Gyuri , thanks for your informative post (which Otto seems to agree wth?),
The essence of what I now understand (I think) is that the amounts of mass
involved in LHC experiments is so small that there is little-to-no chance
of gravitational force (collapse) exceeding nuclear forces, such that
The notion of a calculus of redundancy has much appeal, so I was looking
more closely at the linked paper you posted. Still, I am not sure I follow
what is presented (help?) . . .
> Whereas the generation of Shannon-type information is coupled to the
second law of thermodynamics <
Yes, Happy New Year to all! . . . But, I confess to some confusion.
● On seeing the offered New Years session, I wondered 'Why? Hasn't this
issue long been overtaken by events?' Still I was happy to follow along and
see if I might learn something new . . . but it seems my initial intuition
A talk was recently posted where Searle and Floridi broach this matter, but
from a foundational vista and framed in a context of artificial
intelligence. For those who have not seen it:
My own few exchanges with Searle on this issue, and on biological
Further to John's original note . . .
and then to Pedro's further note
> It would neatly apply to the living but also to the physical <
This is, of course, a recurring issue for FIS – the matter of meaning . . .
or even, what is "information?"
When it comes to defining "meaning" (or information)
Dear FIS members,
Further to Krassimir's post of 23 July, I offer the FIS steering
committee and FIS members my apologies for the strong language used in my
closing notