the informational value of a series of acts is low. Acting is 
 presented as a set of decisions and choices that create order and this is the 
 key concept of our understanding of the variation from simplicity to 
 complexity in human acts. The most important aim of our theory is to measure 
 non-economic acts trying to understand and explain their importance for 
 society and culture. In their turn such a theory will be also important to 
 understand the similarities and differences between non-economic and economic 
 acts. 
 We follow the classical concept according to which informational value is 
 proportional to the unlikelihood of an act. To capture the richness of the 
 unlikelihood of human acts we use the frequency theory of probability 
 developed by Ludwig von Mises and Karl Popper. Frequency theory of 
 probability allows us to describe a variety of acts from the must most “free” 
 to the least “free” with respect to precedent acts. In short, we characterize 
 human acts in terms of their degree of freedom trying to set up a scale of 
 the information and predictability carried out in human decisions. A taxonomy 
 of acts is also presented, categorizing acts as destructive, mechanical, 
 ludic or vital, according to their degree of freedom (complexity). A 
 formulation to estimate the informational value in individual and collective 
 acts follows. The final part of the paper presents and discuss the 
 consequences of our theory. We argue that artifacts embed information and 
 that modernization can be understood as a one-way process to embed acts of 
 high levels of complexity in simple devices. However, our theory assumes that 
 the total amount of information in the social and cultural world is constant 
 and that Modernity only enables us to redistribute our informational 
 potential. We also advocate for the development of a new science named 
 “agnumetry”, the science that quantify Modernity, measuring the obsolescence 
 of an environment (from agnumy the Greek word for “break”). 
 In our study of human acts we found that acting can also be classified as 
 productive, consumptive and as acts of exchange or economical. The 
 informational value of acts can be the expression of any or all of these 
 acting forms. We outline the relation between the informational value of 
 production and the informational value of consumption (which we call 
 “operative information”), and conclude that these acts define the 
 non-economic value. Sometimes, and depending on the social level of 
 informational value, the acts of exchange emerge defining the informational 
 value of an item at the market, an informational value that assumes the shape 
 of “price” justifying the use of money.
 
 -- 
 -
 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 newcomer

2015-06-20 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
 a newcomer to FIS and I do not intend to preach in the others’ temple. 
 But Prof. Kun Wu is one of the founding fathers of the Philosophy of 
 Information. Therefore, it would be wise for you to be in an agreement with 
 his postulates.
 
  
 
 Best regards,
 
 Emanuel Diamant.
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] 
 Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:42 PM
 To: Emanuel Diamant
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer
 
  
 
 Dear Emanuel:
 
  
 
 Thanks for posting your views on Research Gate.
 
  
 
 Interesting perspective, but...  the essence of biology / biological 
 computation are empirical observations that are highly irregular in nature. 
 One must separate the concepts of structures from functions in the languages 
 of chemistry and biology.
 
  
 
 You may wish to look at the concepts of languages from your perspectives.
 
  
 
 Several of my online available papers will provide more substance for these 
 comments.
 
  
 
 Cheers
 
  
 
 jerry
 
  
 
  
 
 On Jun 15, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Emanuel Diamant wrote:
 
 
 
 
 Dear FISlists,
 
  
 
 I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in 
 your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of 
 the time, I only guess about what you are talking – my vocabulary and my 
 notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would 
 like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse – I would like to direct you to 
 my page on the Research Gate 
 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant)  to see my uploads 
 from the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.
 
  
 
 Best regards,
 
 Emanuel Diamant.
 
  
 
 ___
 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] Information Does Not Equal Communication

2014-11-13 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
URL Source:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PatientCenteredMedicalHome/PatientCenteredMedicalHome/48574?isalert=1uun=g322500d2619R5316671uutm_source=breaking-newsutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=breaking-newsxid=NL_breakingnews_2014-11-13

FISer's:

There are many ways to approach the nebulous concept of information.
These include mathematics, physics, mechanicals, symbolic relations, grammar, 
etc.

Pragmatism is seldom given the priority it deserves.

This article give's an example of the how information is used, perhaps in 
life-death decision making.

What is the relation between Information and the bottom line?  (Or, in this 
case, the entelechy of the last line!)

Cheers

Jerry



Information Does Not Equal Communication
Published: Nov 13, 2014


By Fred N. Pelzman, MD

Information is everything, communication is the key.
Recently, we were contacted by the medical director of a subspecialist fellow's 
practice at one of our affiliated hospitals.
She wanted to discuss ways to improve communication between our practices, and 
expressed considerable frustration about the information received in 
consultation requests from the providers in our practice sending patients their 
way.
She noted that they had read-only access to our electronic health record 
(through an information-sharing agreement between our hospitals) and said that 
they were able to see the consult order in the system (which has a section for 
clinical comments), as well as read the provider's notes to glean information 
about why the patient was being sent to see them.
Apparently the fellows at her practice were frustrated about the lack of 
clarity in the consultation requests, not being able to extract from all of 
this what the clinical question being asked of the subspecialist was.
We had a long discussion about how important this was and how her fellows spent 
enormous amounts of time reading through the chart to find out what the 
patient's complaints were, what their past medical history was, what 
interventions had been tried for the specific complaint, and what specifically 
the provider sending the patient to them was asking their assistance with.
This is perfectly reasonable; there is a real expectation that when you refer 
to someone that you clearly delineate your question to them, to make it easier 
for them to help you care for your patient.
This is an art form, being able to wisely use your consultants, to know how to 
engage them to help you improve the condition of your patients. For our interns 
and residents this is part of the learning process, and in looking back at 
their consultation requests we found the quality and clarity of the consult 
question at times lacking, at times nonexistent.
This is an education deficit, a gap in what we are teaching them, but we hope 
to help them learn this process as they continue to grow as clinicians.
As we talked over this problem, we came up with a plan for ways to continue to 
educate our providers on the best way to communicate with consultants and ask 
them an appropriate clinical question, to help make their lives easier as they 
see our patients in their practice.
I then mentioned to the medical director that, in the nearly 20 years that I've 
been at this practice and we have been sending patients to them, there has been 
no mechanism in place for them to communicate back to us. We send patients to 
them, and they disappear into the black box of the hospital down the street.
No letters, no e-mails, no phone calls.
Patients return, and we ask them what the specialist did, what they tested them 
for, what they told them to do, what they gave them to try. The response is 
usually they did some tests, they gave me some medicine, but I can't really 
recall the details.
Their hospital still has no outpatient electronic health record, so the 
fellow's notes are typed as simple word-processing documents, printed, and 
saved to a paper chart.
They are complaining that they have read-only access to our electronic health 
record, but read-only access is better than no access. Never a thought about 
sending your consultation note back to the requesting provider.
Seems like an obvious deficit, something missing from the consultation process, 
which would really allow us to take better care of our patients.
We talked about different ways to improve this problem, and over the course of 
the next half hour we jury-rigged a process whereby their practice 
administrator would remind the fellows to print a copy of their notes for bulk 
faxing to our practice once a week.
Someone at our end would go through those faxes, identify the referring 
provider, and transport the paper to their mailboxes, ultimately to allow them 
to be reviewed and then scanned into our electronic health record.
Not very technologically savvy, and likely to quickly be forgotten as the busy 
fellows go about their days.
Pretty damn clunky, if you ask me.
This is, of course, a temporary fix, albeit an ugly one; there are 

Re: [Fis] FIS 2015, Workshop on Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals

2014-10-20 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
List:

Their exist many forms of formal logics. 

One of the several concepts important to logic is an ancient concept:

If antecedents, then consequences.

In recent decades, the concept of para-consistent logic has emerged.
It has found many applications, particularly in the cybernetics of control 
systems.

Para-consistent logics are tolerant of apparent or so-called inconsistencies 
among several premisses.

Para-consistent logics are worth studying as they motivate consequences from 
antecedents.  One key author is Graham Priest.

One of the principle questions that para-consistent logics raise is How does 
one compose premisses?  not necessary dependent on the geometric metrics rules 
of a  line.

Cheers

Jerry



 
On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote:

 Workshop on the Combinatorics of Genetics, Fundamentals
 
  
 In order to prepare for a fruitful, satisfying and rewarding workshop in 
 Vienna, let me offer to potential participants the following main innovations 
 in the field of formal logic and arithmetic:
 
 
 
 1)  Consolidating contradictions:
 
 The idea of contradicting logical statements is traditionally alien to the 
 system of thoughts that is mathematics. Therefore, no methodology has evolved 
 of appeasing, soothing, compromise-building among equally valid logical 
 statements that contradict each other. In this regard, mathematical logic is 
 far less advanced than diplomacy, psychology, commercial claims regulation or 
 military science, in which fields the existence of conflicts is a given. The 
 workshop centers around the methodology of fulfilling contradicting logical 
 requirements that co- exist.
 
 
 
 2)  Concept of Order
 
 We show that the pointed opposition between readings of a set once as a 
 sequenced one and once as a commutative one is similar to the discussion, 
 whether a Table of the Rorschach test depicts a still-life under water or 
 rather fireworks in Paris. The incompatibility between sequenced and 
 commutative (contemporaneous) is provided by our sensory apparatus: in fact, 
 a set is readable both as a sequenced collection and as a collection of 
 commutative symbols. We abstract from the two sentences “Set A is in a 
 sequential order” and “Set A is a commutatively ordered one” into the 
 sentence “Set A is in order”.
 
 The workshop introduces the idea and the technique of sequential enumeration 
 (aka “sorting”) of elements of a set, calling the result “order”, and shows 
 that different sorting orders may bring forth contradicting assignments of 
 places to one and the same element, resp. contradicting assignments of 
 elements to one and the same place.
 
 
 
 3)  The duration of the transient state
 
 We put forward the motion, that it is reasonable to assume that a set is 
 normally in a state of permanent change – as opposed to the traditional view, 
 wherein a set, once well defined, stays put and idle, remaining such as 
 defined. The idea is that there are always alternatives to whichever order 
 one looks into a set, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the set is in 
 a state of permanent adjustment.
 
 We look in great detail into the mechanics of transition between Order αβ and 
 Order γδ, and show that the number of tics until the transition is achieved 
 is only in the rarest of cases uniform, therefore partial transformations and 
 half-baked results are the ordre du jour.
 
 
 
 4)  Standard transitions and spatial structures
 
 The rare cases where a translation from Order αβ into Order γδ happens in 
 lock-step are quite well suited to serve as units of dis-allocation, being of 
 uniform properties with respect to a numeric quality which could well be 
 called an extent for “mass”.
 
 These cases allow assembling two 3-dimensional spatial structures with 
 well-defined axes. The twice 3 axes can even be merged into one, consolidated 
 space with 3 common axes, the price of the consolidation being that every 
 1-dimensional statement has in this case 4 variants. The findings allow 
 supporting Minkowski’s ideas and also some contemplation about 3 
 sub-statements consisting of 1-of-4 variants, as used by Nature while 
 registering genetic information in a purely sequenced fashion.
 
 
 
 5)  Size optimization and asynchronicity questions
 
 The set is the same, whether we read it consecutively or transversally. The 
 readings differ. We show that the functions of logical relations’ density per 
 unit resp. unit fragment size per logical relation are intertwined, making a 
 change between the representations of order as unit and as logical relation a 
 matter of accounting artistry. (“If I want more matter, I say that I see 66 
 commutative units; if I want more information, I say that I see 11 sequences 
 of 6 units.”)
 
 The phlogiston (or divine will) fueling the mechanism appears to be the 
 synchronicity of steps of order consolidation happening. Using the concept of 
 a-synchronicity we can 

Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite information content CS Peirce and Chemical Nomenclature

2014-07-23 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Pridi, Krassimir,  List:

(In order to place this comment in context, and for reference, I have copied 
Krassimir's definition of information below. My comments follow the excellent 
post of Pridi.)

 In physical world there exist only reflections but not information. 
 
 Information “ i  is the quadruple: 
 i = (s, r, e, I) 
 where 
 s is a source entity, which is reflected in r 
 r is the entity in which reflection of s exists 
 e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only for him that 
 the reflection in r reflects just s , i.e. the evidence proofs for the 
 subject what the reflection reflects . 
 I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in accordance 
 with some goals – human, animal, bacteria, artificial intelligent system, 
 etc. 
 
 In other words, information is a reflection, but not every reflection is 
 information – only reflections for which the quadruple above exist are 
 assumed as information by the corresponded subjects. 
 
 For different I , information may be different because of subjects’ finite 
 memory and reflection possibilities. 
 Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have finite 
 information content (for concrete information subject) . 
On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Pridi Siregar wrote:

 Dear Krassimir,
 
 Thank you for your explanation. It does give me a better understanding of how 
 information (beyond Shannon) can be formalized! However, a closer look at the 
 formalism and its semantic does raise new questions:
 
 From the definition you have given, it appears that information cannot be 
 viewed in any absolute sense but as internal representations of external 
 patterns whose meaning depends on the subject capturing/interpreting/storing 
 the said patterns. In this framework then, it seems that information cannot 
 be conceptualized without reference to the both something out there and the 
 internal structures of the receptor/cognitive system. 
 
 In other words the concept of information lies within some subjective 
 (albeit rational) realm. I'm sure that I'm stating the obvious for most of 
 FIS members but a question arised upon reading your formalism: How can we 
 really quantify meaningful (semantic) information beyond Shannon (that 
 disregards semantics) and his purely statistical framework? Or beyond 
 Boltzmann's entropy/Information based on micro-macro states ratios?
 
 When we formalize i = (s, r, e, I) there is  a meta-level formalisation 
 that is only apparent since even (s,r) reflect our own (human) subjective 
 world-view. We could actually write (I1(s), I1(r), e, I2) where I1 and I2 are 
 two distinct cognitive systems and both of which lie at the OBJECT level of 
 the formalizing agent which is NEITHER I1 or I2. All objective measures 
 (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can 
 never be considered as absolute. 
 
 
 This leads me to a second question (sorry for the lengthy message): there are 
 some researchers that posit that information may be more fundamental than 
 the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). This appears (and perhaps 
 only appears) to be at the opposite end of the above-mentioned view. Indeed, 
 in this framework some kind of universal or absolute notions must be 
 accepted as true.
 
 One apparent way out would be to demonstrate that information somehow 
 logically entails the fundemantal physical entities while accepting that we 
 are still within a human-centered  world view. And thus no absolute truth 
 (whatever this means) is really gained. Only a richer more complete 
 (subjective but coherent) world-view .
 
 Am I making anys sense? Any thoughts?
 
 Best
 
 Pridi 
 

Pridi's comment concur with many of my views wrt the concept of information. 

Krassimir's assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the 
philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter CSP) in one context.

S as symbol represents an external source of signal, that which is independent 
of the individual mind and being.  This is analogous to CSP's term sinsign.

R is a thing itself.  That is, R generates S.

E as evidence is a vague term which infers an observer (2nd Order Cybernetics?) 
that both receives and evaluates the signal (S) from the thing (R).  CSP 
categorizes evidence as icon, index or symbol with respect to the entity of 
observation.

I  as Krassimirian information is a personal judgment about the evidence.  
(Correspondence with CSP's notion of argument is conceivable.) 

Krassimir's assertion that: 
 For different I , information may be different because of subjects’ finite 
 memory and reflection possibilities. 
 Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have finite 
 information content (for concrete information subject) . 

 
moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the subjective realm. 
(CSP's notion of interpretation?)
Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence 

Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite information content

2014-07-21 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
List, Karassimir:

I found your definition of information to be a bit confusing because the 
language is a bit ambiguous to me.

While the definitions of the quadruple make sense from a rhetorical sense, 
one notion that is missing is the concept of what is the meaning of the  
central reference term:  physical world.

For example, please show how for your definition information works for the 
electrical nature of the carbon atom as defined by the Rutherford/Moseley 
experiments, which form the base of the atomic numbers. (Carbon has the 
physical world definition of 6.)  How would this information be symbolized?

In other words, how does the concept of quantity enter into your definition?

Cheers

Jerry




On Jul 21, 2014, at 4:40 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

 Dear Pridi,
  
 An accordance with my understanding:
  
 In physical world there exist only reflections but not information.
  
 Information “i is the quadruple:
 i = (s, r, e, I)
 where
 s is a source entity, which is reflected in r
 r is the entity in which reflection of s exists
 e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only for him that 
 the reflection in r reflects just s, i.e. the evidence proofs for the subject 
 what the reflection reflects.
 I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in accordance 
 with some goals – human, animal, bacteria, artificial intelligent system, etc.
  
 In other words, information is a reflection, but not every reflection is 
 information – only reflections for which the quadruple above exist are 
 assumed as information by the corresponded subjects.
  
 For different I, information may be different because of subjects’ finite 
 memory and reflection possibilities.
 Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have finite 
 information content (for concrete information subject).
  
 Friendly regards
 Krassimir
  
  
  
  
  
 -Original Message-
 From: Pridi Siregar
 Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:35 AM
 To: Jerry LR Chandler
 Cc: Foundations of Information Science of Information Science Information 
 Information Science
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation
  
 I was thinking about particles with mass...:-)
  
 If anyone has an idea concerning my question thanks for the reply. I'm 
 totally ignorant concerning deep thoughts on the nature of information.
  
 Pridi
  
  
  
  
  
 - Mail original -
 De: Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
 À: Foundations of Information Science of Information Science Information 
 Information Science fis@listas.unizar.es
 Cc: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za, Pridi Siregar 
 pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.com
 Envoyé: Dimanche 20 Juillet 2014 05:12:53
 Objet: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation
  
 Pridi:
  
 Are you mixing apples with citrus fruits?
  
 Pure elastic collision are pre-suppose mass particles.
 Electrical particles in this context do what?
  
 Cheers
  
 Jerry
  
  
  
 On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:21 AM, Pridi Siregar wrote:
  
  Dear John and all,
 
  The limiting case of the particle collision (pure elastic collision) can be 
  represented by a dirac impulse whose spectral content ranges over all the 
  frequencies. I have a question: What does it mean to have a physical event 
  with an infinite bandwith while its information content is finite ?
 
  Best
 
 
  Pridi
 
 
 
 
  - Mail original -
  De: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
  À: fis@listas.unizar.es, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
  Envoyé: Mardi 15 Juillet 2014 07:19:50
  Objet: 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

Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite information content - Information content of Atomic Numbers

2014-07-21 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
List, Krassimir:

(I have posted Krassimir's response below, since it may not have been 
distributed to the list.)

My question was not a metaphysical question about materiality, my body and 
other such philosophical question of import.

Rather, it is direct question about the sufficiency of the rhetoric of the 
proposal to define a theory of information.

The response saids:
Atom has no number in the reality, it has one in any information quadruple.

The physical, material concept of order is the empirical ground for 
enumerations of physical chemistry.

The concept of atomic number is central to elemental quantum mechanics as 
well as atomic table of elements as well as molecular biology and of course, 
the practice of medicine itself.

To assert that Atom has no number in the reality  is a denial of physical 
reality, is it not?

By logical extension,
 if Atom has no number in the reality, then the material world has no reality.
And:
If the material world has no reality,  the proposed definition of information 
is self-contradictory.

This suggests to me that the proposed definition may need to altered to avoid 
the implication of self-contradiction.

Cheers

Jerry






Dear Jery,
 
Thank you for interesting remark.
 
Physical world means all material reality.
A special case of it are living creatures.
 
Your example is good for discussion – somewhere the Rutherford/Moseley 
experiments had been reflected to be further analyzed, i.e. we have information 
quadruple including scientists who assign atomic numbers. Atom has no number in 
the reality, it has one in any information quadruple. Of course, here we have 
very long chain of reflections and corresponded quadruples.
 
Ideal entities are reflections (information) in our brain and are so material 
as we are. This is long story about information models ... including your 
example ...
 
Friendly regards
Krassimir




On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:33 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:

 List, Karassimir:
 
 I found your definition of information to be a bit confusing because the 
 language is a bit ambiguous to me.
 
 While the definitions of the quadruple make sense from a rhetorical sense, 
 one notion that is missing is the concept of what is the meaning of the  
 central reference term:  physical world.
 
 For example, please show how for your definition information works for the 
 electrical nature of the carbon atom as defined by the Rutherford/Moseley 
 experiments, which form the base of the atomic numbers. (Carbon has the 
 physical world definition of 6.)  How would this information be symbolized?
 
 In other words, how does the concept of quantity enter into your definition?
 
 Cheers
 
 Jerry
 
 
 
 
 On Jul 21, 2014, at 4:40 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote:
 
 Dear Pridi,
  
 An accordance with my understanding:
  
 In physical world there exist only reflections but not information.
  
 Information “i is the quadruple:
 i = (s, r, e, I)
 where
 s is a source entity, which is reflected in r
 r is the entity in which reflection of s exists
 e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only for him 
 that the reflection in r reflects just s, i.e. the evidence  proofs for the 
 subject what the reflection reflects.
 I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in accordance 
 with some goals – human, animal, bacteria, artificial intelligent system, 
 etc.
  
 In other words, information is a reflection, but not every reflection is 
 information – only reflections for which the quadruple above exist are 
 assumed as information by the corresponded subjects.
  
 For different I, information may be different because of subjects’ finite 
 memory and reflection possibilities.
 Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have finite 
 information content (for concrete information subject).
  
 Friendly regards
 Krassimir
  
  
  
  
  
 -Original Message-
 From: Pridi Siregar
 Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:35 AM
 To: Jerry LR Chandler
 Cc: Foundations of Information Science of Information Science Information 
 Information Science
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation
  
 I was thinking about particles with mass...:-)
  
 If anyone has an idea concerning my question thanks for the reply. I'm 
 totally ignorant concerning deep thoughts on the nature of information.
  
 Pridi
  
  
  
  
  
 - Mail original -
 De: Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
 À: Foundations of Information Science of Information Science Information 
 Information Science fis@listas.unizar.es
 Cc: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za, Pridi Siregar 
 pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.com
 Envoyé: Dimanche 20 Juillet 2014 05:12:53
 Objet: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation
  
 Pridi:
  
 Are you mixing apples with citrus fruits?
  
 Pure elastic collision are pre-suppose mass particles.
 Electrical particles in this context do what?
  
 Cheers
  
 Jerry
  
  
  
 On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:21 AM, Pridi Siregar

Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation

2014-07-19 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Pridi:

Are you mixing apples with citrus fruits?

Pure elastic collision are pre-suppose mass particles.
Electrical particles in this context do what?

Cheers

Jerry



On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:21 AM, Pridi Siregar wrote:

 Dear John and all,
 
 The limiting case of the particle collision (pure elastic collision) can be 
 represented by a dirac impulse whose spectral content ranges over all the 
 frequencies. I have a question: What does it mean to have a physical event 
 with an infinite bandwith while its information content is finite ?
 
 Best
 
 
 Pridi
 
 
 
 
 - Mail original -
 De: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
 À: fis@listas.unizar.es, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 Envoyé: Mardi 15 Juillet 2014 07:19:50
 Objet: 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 that makes a difference towards a 
 necessity for organisms, and hence pushing 
 sensory systems close to the physical limits of information transfer.
 Cheers,
 Sri
 
 
  Original message 
 From: Joseph Brenner
 Date:14/07/2014 18:12 (GMT+00:00)
 To: Pridi Siregar ,Pedro C. Marijuan
 Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna. Analogue Computation
 
 Dear Colleagues,
 
 My first reaction to this suggested project is that the logic and philosophy
 of information (where I am more comfortable) would have little to
 contribute. However, analogue computation is an area in which insights from
 some complex theories of information might be useful. Analogue computation
 has always appeared to me, perhaps incorrectly, as being closer to real
 processes and therefore in principle better able to model their fuzzy,
 qualitative aspects. But in some of the articles I've seen, the authors seem
 almost apologetic at not being able to claim the 'power' of the digital
 computer . . .
 
 Best wishes,
 
 Joseph
 
 
 - Original Message -
 From: Pridi Siregar pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.com
 To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
 Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:35 PM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS in Varna
 
 
 Thanks for the news Pedro. Sounds really exciting! As you might recall I'm
 interested in applications and I would be very keen on having a
 brainstorming session that would include pure researchers and
 application-oriented guys like me to explore technology transfer
 opportunities. I don't know if this could be part of some (possible)
 future agenda but I'm sure that business people may find it more than
 worthwile to attend such meetings! I'm sure Plamen would be interested
 too.
 
 best!
 
 Pridi
 
 
 
 - Mail original -
 De: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 À: fis@listas.unizar.es
 Envoyé: Vendredi 11 Juillet 2014 14:41:42
 Objet: [Fis] FIS in Varna
 
 Dear FISers,
 
 The fis summer conference in Varna just took place 5-6 July --our 20
 years of activities were celebrated too, FIS 20th. Rather unfortunately
 not many people attended: half dozen from Spain related to Juan
 Castellanos and me (from Madrid and Zaragoza); and a few parties around
 Krassimir 

Re: [Fis] [PEIRCE-L] Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914)

2014-02-26 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Steven:

Has your lecture been posted?

Cheers

Jerry



On Jan 7, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:

 
 Dear List,
 
 My lecture on the 15th involves an uncommon subject (for me), God. What role 
 does God play in the construction of computing machinery and why is the 
 subject of my talk at all relevant today?
 
 Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914)
 His life, contributions to logic, and the American Enlightenment.
 http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/
 
 The lecture will be recorded, I'll let you know when it is available.
 
 Regards,
 Steven
 
 --
 Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
 Institute for Advanced Science  Engineering
 http://iase.info
 
 
 
 
 -
 PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON 
 PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirc...@list.iupui.edu 
 . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
 with the line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at 
 http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
 
 
 
 

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


[Fis] Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of communications

2013-12-08 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

List, Joseph, Kassimir,  Bob U:

(This is a continuation of my inquiry into role of universals in biological 
communication.)

Joseph:
After reflecting on the roots of your system of Logic of Reality  as grounded 
in potentiality and actuality I remain as puzzled as ever. These two terms are 
widely used in philosophy and physics.  Indeed, historically, it appears these 
terms are translations from the Greek terms of Aristotle.

So, why am I puzzled?  Because I do not find a path from these terms to the 
terminology used by logicians.  While logic itself is an utter disaster (in the 
scientific sense of a unitary discipline) , one point that most authors agree 
upon is a logical statement allows one to draw a conclusion.  By extension, I 
expect a system of logic would allow a systematic method for drawing 
conclusions.  Do you find this to be an unreasonable expectation?

What am I missing?

Kassimir:

I suspect you are mis-reading the message that I seek to communicate.
You write:
 Information interaction is exchanging of information models.


In other words, you and I do not share a common information model.
By citing Shannon, you suggest that the information model of Shannon is 
sufficient for (mechanical?) communication.
But what is the notion of universality that you are pre-supposing?  Is it 
merely Euclidian mathematics?

My assertion is that one needs a nomino-realistic notion of information model 
in order to encode biological communication.  That is, the names are not 
arbitrary abstractions but necessarily must be constructed from parts.  The 
logic for this assertion are physical principles - physical atomism and the 
associated mathematics of physical conservation principles.  In other words, 
the arbitrary assignment of mathematical variables (names) will not generate a 
logic of biological communication.  

This conclusion is reached as a semiotic necessity - that is, the semiosis 
intrinsic to a mutual shared information model that operates between 
mathematics and physical atomism does NOT exist. 

 The antecedent model (information model) does not generate the consequent 
model and hence no conclusions can be drawn.  To make this point sharper, the 
physics community in general rejected the notion of physical atoms prior to the 
experimental and theoretical work between 1900 - 1930 (Rutherford, Bohr, 
Schodinger,...)

I note substantial parallelism between your views and those of my colleague, 
Bob Ulanowicz, in the limited sense that engineering mathematics plays a 
critical role in the structures of your arguments.

The concept of nomino-realism demands a richer mathematics, far richer than 
the typical engineering mathematics. 

The terms of this mathematics must be sufficiently rich to allow logicians to 
construct names from the properties of the terms. That necessity is the basis 
of the limitation of the classical mathematical views of universals, such as 
variables and such mathematical structures as categories. 

At the simple level of natural language communication, a speaker/listener of 
Russian and a speaker/listener of Chinese (pre-supposing that both are 
mono-linguistic) can not communicate because the encoding and decoding 
processes are not mutual.  This is a simple metaphor for the abstract concepts 
that I seek to communicate in the more general representation of mathematical 
symbols.  When are they nominal?  When are they realistic?  And when must they 
be both nominal and realistic?  Biological communication requires BOTH! 


Cheers 

Jerry

Headwater House



On Dec 5, 2013, at 11:08 PM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

 
   1. Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of
  communications (Jerry LR Chandler)
 
 From: Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
 Subject: [Fis] Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of communications
 Date: December 5, 2013 11:08:23 PM CST
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es, pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 
 
 
 
 Pedro, FISers:
 
 Congratulations on a big step forward for FIS!
 
 I am delighted to see this major philosophical step (from the term 
 'information' to the term 'communication' for Pedro as the leader of FIS.
 
 The progressive step
 FROM the philosophy of information as a form of physics / number 
 TO the recognition of communication as the basis purpose of information
  is warmly welcomed here at the Headwater House.
 
 In my view, a new direction has been established for  FIS and I heartily 
 welcome it!
 
 The next step for FIS is,  in my opinion, to explore the relative.
 In other words, what are the nature of the relatives in communication?
 
 In this regard, I disagree strongly with Kassimir assertion that :
 Communication is a process of exchanging of signals, messages with 
 different degree of complexity (Shannon).
 Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific 
 only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio 
 molecules, cells, organs).
 
 My rejection

[Fis] Nomino-realism and the encoding and decoding of communications

2013-12-05 Thread Jerry LR Chandler


Pedro, FISers:

Congratulations on a big step forward for FIS!

I am delighted to see this major philosophical step (from the term 
'information' to the term 'communication' for Pedro as the leader of FIS.

The progressive step
FROM the philosophy of information as a form of physics / number 
TO the recognition of communication as the basis purpose of information
 is warmly welcomed here at the Headwater House.

In my view, a new direction has been established for  FIS and I heartily 
welcome it!

The next step for FIS is,  in my opinion, to explore the relative.
In other words, what are the nature of the relatives in communication?

In this regard, I disagree strongly with Kassimir assertion that :
 Communication is a process of exchanging of signals, messages with 
 different degree of complexity (Shannon).
 Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific 
 only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio 
 molecules, cells, organs).

My rejection of Kassimir's assertion is at a foundational level with respect to 
communication and the role of encoding/decoding in communication.  I interpret 
Kassimir's paragraph as a excluding genetic systems from the category of 
intelligent agents.

Living systems come into existence and persevere on the basis of information 
exchanges/information models. I assert this as a biological fact.

Simple reason for my assertions: The codes for mechanical information models 
are generated by living systems.

 In temporal logical terms, the generator must proceed the generated.  Human 
intelligence generates the mechanical intelligent agents used for engineering 
purposes. What is the basis of the conjecture that intelligent agents are 
anything other than products of human intelligence?

The encoding and decoding processes that are necessary for communication as a 
process are both representations expressible in terms of physical atomism. The 
distinction is the generative nature of the encoding and decoding processes 
viewed as either nomino-realism or as merely mechanical philosophy of Newtonian 
physics.

 (The term nomino-realism, is used as a philosophical category that describes 
the emergence of names.  I coined this logical term out of necessity. The 
philosophy of nominalism, as a separate concept is insufficient to generate 
biological codes (such as the genetic code.) The philosophy of realism, taken 
as a separate concept, is insufficient to generate biological codes (such as 
the genetic code.) Both philosophical concepts, taken in conjunction as 
indicated by the hyphen that binds the two terms, are necessary to provide the 
logic necessary to express the concept of a code.  The word code in this 
concept refers to reference symbols, rather similar to Shannon's notion of a 
code.)

Grammatically, nomino-realism expresses the concept comparable to Leibnetz's? 
notion that the object contains the subject. (My memory is that this was 
Leibnetz's view, but I do not have the immediate citation at hand.  Perhaps 
someone can either verify this point or correct it.)

In terms of John Collier's defense of its from bits, I would argue that 
physical atomism is the ultimate source of both biological and mechanical codes 
necessary to generate communication between two independent but relative 
systems. 

Cheers

Jerry

(BTW, these conclusion come deductively from my on-going work on the logic of 
number as manifest in physical atomism.) 






On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:46 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

 Send fis mailing list submissions to
   fis@listas.unizar.es
 
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
   https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
   fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es
 
 You can reach the person managing the list at
   fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es
 
 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of fis digest...
 Today's Topics:
 
   1. The Interaction Man (Krassimir Markov)
   2. Stanford seminar On The Origin Of Experience
  (Steven Ericsson-Zenith)
   3. Re: The Interaction Man ( Xiaohong Wang??? )
 
 From: Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com
 Subject: [Fis] The Interaction Man
 Date: December 4, 2013 4:38:53 PM CST
 To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es
 Reply-To: Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com
 
 
 Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,
 This discussion is full with interesting ideas.
 What I want to add is that I distinguish the concepts communication and 
 information interaction which reflect similar phenomena but at different 
 levels of live hierarchy.
 Communication is a process of exchanging of signals, messages with 
 different degree of complexity (Shannon).
 Information interaction is exchanging of information models. It is specific 
 only for intelligent agents but not for low levels of live mater (bio 
 

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 577, Issue 10

2013-11-07 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Pedro, List:

You write:
  ...a reference to the tension between the empirical and the abstract in FIS. 
 I quite agree, it is one of the essential tensions in any healthy scientific 
 development (whenever it is possible to maintain it).

Tensions?
Tensions between the empirical and the abstract?

From my reading of the posts of various contributors over the past 3-5 years, I 
heartily disagree with this view of the current situation on this FIS list 
serve.

Shannon's information theory was published about 65 years ago.
It has become the logical foundation of a huge industry employing millions of 
workers, globally.

The principle abstraction of information theory can be roughly stated.  If one 
encoded information (numbers, letters, images, mathematics, physics, chemistry, 
biology, medicine, art, music, literature, feeling, emotions, etc.) into a 
binary code, then the encoded information can be electronically encoded and 
transmitted (transferred) to other electronic devices and decoded by other 
machines or individuals. This dependency, in turn, relies upon Boolean Algebra 
and associated mathematics. It now appears that the overwhelming majority of 
contributors to list serve find this externalist's view of information to be in 
complete harmony with the empirical and the abstract.   

Where is the tension?
Do you not believe in the validity of Boolean algebra?
Do you not believe in the validity of encoding processes? 
Do you not believe in the validity of transmission processes/error correction 
codes?

The overwhelming majority of contributors find this externalist's view of 
information to be acceptable, and seek to make it more acceptable by tweaking 
the word-smithing a bit in order to become congruent with their personal 
philosophy.  At least that is my view of the current status. 

Why do I write this message, perhaps a bit on the side of harshness?

Quite simple. 
The current foundation of information sciences does not meet the needs of 
chemistry, biology or medicine. A second foundation must be built to express 
the role of information in communications within living systems. For example, 
central to the tree of life are the informative  feed-forwards processes that 
transmit genetic information into individual anatomies and logical processes, 
life itself. Of particular theoretical interest, from the perspective of FIS, 
are the feed-forward processes that start with the messages encoded in a 
fertilized egg and generate, through a sequence of biochemical process, the 
mind.

Perhaps one or more of the externalists can determine whether the genesis of 
mind, a process common to almost all human descendants, is Turing Computable or 
not?  

Cheers

Jerry 

Research Professor
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies
GMU



On Nov 7, 2013, at 11:00 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

 Send fis mailing list submissions to
   fis@listas.unizar.es
 
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
   https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
   fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es
 
 You can reach the person managing the list at
   fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es
 
 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of fis digest...
 Today's Topics:
 
   1. Re: FIS News (Pedro C. Marijuan)
 
 From: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS News
 Date: November 7, 2013 7:11:48 AM CST
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es
 
 
 Dear Karl and FIS colleagues,
 
 Many thanks for the comprehensive response. You have made a reference to the 
 tension between the empirical and the abstract in FIS. I quite agree, it is 
 one of the essential tensions in any healthy scientific development (whenever 
 it is possible to maintain it). My tongue-in-cheek complain was precisely 
 addressed to the usual abscence of such tension in our discussions, or say, 
 the insufficient presence of the empirical. For instance, in the current 
 exchange I was mentioning the ecological-sociological views of Jared Diamond, 
 as one of the most vocal authors on the collapse of historical societies, 
 even pretty complex ones.  His views on the structural traits involving the 
 complexification of the daily interactions could be quite interesting to 
 discuss along the present theme.
 
 Nowadays there also a number of network science studies on person-to-person 
 interactions, often along cell-phone technologies. Other more general 
 approaches look for the influence of new technologies in human relationships 
 (in Xian an excellent presentation on friendship from an Aristotelian 
 background in the i-society was made by Michael Patrick). Another interesting 
 angle concerns the studies on smart cities , how individual life stories 
 are carried out among energy-material flows  coupled with information flows 
 of a new nature.  The contemporary acceleration of artificial information 
 

Re: [Fis] Collier's Metaphysics

2013-05-26 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
John:
On May 26, 2013, at 10:26 AM, John Collier wrote:

 Your notion of metaphysics appears to so extremely narrowly restricted that 
 you can exempt your own highly metaphysical writings from your definition of 
 metaphysics.  In fact, the traditional usage of the term metaphysics is 
 not narrowly restricted.
 
 Metaphysics has to do with two things, ontology and necessity

Your response amply demonstrates my point.

Cheers

Jerry




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


Re: [Fis] Collier's Metaphysics

2013-05-26 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

On May 26, 2013, at 10:46 AM, John Collier wrote:

 I don't have much idea.


I concur.

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


Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5

2013-05-22 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
John:

 Which does this refer to, Jerry? 

My response was to the section of your post that I pasted / cited in my post.

Your further assertion that: 

  Since the scientists involved are among the top in the respective fields, I 
 take that what they are doing with information concepts is reasonable. I 
 can't judge that as I am not a specialist in their fields.

is really astounding to me!

As you are well aware, numerous philosophies and metaphysical concepts of 
information exist in the published literature.
Given your extensive list of publications in the information sciences over 
several decades, I find your stance with respect to your judgments to be 
remarkable.

Finally, I do not feel that I have a quarrel with anyone.
 
As a natural scientist, I merely asked a provocative question about your 
metaphysical position.
I use the term metaphysical as I do not find a relationship with either 
mathematics or the sciences of information as I understand them.  

Does the tone of these posts suggest that you would like to change your 
position?

Cheers

Jerry




On May 22, 2013, at 3:26 PM, John Collier wrote:

 Which does this refer to, Jerry? My paper is about scientists who use 
 information concepts to explain things and make predictions. And then I 
 organized them into a nested hierarchy. Since the scientists involved are 
 among the top in the respective fields, I take that what they are doing with 
 information concepts is reasonable. I can't judge that as I am not a 
 specialist in their fields. If you are, then any quarrel you have is with 
 them, not me. I assume, prima facie, that scientists know what they are 
 doing. I have found Smolin, who uses the it-from-bit view to explain 
 conservation of information around a black hole, very approachable.
 
 John
 
 At 05:42 PM 2013/05/17, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
 John: 
 
 On May 17, 2013, at 5:26 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:
 
 The vacuum background is random, and hence contains no information in the 
 negentropy sense (see my kinds at Kinds of Information in Scientific Use. 
 2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2 ). However it 
 from bit information appears and disappears. It can be magnified in 
 principle, but I know of no detected cases.
 
 How would a rational realist distinguish this metaphysical perspective from 
 witchcraft or magic?
 
 Cheers
 
 Jerry
 

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


Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5

2013-05-17 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
John:

On May 17, 2013, at 5:26 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

 The vacuum background is random, and hence contains no information in the 
 negentropy sense (see my kinds at Kinds of Information in Scientific Use. 
 2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2 ). However it from 
 bit information appears and disappears. It can be magnified in principle, 
 but I know of no detected cases.

How would a rational realist distinguish this metaphysical perspective from 
witchcraft or magic?

Cheers

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


Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 564, Issue 7

2012-10-22 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Stan:

On Oct 22, 2012, at 12:00 PM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

 I think it of some interest that I have previously ( 2006  On Aristotle’s 
 conception of causality.  General Systems Bulletin 35: 11.) proposed that the 
 Aristotelian 'formal cause' determines both 'what happens' and 'how it 
 happens', and that the combination of this with material cause ('what it 
 happens to') delivers 'where' it happens.
 

What a curious view of Aristotelian causality!

You completely reject the traditional metaphor of the purpose associated with 
building a house?

Formal causes are almost always interpreted in terms of symbolic 
representations - symbolic logic, symbolic equations, symbolic plans - images 
of human imagination /consciousness.

So you see yourself, as within your consciousness, as the source of 'what 
happens' and 'how it happens'!   :-)  ;-)

Philosophy!

Cheers

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


[Fis] Aspects of the Logical Philosophy of Information (was: Physical information is WHAT? A Puzzle.)

2012-06-13 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
 on an exact calculation? In other words, do you 
get an exact answer... or another bit of philosophy?

I do not understand what is unclear about the difference between 
electro-mechanical and electro-chemical systems. I do not think my usage of 
these terms is in any unusual.


Finally, given the silence of many strong proponents of physical information, 
I am beginning to wonder if the concept of physical information is another 
philosophical red herring, a sort of metaphysical wish to find a correspondence 
between a popular mechanical method of calculation and the efficient causality 
of motion of matter in space.  Form must remain at the root of information.


Cheers

Jerry 



On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Joseph Brenner wrote:

 Dear Jerry,
 
 I am afraid I have forgotten exactly what it was I said that caused you to 
 embark on this line of reasoning. Be that as it may, there is one part of it 
 that I wish to distance myself from.
 
 You wrote: As atomic numbers, these two numbers represent all of the 
 physical information contained in the respective atoms.
 
 I respectfully disagree. A number is one (abstract) thing and an atom is 
 another (non-abstract) thing. I consider this form of analysis, which you 
 have used also in your Perplex Number discussion, as eliminative. What is 
 eliminated is, exactly, the energetic physical properties, actual and 
 potential, which is the most important part of the physical information that 
 is characteristic of an atomic or molecular structure. It is this that 
 determines the angles between atoms.
 
 That numbers, from whatever source, can be combined in various ways is clear. 
 To call this 'physical information', fundamental to information theory in 
 chemistry and physics, that provides any /new/ facts or insights into what, 
 say, cyclooctene is and/or can become seems inappropriate to me.
 
 (By the way, there are several additional linear, non-cyclic, assymmetrical 
 56 structures, with methyl groups and double and triple bonds that you can 
 write that correspond to the formula C8H8.)
 
 Best regards,
 
 Joseph
 
 
 - Original Message - From: Jerry LR Chandler 
 jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es
 Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:11 PM
 Subject: [Fis] Physical information is WHAT? A Puzzle.
 
 
 
 FISers:
 
 The following example concerning the fundamental theory of information in 
 chemistry and physics puzzled me. Logical analyses of this puzzle from 
 longtime participants would be welcomed.
 
 Consider any pair of atomic numbers. (Recall that the concepts of atomic 
 numbers were established by physical measurements (Rutherford, Moseley, 
 (1911)).  Because the conundrum is a question of meaning, I will select the 
 two numbers 1 and 6. As atomic numbers, these two numbers represent all of 
 the physical information contained in the respective atoms.  The QM equations 
 for these two numbers (e.g., hydrogen and carbon) are well studied. And, the 
 respective geometries of the orbitals are well studied.
 
 Next consider exact 8 pairs of these two numbers, 16 integers in all. (Could 
 we write a string:
 6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1) that would represent the 16 physical sets of 
 information.)
 The sum of these atomic numbers is 56  (= 8 x7)
 
 First question: How much physical information is in the number 56?
 
 Let us call the sum of the atomic numbers the molecular number.
 Two separate and distinct chemical molecules can be composed from the this 
 partition of the molecular number of 56 into 8 separate but physically 
 identical pairs of atomic numbers.
 
 One molecular number 56 is called cubane. The geometry of cubane is that of 
 a cube, with each corner of the cube having the number 6 and each of the 
 number 1s projecting outside the cube as one node of a tetrahedron.  (Do 
 Not conflate this geometry of a physical tetrahedron with the tetrahedron of 
 a categorical representation of commutativity.)
 
 A second molecular number 56 is called cyclo-octene  (or, more exactly, 
 1,3,5,7, tetra-dehydro-cyclo-octene.  The geometry of cyclo-octene  is that 
 of an octagon with each angle of the octagon having the number 6 and each of 
 the number 1s projecting outside the octagon.
 
 Note that both chemical representations of molecular number 56 are symmetric 
 graphs composed from the same multi-sets of atomic numbers.
 
 Questions: Is the physical information content of molecular number 56 the 
 same in cubane and cyclo-octene?
 
 How much information is the molecular number?
 
 What is the physical basis for calculating the information content of 
 molecular number 56?
 
 When would the amount of information represented in this molecular number be 
 the same?
 
 What is necessary and what is sufficient to calculate meaningful physical 
 information?
 
 Have fun!
 
 (Thanks to Joseph Brenner for calling this line of reasoning to my attention!)
 
 Cheers
 
 Jerry

[Fis] Physical information is WHAT? A Puzzle.

2012-06-07 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

FISers:

The following example concerning the fundamental theory of information in 
chemistry and physics puzzled me. Logical analyses of this puzzle from longtime 
participants would be welcomed.  

Consider any pair of atomic numbers. (Recall that the concepts of atomic 
numbers were established by physical measurements (Rutherford, Moseley, 
(1911)).  Because the conundrum is a question of meaning, I will select the two 
numbers 1 and 6. As atomic numbers, these two numbers represent all of the 
physical information contained in the respective atoms.  The QM equations for 
these two numbers (e.g., hydrogen and carbon) are well studied. And, the 
respective geometries of the orbitals are well studied.

Next consider exact 8 pairs of these two numbers, 16 integers in all.  (Could 
we write a string:
6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1,6,1) that would represent the 16 physical sets of 
information.)
The sum of these atomic numbers is 56  (= 8 x7)

First question: How much physical information is in the number 56?

Let us call the sum of the atomic numbers the molecular number.
Two separate and distinct chemical molecules can be composed from the this 
partition of the molecular number of 56 into 8 separate but physically 
identical pairs of atomic numbers.

One molecular number 56 is called cubane. The geometry of cubane is that of a 
cube, with each corner of the cube having the number 6 and each of the number 
1s projecting outside the cube as one node of a tetrahedron.  (Do Not 
conflate this geometry of a physical tetrahedron with the tetrahedron of a 
categorical representation of commutativity.)

A second molecular number 56 is called cyclo-octene  (or, more exactly, 
1,3,5,7, tetra-dehydro-cyclo-octene.  The geometry of cyclo-octene  is that of 
an octagon with each angle of the octagon having the number 6 and each of the 
number 1s projecting outside the octagon.

Note that both chemical representations of molecular number 56 are symmetric 
graphs composed from the same multi-sets of atomic numbers.

Questions: Is the physical information content of molecular number 56 the same 
in cubane and cyclo-octene?

How much information is the molecular number?

What is the physical basis for calculating the information content of molecular 
number 56?

When would the amount of information represented in this molecular number be 
the same?

What is necessary and what is sufficient to calculate meaningful physical 
information?

Have fun! 

(Thanks to Joseph Brenner for calling this line of reasoning to my attention!)

Cheers

Jerry 




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


[Fis] Chemo-informatics as the source of morphogenesis - both practical and logical.

2011-11-06 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
List, Loet, Joe:

This email responds to several questions raised in response to my long post of 
Oct. 16, 2011.

 Loet asks:
1. What is the equivalent in chemo-informatics of a bit of information? Can
this be operationalized as a formula like Shannon's H?
2. Can one compute with this formula in fields other than chemistry? For
example, in economics; without using metaphors? (As if)
JLRC: 
1. There is no equivalence between a bit of information and the science of 
chemistry. Chemical information must be encoded into a number just as any other 
semantic message. 
If their were such an equivalence, there would be no need for the clear, 
separate and distinct natural symbol system developed from signs from natural 
things and Dalton's rule that material things can be categorized as ratio of 
small whole numbers of weights and volumes.

Chemistry can be thought of as a semiotic science. 
C.S.Peirce stated it well when he insisted (rejecting Kant) that the following 
role of symbols is necessary for formal logic:

Thing - Representation - Form.
or, more precisely:
Thing - Representation - Iconic form

In other words, the formal logic of chemistry depends on the sort of 
representation selected. This formal logic is an encoding of impressions on the 
mind into a coherent symbol system that constructs iconic representations of 
particular things. 
. 
In Shannon information, the concept of encoding any message is used to assert 
that every thing can be encoded (represented in Peircian rhetoric) into a 
number AS a string of bits, a string of 0,1's, a string of true-false 
propositions. (Note the ambiguity of meaning of encoding as a representation!) 
The purpose of Shannon's logic was to communicate any message within a 
generalized inductive argument about communication. The purpose of Dalton's was 
to communicate a particular graph form that was particular to a specific form. 

The following are a list of propositions that underlie the communication of 
chemical information. 

1. The chemical concept of an atomic number is a rhetoric phrase.
2. The adjective atomic modifies the noun number.  
3. Consequently, the concept of a chemical number is not the same as the 
concept of a artificial number.
4. The adjective atomic has a particular meaning that modifies the the LOGIC 
of operations on the noun. 
5. The concepts of an atomic number and of an artificial number both are exact 
representations of concepts. 

6. The representations of number in both cases are positions in a list. 
7. The adjective atomic as used to represent chemical things, corresponds 
exactly with the count of the positive charge on the nucleus and the count of 
the negative charges of the electrons.
8.  These two counts are identical.  ((Schelling's polar opposites 
neutralizing one another.) 
9. These two counts correspond with a specific thing with specific physical 
properties.
10. These two counts correspond to the rhetorical name of each chemical element.

11. These two counts form TWO SORTS of nodes in a mathematical graph.
12.One sort of node represents each electron as a unit.
13. The other sort of node represents the integer count of the nucleus.
14. These two sorts of nodes can be represented as a graph.
15. This graph is terms a labeled bipartite graph because it has two sorts of 
nodes that can not be substituted for one another.

16. All logical operations in the chemical sciences are based on the atomic 
numbers.
17. The simple logical operations are logical conjunctions of two or more atoms 
to form a particular molecule.
18. The conjunctive operation of creating a molecule from two atoms is a 
copulative verb, not a predicative verb.
19. The logic of this conjunctive operation creates a new identity, a new 
graphic object (a new icon in the sense of Peirce)
20. The conjunctive operation of two atomic numbers is an additive relation 
with respect to the properties of both number and weight (or mass), giving rise 
to the logical terms, molecular formula and the molecular weight.

21, The conjunctive operations on atomic numbers are formal operations that are 
extensive to all the sciences that study things with specific identities and 
properties.  
22. The atomic numbers are the source of all molecular biological descriptions 
of life - genetic, development, anatomy, much of physiology, toxicology, 
pharmacology, clinical medicine.
23,.The atomic numbers are not applicable to artificial numbers such as 
irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, transcendental numbers, surrealistic 
numbers, the various efforts that attempts to represent infinity or the 
continuum. 
24. A series of relationships can be used to transliterate the atomic numbers 
into artificial numbers - these are the Rosetta relationships. Such 
transliterations change the formal logical relations between the symbols from 
the copulative logic of the chemical sciences to the predicative logic of 
physical sciences.
25. The communication of chemical structures as 

[Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate

2011-03-15 Thread Jerry LR Chandler


A series of responses to recent posts of James, Gavin, Steven, Stan, Pedro, 
zyx, Joe, and koichiro. 
FIS response March 14, 2011

v547. ? Gavin:

writes:

Modern chemistry fell out of alchemy.

As far as I am aware, modern chemistry developed its own semantics, grammar and 
logical symbol system virtually independent of alchemy. The authors were 
Priestly, Lavoisier, Dalton, Volta, Bezerlious, and others, mainly in the late 
17 th and early 18 th Century. The ostensive and demonstrative basis of alchemy 
was re-interpreted in terms of the properties of invisible and indivisible 
gases. From these origins, the alchemical ostensions were re-symbolized to 
become mathematical extensions of identity, volume, weight of.. , and other 
properties. These observations became the basis of the ideal gas laws and 
later, thermodynamics and eventually, quantum mechanics.

Gavin continues:
Language still doesn’t have a good definition (or even what it may be). And we 
build our entire knowledge system on it.

I disagree.
The knowledge systems of science are based on observations and the 
correspondence relations between measurements and mathematical calculations. 
I recently published a long discussion of these relations under the title of 
Algebraic Biology in Roberto Poli's journal, Axiomathes.

Gavin continues: 
Language has only three types of logic
Declarative statements (like the one below) be either True or False
Imperative statements (commands) can be structure or process.
Interrogative Statements (questions), can be yes or no, and True or false
 
To me, this assertion is simply false. 
Numerous logics are studied.
Particularly interesting is the recent development of 'para-consistent logics. 
For the past decade, I have been constructing a logic for the chemical sciences 
and medicine, closely related to some of the ideas of C S Peirce and category 
theory. It is called synductive logic and is classified as an inductive logic 
operating on labelled bipartite graphs. The grammar of this logic is an 
abstraction from the calculus of chemistry and electricity.

Gavin continues:
Is Mathematical Category Theory and Topoi Logic together the foundation of all 
Reality?
 
My simplistic view of mathematics is that reality is vastly more perplex than 
anything to do with mathematics.
The great beauty and power of mathematics emerges from those rare cases where 
the mathematical symbol systems can be shown to be in correspondence with 
nature.


v. 547.5 by James Hannam:

First, let us clear up a deep mis-understanding.
My usage of the term calculus is in the traditional sense of to calculate. 
That is, exact logic that is reproducible by others. Newtonian calculations are 
a sub-set of the more general term. The term comes from Latin, meaning a small 
pebble, referring to the use of an abacus.

Jim, you write:

So, while I can clearly see you disagree with me, I am afraid that I do not 
really follow why.

I provided you with a short summary of the basic ideas of modern science - 
roughly thirty concepts that were developed in Aristotle's writings roughly 
2300 years ago.  The extension of each of these concepts from Aristotle to 
today is a study of the history of a critical term of modern science.

It is the sort of study of the history of science that I wish you had done 
before you boldly asserted your contentious postulate.

If you elect to undertake such a multi-year study, then you may find that 
modern science, much like modern mathematics, is a tightly interwoven network 
of both semantic and syntactical terms, glued together with mathematics and 
arcane beliefs about nature. The level of coherence within this network of 
terms is robust. 

v547.6  Joe Brenner writes:

It would be most interesting if synergies were to appear. For example, how 
might the logic of situations be related to the dynamic logic of processes of 
Logic in Reality, etc.?


Joe, your messages remain outside the scope of my comprehension.
May I request that you give the list three or four concrete scientific examples 
of your Logic of Reality?
In particular, is your usage of the term reality either ostensive or 
demonstrable? 
I am of the persuasion that A rose by any other name is a rose
or, in this case, phenomenology by any other name is phenomenology.   :-) :-) 
:-) 

v547.7 Stan

Your conceptualization of the concept of properties as a way of knowing appears 
to be grossly deficient with respect to the chemical sciences. Metaphorically 
consistent with category theory, the chemical way of knowing emerges from the 
commutativity of the grammar of chemistry as derived from Dalton's ratio of 
small whole numbers. 

The critical notion is the the commutativity among the nominative case, the 
properties as universals and the arrangement of parts of the whole. This 
commutativity creates a mathematical and logical intimacy among ostension, 
extension and intention. (While this a triadic argument, it differs 
substantially from the icon / 

[Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate, vol. 547, issue 1

2011-03-01 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

(Pedro: Please Post to FIS)



James Hannam, Stan, Pedro, List:

 

Thank you for taking the time to express your point of view.  For several years 
now, I have been studying the origins of molecular biology, seeking a coherent 
explanation for the meaning for its predictive powers and the methods which 
lead to scientific predictions. I certainly do not speak for the metaphysics of 
the physical information theorists, who, perhaps, may be more persuaded by your 
style than I.

 

Your assertion that:

“I sense some scepticism about my contentions that ancient science could never 
have developed into what we call modern science. “

is simply illogical and necessarily false.

 

Why do I confront your logic?

The simple facts are that the basic ideas of Aristotle remain the foundations 
of Western science.  The developments from Aristotle to the present day can be 
traced step-by-step.

By the basic ideas of Aristotle, I mean five specific notions that Aristotle 
wrote of:

Rules of thought [identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle]
Categories [substance, quality, quantity, relation, time, place, situation, 
condition, action and passion]
Causality [formal, material efficient, telos]
Logic of premises (sorites, pathways of statements from antecedents to 
consequences, graph theory, theory of categories]
hierarchy  [individual, species, genera, alone with ostension to greater levels]
During the intervening 23 Centuries, our notions of all these terms have 
changed substantially. Our very notion of language itself, as well as our 
notion of symbol systems, especially mathematics and chemistry has greatly 
improved our ability to be specific. Nevertheless, modern science developed 
directly from these few simple concepts, particularly of the concept of 
identity. The scientific terms of Aristotle continue to serve the sciences well 
and continue to be discussed routinely in both the theory and in practice of 
modern science.

 

If Western science did not develop from these Aristotelian concepts, what 
concepts did modern science develop from?

 

Your focus on motion, as an example, is, in my opinion, ill-advised for your 
thesis. The philosophy of physics continues to churn, century after century, it 
remains unsettled today. Personally, I smile a wide grin whenever a physicist 
announces once again that the foundations of physics must be revised. As one of 
my friends loves to say, physics is the only metaphysics we (“modern science”) 
have. The other sciences, intimately associated with the logic of calculus, 
thrive on the correspondence between observations and predictions.

 

Is it possible, James, that your training has embedded your thinking so deeply 
in the logic of language that the historical role of the logic of calculus in 
the development of science is submerged in your writings?

 

 

Stan:

Two ideas are at issue:

The first is your most recent post on the role of the term, “properties.”
“There ARE NO properties of things unmediated by biology and culture.” The 
concept of properties is, of course, the bedrock of predicate logic and the 
grammar of physics. If you deny the existence of properties in your ontology, 
your metaphysics becomes much clearer.

 

 

Secondly, the notion of the term, “ostensive””.  What is it?
The Latin roots suggests the meaning

 “stretch out to view”,

 that is, demonstrable. In particular, are you using this term as if it is 
unrelated to the concept extension that merely stretches a concept out?  

 

Pedro:

 

Your defense of the fertility of Western intellectual history of periods 
between Aquinas and Newton are important in understanding how our world views 
of today are rooted in the deep sense of community that developed during that 
historic timeframe.

 

 I would add that the idea of a “University”, which developed more or less “ad 
hoc” from the Paris model, as place to transmit, reflect and create values 
should be acknowledged. 

 

The separation of the triverum from the quadriverum was a profound step in the 
history of thought as it separated the role of language (rhetoric, grammar and 
logic) from the logic of the calculus. James Hannam, as I noted above, appears 
to devalue this separation.  It is important to keep in mind that the ancient 
Summerians (3 rd millenium BC) concept of informational symbols completely 
lacked this ability to separate concepts in this manner.

 

I believe that this separation was critical to the development of our view of 
mind (the Modistae of the 1300’s), the development of signs (John of Poinsot) 
and most especially the continual development of explication via the technics 
of disputation. I might also add that the conceptualization of 
“Syncategorimaticism” by Peter of Spain became the foundation for extending 
mathematical logic in the 19th Century (by C S Peirce).   Of course, this is a 
further example of the role of Aristotle’s notion of “relational” categories.

 

Cheers to All

 

Jerry

 

 

 

[Fis] Foundational Views of Shannon Information Theory

2011-01-24 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

List:

My responses to recent posts by Karl, Stan, Joe, Loet, Gavin, John, and Bob by 
the number of the digest that I rec’d. I seek to address several basic issues. 

 

First, I would repeat my assertion from my post of Jan. 20, 2010, along with 
Karl’s denial and my comments about his denials:

 

JLRC: The unspoken premise of many discussants appears to me to be a view of 
information theory as a  universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal 
code.

KJ: The assertion is outspoken, explicit and apodictically declaratory: 
information theory IS a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code

 

Karl: Out-spoken?

JLRC:  Yes, I spoke-out.  :-)

Karl: Explicit? 

JLRC: Yes. Rosen argues that biology requires a separate symbol system, that is 
outside of mathematical category theory. My explicit response to the category 
theory approach to information theory is contained in three recent papers – 
Axiomathes, Discrete Applied Math, and a chapter in a book by Vrobel and Otto 
Rossler. If desired, I will forward copies of these papers to list members.

Karl: apodictically declaratory: 

JLRC: Yes!  By design.   ;-) 

JLRC:  Perhaps you have not considered the reasons why Shannon information 
lacks universality. So, Precisely what is it that you are denying about the 
appearances of information theory?  

·  That category theory is applicable to biology?

·  By inference, that set theory / predicate logic is sufficient to 
describe optical isomers?

·  That the simple “yes/No” choice essential to Shannon information is a 
universal code for human knowledge?  (The notion of a binary encoding of all 
information is denied by Dalton’s premise – the ostensive source of chemical 
codes.)

·  Or, is it that you believe that addition is a universal operation of 
mathematics?

JLRC: Your numerous posts on your decade-long mediations on the nature of 
arithmetic remain unpersuasive. The consistency of group theory and ring theory 
provide an adequate explanation for all iterative arithmetic operations. Your 
persistence is admirable, your intelligence is substantial, your logic 
questionable and your conclusions lack extension. 

 

Stan (545:10) Re: [Fis] Ostension and the Chemical / Molecular Biological 
Science,   …It is this translation from material observations into logical 
form, in particular into fully explicit, crisp logical form that I am 
questioning.  Yes, it can lead to short term triumphs, via engineering,…

 

JLRC: Hu, I think you miss the point. The abstract symbol systems of 
Dalton, Lavoisier, and Coulomb underly the foundations of thermodynamics as 
well as the Shannon theory of information as well as our concept of such 
abstractions as “energy” and “entropy.” These symbol systems are now firmly 
embedded in the logic of scientific communications. Perhaps you wish to infer 
that concept of ostension is not useful in the natural sciences?  Or, is it 
that in your world view, “utility” is a bad word? 

BTW, Lavoisier / Daltonian logical forms are not fully explicit in the usual 
sense of mathematics. They are closer to codes with an exact syntax.

Joe (245:11) …”that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something 
derived.”

JLRC: Are you putting the cart before the horse? As a consequence of the 
international system of units, number takes priority over all other scientific 
and economic proper names. Number is the antecedent to expressing quantity of 
most any sort.

JLRC: Are you attempting to substitute semantics for syntax in your view of 
information theory? In your view of symbolic logic?  In your view of the 
concept of order?

JLRC: The order of the atomic numbers of the chemical elements stands in 
one:one correspondence with the any list of objects, with the listing of 
elements of a group, in a listing of the roots of a polynomial, in a listing of 
a vector, in a listing of the nodes of a graphs, and so forth. The existence of 
a listing is essential to the basic attributes of a message. It is essential to 
communication.

 

Joe (245:11) …and under what conditions one should seek to maximize (because 
valuable) heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity.

 

JLRC: What fundamental classes of informational variables can be used to 
express heterogeneity?  Homogeneity? How do such classes relate to Rosen’s 
postulates of separate and distinct symbol systems? Or, Aristotelian causal 
structures?  Or, Descarte’s “clear and distinct” ideas

 

Gavin (245:12) …one of the qualitative foundations of information theory is 
word frequency of English from Zipfs law.

 

JLRC: Minor technical point.  Perhaps you mean the frequency of usage of 
different alphabet symbols in a linguistic message?

 

Stan (245:12) … Put otherwise, does anyone know of data about natural things 
that would not deliver a power law?

 

JLRC: Power laws are the exception, not the rule in the natural sciences. For 
example, catalysis, the source of nearly all of biological 

[Fis] test

2011-01-22 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
test
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19 (John Collier) and footnote to fluctuon discussion (Stanley N Salthe)

2010-11-20 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

John, Stan, Loet, Krassimir, List:

This message responses to posts of both Stan and John, which are, strangely 
enough, philosophically, intimately related.

First, Thank You, Stan, for your illuminating post which clarifies your 
personal philosophy. 
(The paper you comment on can be found online under the same title.)  

 Note that the levels are found to be orders of magnitude different in size.  
 No change in any single unit at any level can have an effect at the next 
 upper level


With all due respect to you and to Terrence Sejnowski, the overwhelming weight 
of evidence from molecular genetics and human genetics denies your conclusion. 
The evidence denying your conclusion is very simple.

Since the 1960s, molecular biology has been based on a quantitative premise 
that a single base change in a DNA molecule may cause a change in the 
inheritance of the organism and a change in the health state of the organism. 
This is the background premise supporting the sequencing of the human genome 
and the gradual switch to personalized medicine.  We all human beings by 
virtual of our common inheritance, our diversity emerges from the  individual 
sequences we inherit from our parents. Our DNA is one source of our individual 
reflexivity.  A single base change is certainly a single unit.

Stan, you conclusion that  No change in any single unit at any level can have 
an effect at the next upper level is simply factually false since the 
overwhelming body of DNA sequence data supports the opposite conclusion. After 
nearly two decades of attempting to understand your self-constructed 
narratives, I think I understand the philosophical reasons why you are engaged 
in this line of discourse but I will leave that for you to clarify however you 
wish.  

John, your response to the semiotic issues rather surprised me as you are 
regular contributor to the Peirce list serve. 

The symbol systems used by physics to communicate are derived from mathematics. 
 Physics lacks a symbol system of its own making. As such, the concept of 
reflexivity, X = X, is one of the triad of terms used to create the notion of 
an equivalence relation.  Now, Shannon information depends on this concept of 
reflexivity to provide the exact mechanisms of encoding and decoding codes by 
the sender and receiver.  These must be 'platonic' mathematical relations 
without any physical meaning or content. Otherwise, Shannon information would 
not a faithful method of communication between different systems. The notion of 
probability enters into Shannon information not in the message itself, but 
rather in the capacity to detect errors in the transmission.


Strangely, it appears that Stan and John have stumbled on the same 
philosophical concept of reflexivity, a concept which lies at the heart of 
human  individuality and human communication.  The scientific facts support the 
conclusion that the reflexivity of a human being is an emergent property of 
life, not mathe-magic or philo-magic.

Cheers

Jerry, forever the realist.
 







On Nov 20, 2010, at 12:00 PM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

 Send fis mailing list submissions to
   fis@listas.unizar.es
 
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
   https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
   fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es
 
 You can reach the person managing the list at
   fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es
 
 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of fis digest...
 Today's Topics:
 
   1. footnote to fluctuon discussion (Stanley N Salthe)
 
 From: Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu
 Date: November 20, 2010 9:18:18 AM EST
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es
 Subject: [Fis] footnote to fluctuon discussion
 
 
 Folks -- This cut is Figure 1 from
 
 Sejnowsky, T., 2006.  The computational self.  Annals of the New York Academy 
 of Sciences 1001: 262-271.
 
 
 
 
 Note that the levels are found to be orders of magnitude different in size.  
 No change in any single unit at any level can have an effect at the next 
 upper level
 
 
 STAN
 
 
 ___
 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] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

2010-11-17 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

John, List:

A simple semiotic flaw exists in this paper.

So, I am not buying into the hypothesis or the conclusions.
Reality is far more perplex than mere technical terms.

Given the situation, who else can find the logical flaw?

Cheers

Jerry 



On Nov 17, 2010, at 12:00 PM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:

 Send fis mailing list submissions to
   fis@listas.unizar.es
 
 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
   https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
   fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es
 
 You can reach the person managing the list at
   fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es
 
 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of fis digest...
 Today's Topics:
 
   1. Demonic device converts information to energy (John Collier)
   2.  strings, vacua, structures (karl javorszky)
 
 From: John Colliercolli...@ukzn.ac.za
 Date: November 16, 2010 11:37:33 PM EST
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es
 Subject: [Fis] Demonic device converts information to energy
 
 
 http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101114/full/news.2010.606.html?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20101116
 
 Not really surprising, but an interesting demonstration.
 
 John
 
 --
 Professor John Collier, Acting HoS  and Acting Deputy HoS
   colli...@ukzn.ac.za
 Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa
 T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292   F: +27 (31) 260 3031
 http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/
 
 
 

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


[Fis] Asymetry and Information: A modest proposal

2009-11-23 Thread Jerry LR Chandler


List, Pedro, Bob:

A modestt proposal

Without a gold standard for the term information we keep going  
around in circles.

I would suggest that at least three distinct meanings of the term  
information are in current usage, probably more.

For convenience, let us take the Shannon view of information as it is  
exact in definition and application, it is purely an arbitrary term  
in this sense, as are all mathematical terms.  The symbols acquire  
meaning from the cultural context rather than emerging from  
biosemiotic origins.

Shannonesque information (if I can create such an adjective) is  
design to serve as the message bearer between two machines. But this  
is not an ordinary message bearer.  As a message bearer, Shannonesque  
information can include a rudimentary form of redundancy, an elegant  
form of symbolic repetition that allows machines to correct errors  
that the message bearer may acquire on it's journey from machine A to  
machine B. This design feature is constructed into the artificial  
encoding that creates the message.  From the antecedent redundancy of  
the code, the message bearer acquires a property that goes beyond the  
semantics of mathematical symbols when viewed from the perspective of  
enabling communication between machine A and machine B.  This  
consequence is not a property of all message bearers.

In general, raw physical information lacks the Shannonesque message  
bearer quality because physical events are unique.

In general, chemical information lacks the Shannonesque message  
bearer quality because chemical structures are unique.

In general, biosemiotic information, composed from chemical  
information, has the message bearing quality of Shannonesque  
information.

In general, cultural information, composed from biosemiotic  
information, has the message bearing quality of Shannonesque  
information.

At the most primitive levels of description, both biosemiotic and  
cultural information have a modicum of error correction capacity,  
metaphorical comparable to machine to machine communication.

So, where does this Peircian categorification of the kinds or sorts  
of information lead?

I suggest that Stan's usage of the term valency of information may  
be a useful name for the values of information in the respective  
systems that is being referred to. The polyvalency of biosemiotic and  
cultural information is already well-established in practice.

The concept of polyvalent information provides a reasonable term to  
describe the exactness of the reproduction of biological structures,  
of genetic inheritance.

The conundrums over the questions of symmetry and asymmetry remain  
open for description in logical terms of the valency of the  
symbolization of information used for communication.  For example,  
can practical communication be achieved with an infinitely  
polyvalent  chunk of information? Or, is this merely a useful  
metaphor? How does the Barwise metaphor of categorical information  
fit into the concept of polyvalency? Can one actually encode  
information into infinite groups or is this merely a mathematical  
metaphor?

Numerous other questions can be raised from the logical proposition  
that communication implicitly connects via valencies.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all.

Cheers

Jerry

Research Professor
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study







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


Re: [Fis] Neuroscience of art

2008-09-21 Thread Jerry LR Chandler



Prof. Grohn, List:

I am curious about what you are seeking to communicate when you write:

I am afraid that list can't be validated as a set  laws. Laws  
should be independent of each other.


What is the rational for your feelings about law (singular) vs laws  
(plural)?


Is it necessary that laws be independent?  Or merely desirable?
If it is merely desirable, what feelings should I trust in order to  
seek my desires?


Some conductors assert that they have the capacity to serially play  
a major piece in their minds.  Is this in any way related to the  
desire for laws to independent of one another?



Cheers

Jerry





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


[Fis] Re: fis Digest, Vol 501, Issue 5

2007-02-05 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

To: Igor / Ted / Stan

First, Igor.

I found your perspective here to be 180 degrees off from mine!

On Feb 5, 2007, at 6:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Reply to Steven and Ted

By genetic constraints I assume you simply mean that we have   
certain capacities and are not omnipotent. Is not conflict and war  
an  indicator of our individual failure to manage social  
complexity? Or  would you argue that war is social complexity  
management?


I was referring to the hypothesis that we have the propensity to  
function in relatively small groups bind by strong cultural bonds.



From my perspective, enriched by chemical relations,

genetic system serve as fundamentally creative activities.

Genetic networks are not an amalgam of soft concepts, rather a  
genetic network is a discrete interdependent network of chemical  
relations.
The enumeration of the creative  genetic network is complete for some  
organisms, some species.


In Aristotelian logical terms, the position of the species is between  
the individual point and the genus.
It is the chemical capacity to create species that I find to be  
absent from your narrative.


Thus, I would re-phrase your  hypothesis generating sentence:

From:
I was referring to the hypothesis that we have the propensity to  
function in relatively small groups bind by strong cultural bonds.


To:

I was referring to the hypothesis that genetic networks have the  
creative capacity to function in very large associations that are  
linked together by very weak bonds.


Ted's comment seems to be based on a some recent innovations in the  
mathematics of hierarchies.  The issue of how we select the meaning  
for our symbols of representations of the world can be a very  
complicated one.  The profound limitations that linear and quasi -  
linear mathematics places on the symbolic carrying capacity of signs  
may be relevant to Ted's statement.  But, I am not certain of the  
origins of his views.


Stan's comment deserves to be attended to.

The many
complexities facing us as society can be parsed as follows, using a
specification hierarcy:
{physical constraints (material/chemical constraints {biological
constraints {sociocultural constraints.

As I search for the substance in this comment, I  focus on what might  
be the potentially misleading usage of the term parsed.   Nor, do I  
understand why brackets, signifiers of separations, are used in this  
context.
I have no idea what it would mean to parse a material / chemical  
constraint in this context.


Indeed, chemical logic functions in exactly the opposite direction.

The creative relations grow with the complexity of the system.  Is  
this not what we mean by evolution?


On a personal note to Stan: We have been discussing similar concepts  
since the inception of WESS more than 20 years ago and it does not  
appear that we are converging!  :-)  :-)  :-)Unless you choose to  
embrace the creative capacities of chemical logic, I fear your mind  
is doomed to the purgatory of unending chaotic cycles, searching for  
a few elusive or perhaps imaginary fixed points.  ;-)  :-):- 
( !!!



Cheers

Jerry



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] what is life, logically?

2006-11-17 Thread Jerry LR Chandler


Karl:

I will respond to both your new title to the thread and to your  
philosophy of mathematics.


When you ask the question, what is life, logically?  what is the  
nature of the question that you wish to address?  Given your history  
of posts, I am almost certain that I do not understand what you are  
asking.


The principle issue that separates our views is not the nature of  
life or information, it is the nature of scientific logic and a  
philosophy of mathematics.


The concept of logic dates back to pre-Aristotelian days and it is  
no clearer today, in my opinion, than when Aristotle defined his  
views of causality and categories.  (The small book, Logic, A short  
introduction by Graham Preist, OU Press, is to be recommended.)   
Model theory and various sorts of set theory are often promoted by  
promoters.  Yet, no one has succeeded in applying set theory to  
chemical theory and phenomena.  The oft stated claim that quantum  
theory covers all of chemistry lacks supporting evidence. It really  
refers to calculating properties of molecules AFTER one is given the  
exact enumerations of structural organization in space.


  If anyone would like to demonstrate that quantum theory covers  
chemistry, the place to start is to show how quantum theory applies  
to a simple enzymatic reaction.  For example, give an exact  
calculation of the transfer of electrons from ethyl alcohol to NAD  
via the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, starting from physical  
principles.  Chemists have developed exact methods to give an  
accounting of the particles and their positions for this reaction.  
The simple fact of the matter is that physical quantum theory is  
derived from the chemical table of elements and chemical relations  
and not vice versa.  The list of chemical elements is an abstraction  
about invisible particles with electrical properties and relations  
among them.  Chemical quantum mechanics simply places the objects in  
motion.  (Physical quantum mechanics is awash in the mathematical  
approximations that attempt to use 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 different  
mathematical definitions of force into a logically consistent  
framework.  Which notion of force should I believe in?  Have you a  
favorite definition of force?   If one makes a sufficient number of  
approximations, one can eventually fit empirical data - this is  
remote from the exactness of chemical calculations!)


More generally, I believe that the nature of logic itself is  
intertwined with the the semiotics of the symbol systems.  Logical  
methods are not general.  We have many classes or types of logic.   
These logics are intimately intertwined with the grammar of the  
particular symbol system that is being used.  The grammar of addition  
is hardly the grammar of our emotions, is it?  The grammar of music  
is hardly the grammar verbal expression. The grammar of chemistry is  
highly context dependent. a modal grammar that is closer to Aristotle  
than to quantum mechanics and its inability to correspond directly  
with human sensory perceptions.  Can anyone point out how the axioms  
of set theory or group theory express the grammar of genetic systems?


I point I am seeking to make is that the oft expressed notion that  
certain logical statements are true for all time and place is a  
statement that can not be placed directly in correspondence with  
empirical observations in the many, many many areas of biology and  
medicine.


So, when you ask, what is the life, logically?, I think you will  
get many answers and that these answers are more apt to reflect on  
the individual philosophy of mathematics and science and little to do  
with the question.


For me, a rough answer that is little more than a tautology is  Life  
is a chemical system that co-operates with an ecosis to reproduce  
systems similar to itself. 


Enough venting of my views!  A few comments are interlaced into to  
your response below.


On Nov 14, 2006, at 6:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (by way  
of Pedro Marijuan [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Date: November 13, 2006 7:21:08 AM EST
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [FIS] what is life, logically?


Dear  Fis,

Both Stan and Jerry raise points about whether the fact of having  
figured out
how genetic information, in its abstracted and formalised version,  
can be
transferred between the living organism and its dna, does or will  
generally

improve a chemist's lot.
Both interjections address important questions.
Stan says:
   SS: What I meant is no compelling model of an 'RNA First  
world'

 as a model of the origin of life.  That is, life begins with
 spontaneously synthesized catalytic RNA molecules.  My point is a
 materialist one, not a logical one.


I concur with Stan and add that the problem is the nature of  
catalysis, not a particular structure.

Jerry says:
 Chemical information is grounded in the list of chemical elements  
and the 

relations among 

[Fis] genetics: the most outstanding problem, (un)SOLVED?

2006-11-11 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
(To the List: I am re-posting my message to Karl because the original message was not distributed in it's totality; the arguments were truncated.  Cheers  Jerry ) Karl:I fear that I must once again disagree with your strong conclusions about the relations between mathematics and genetics.  I would urge you to attempt to find exact correspondence relations between empirical evidence and your views of models based on numbers.See my comments below.Subject: [Fis] genetics: the most outstanding problem, SOLVEDDear Stan,In your last posting, you said:    SS:  Of course, the origin of the genetic system is arguably the mostoutstanding problem facing natural science.  It seems that, other than the(to me) unconvincing RNA World idea, there is no compelling model of it.The model that the RNA (together with the DNA) is a sequence and that thegenetic mechanism copies the information from a sequence (the dna/rna) intoa nonsequenced assembly (the living organism) and from there (by means ofthe ovaries and the testes) back into a sequence is a quite compellingmodel.The term "information" has been shown in this chatroom to mean the cuts thatsegregate, separate and distinguish summands;The term "sequence" has been defined by Peano;The term "nonsequenced /=commutative/assembly" is indeed hairy, as thereexists no definition for multidimensional partitions, although this is whatit means;The term "copies" means a filter restriction on a set of entries into adatabase (a restricted, in optimal case, bijective map between twoenumerations).I certainly will not support this view of the relationships among numbers, genetics and information.I find your post to be outside the scope of the standard theories of biochemistry and genetics.Chemical information is grounded in the list of chemical elements and the relations among them.The terms "DNA" and "RNA" etc, are chemical names of specific relationally rich bio-molecules.The information content of chemical molecules must be expressed in terms of atomic numbers and relations among the electrical particles (graphs).Biological information emerges as flows of changes of chemical relations - metabolic dynamics. In general, chemical structures / information does support transitive relations among the atomic numbers organized into graphs.  Thus, if one wishes to develop a compelling argument about chemical numbers and structures and genetic information,  one should start with relational algebras that keep track of changes of relations.  Bijective maps are not a suitable basis for describing change of chemical relations and hence the flow on biological information.Finally, if one wishes to describe a mathematics of biological information, the suitable starting point is the fact that a single position in a DNA sequence can control the fate of the entire organism.  A living system is a society of associative relations among atomic numbers. CheersJerry___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] genetics: the most outstanding problem, (un)SOLVED?

2006-11-08 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Karl:I fear that I must once again disagree with your strong conclusions about the relations between mathematics and genetics.  I would urge you to attempt to find exact correspondence relations between empirical evidence and your views of models based on numbers.From: "Karl Javorszky" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: November 7, 2006 10:04:13 AM EST To: "'Stanley N. Salthe \(by way of Pedro Marijuan[EMAIL PROTECTED]\)'" [EMAIL PROTECTED], fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] genetics: the most outstanding problem, SOLVED   Dear Stan,  In your last posting, you said:     SS:  Of course, the origin of the genetic system is arguably the most outstanding problem facing natural science.  It seems that, other than the (to me) unconvincing RNA World idea, there is no compelling model of it.  The model that the RNA (together with the DNA) is a sequence and that the genetic mechanism copies the information from a sequence (the dna/rna) into a nonsequenced assembly (the living organism) and from there (by means of the ovaries and the testes) back into a sequence is a quite compelling model.  The term "information" has been shown in this chatroom to mean the cuts that segregate, separate and distinguish summands; The term "sequence" has been defined by Peano; The term "nonsequenced /=commutative/assembly" is indeed hairy, as there exists no definition for multidimensional partitions, although this is what it means; The term "copies" means a filter restriction on a set of entries into a database (a restricted, in optimal case, bijective map between two enumerations).  I certainly will not support this view of the relationships among numbers, genetics and information.I find your post to be outside the scope of the standard theories of biochemistry and genetics.Chemical information is grounded in the list of chemical elements and the relations among them.The terms "DNA" and "RNA" etc, are chemical names of specific relationally rich bio-molecules.The information content of chemical molecules must be expressed in terms of atomic numbers and relations among the electrical particles (graphs).Biological information emerges as flows of changes of chemical relations - metabolic dynamics. In general, chemical structures / information does support transitive relations among the atomic numbers organized into graphs.  Thus, if one wishes to develop a compelling argument about chemical numbers and structures and genetic information,  one should start with relational algebras that keep track of changes of relations.  Bijective maps are not a suitable basis for describing change of chemical relations and hence the flow on biological information.Finally, if one wishes to describe a mathematics of biological information, the suitable starting point is the fact that a single position in a DNA sequence can control the fate of the entire organism.  A living system is a society of associative relations among atomic numbers. CheersJerry___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] Call for Papers 14th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation

2006-09-20 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Call for Papers   14th Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation (WoLLIC'2007)    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil    July 2-5, 2007  WoLLIC is an annual international forum on inter-disciplinary research  involving formal logic, computing and programming theory, and natural  language and reasoning.  Each meeting includes invited talks and tutorials  as well as contributed papers.  The Fourteenth WoLLIC will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from  July 2 to July 5, 2007, and sponsored by the Association for Symbolic Logic  (ASL), the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics (IGPL),  the European Association for Logic, Language and Information  (FoLLI), the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science (EATCS),  the Sociedade Brasileira de Computacao (SBC), and the Sociedade  Brasileira de Logica (SBL). PAPER SUBMISSION  Contributions are invited on all pertinent subjects, with particular  interest in cross-disciplinary topics.  Typical but not exclusive  areas of interest are: foundations of computing and programming;  novel computation models and paradigms; broad notions of proof and belief;  formal methods in software and hardware development; logical approach to  natural language and reasoning; logics of programs, actions and resources;  foundational aspects of information organization, search, flow, sharing,  and protection.  Proposed contributions should be in English, and consist of a scholarly  exposition accessible to the non-specialist, including motivation,  background, and comparison with related works.  They must not exceed 10 pages (in font 10 or higher), with up to  5 additional pages for references and technical appendices.  The paper's main results must not be published or submitted  for publication in refereed venues, including journals and other  scientific meetings.  It is expected that each accepted paper be presented at the meeting by  one of its authors.  Papers must be submitted electronically at  www.cin.ufpe.br/~wollic/wollic2007/instructions.html  A title and single-paragraph abstract should be submitted by  February 23, and the full paper by March 2 (firm date).  Notifications are expected by April 13, and final papers for  the proceedings will be due by April 27 (firm date). PROCEEDINGS  Proceedings, including both invited and contributed papers,  will be published in advance of the meeting.  Publication venue TBA. INVITED SPEAKERS: TBA STUDENT GRANTS  ASL sponsorship of WoLLIC'2007 will permit ASL student members to  apply for a modest travel grant (deadline: April 1, 2007).  See www.aslonline.org/studenttravelawards.html for details. IMPORTANT DATES  February 23, 2007: Paper title and abstract deadline  March 2, 2007: Full paper deadline (firm)  April 12, 2007: Author notification  April 26, 2007: Final version deadline (firm) PROGRAM COMMITTEE  Samson Abramsky (U Oxford)  Michael Benedikt (Bell Labs)  Lars Birkedal (ITU Copenhagen)  Andreas Blass (U Michigan)  Thierry Coquand (Chalmers U, Goteborg)  Jan van Eijck (CWI, Amsterdam)  Marcelo Finger (U Sao Paulo)  Rob Goldblatt (Victoria U, Wellington)  Yuri Gurevich (Microsoft Redmond)  Hermann Haeusler (PUC Rio)  Masami Hagiya (Tokyo U)  Joseph Halpern (Cornell U)  John Harrison (Intel UK)  Wilfrid Hodges (U London/QM)  Phokion Kolaitis (IBM Almaden Research Center)  Marta Kwiatkowska (U Birmingham)  Daniel Leivant (Indiana U) (Chair)  Maurizio Lenzerini (U Rome)  Jean-Yves Marion (LORIA Nancy)  Dale Miller (Polytechnique Paris)  John Mitchell (Stanford U)  Lawrence Moss (Indiana U)  Peter O'Hearn (U London/QM)  Prakash Panangaden (McGill, Montreal)  Christine Paulin-Mohring (Paris-Sud, Orsay)  Alexander Razborov (Steklov, Moscow)  Helmut Schwichtenberg (Munich U)  Jouko Vaananen (U Helsinki) ORGANISING COMMITTEE  Marcelo da Silva Correa (U Fed Fluminense)  Renata P. de Freitas (U Fed Fluminense)  Ana Teresa Martins (U Fed Ceara')  Anjolina de Oliveira (U Fed Pernambuco)  Ruy de Queiroz (U Fed Pernambuco, co-chair)  Petrucio Viana (U Fed Fluminense, co-chair) WEB PAGE  www.cin.ufpe.br/~wollic/wollic2007 ___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] Physical Information

2006-07-23 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
Dear Rafeal:Your response to Stan (see below) caught my eye, since, on first blush, it appears to be remote from modern physics and the "physics talk" of the (space time energy) trinity.  This trinity is, of course, merely a reification of modern mathematical symbolism.  And this modern mathematical symbolism is merely an explication of the concepts of continuity, grounded in the quasi mystic world view of Russian - German mathematician G. Cantor. (Cantor's views of logic were expounded on by Husserl and Heidigger, as you are well aware.) A major difficulty facing the (space time energy) trinity is the trinitarian nature of space itself.  The pairings (left/right), (front/ back), (up/down) and the x,y,z co-ordinates of analytical geometry give 9  (= 3 + 6) of the putative 11 - dimensions of string theory (Calabi-Yau spaces).  (This fact is of critical importance in understanding the following text.)How is it possible to discretize information from this foundation?  That is, relate or illate with unique symbols?Your position appears to me to be a radical simplification of human communication.  The simplistic dichotomy you write of presupposes a "symbolic world"  as if somehow the distinctionthere *is* the *material* world but we *live* also in a *symbolic* world. It seems to me that (to put it in a simplified way) we argue with two theories of information, one which is related to the *material world* (physical information) and the other which is founded in the *symbolic world*.is of substantial fundamental importance.  It is not. ( If my memory serves me correctly, your text is analogous to the position of Augustine with respect to the doctrine of signs,  or, perhaps a view of CS Peirce.  Or did you have another view in mine?)Human communicators have created numerous symbol systems, notations for alphabets, numbers, music, dance, etc.  A fundamental challenge is to relate the grammars of the various symbol systems that we use for daily communication.  This challenge is simplified by one critical fact.One symbol system is antecedent to all of the others.That is, the chemical symbol system is the source of our material world.And the emergence of life is the emergence of symbol systems that express meaning relationships within the material world.  For example, the encoding and decoding of information into macromolecules is historically meaningful and preserved over time.  Thus, the chemical symbol system is antecedent to the biological symbol system.And the emergence of man is the emergence of the capacity to create symbol systems pendent on macromolecules.And the emergence of cultures is the capacity to transmit and translate among symbol systems.The process philosophy of emergence, the history of nature, it seems to me, does not support your argument of :two theories of information,rather, we have an antecedent theory of information in chemical symbolism, from which the alphabetic symbolism emerged with a radically different grammar. From the alphabetic symbolism, a mathematical symbolism emerged, with a strange grammar that restricts itself to the imperative mood.From the mathematical symbolism, the trinitarian concept of physical information was imagined, not as a discrete process, but rather as a Platonic form.  And, eventually, the eidetic picture of strings emerging from imaginary numbers of space as expressed in the opening paragraph of this message.Rather than "two theories of information", process history provides us with a flow of internal and external relationships among symbol systems, such as string theory.The grammar of chemical symbolism, is, however, already a spatial grammar.  (We call them "isomers".)The grammar of chemical symbolism is a numeric grammar that is "pendent" on our experience; it is a grammar with remarkable clarity and distinctiveness.  The grammars of all other symbol systems are derivative from the grammar of the chemical symbol system.  To me, the illation you propose is unpersuasive from either a philosophical or material perspective because it omits the sense of history of information and communication.To place this into Aristotelian perspective, the Porphyrean tree you propose is at the level of the individual.  The same argument can be re-stated, but phrased in alternative symbol systems: Aristotelian logic is much richer when viewed from the antecedent symbolism of chemistry than from the derivative symbolism of alphabetic predications.Or, in yet another view of the same argument, the aim of science is to create explications of genera, dichotomies are merely the first of the pairings that can mark the distinction. Thank you for a stimulating post. Thanks also to John H. for his innovative parsing of the concept of 'information" - philosophic polysemy at its finest!CheersJerry On Jul 23, 2006, at 6:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Rafael Capurro" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: July 22, 2006 3:25:33 PM EDT To: fis@listas.unizar.es, "Stanley N. Salthe" [EMAIL PROTECTED]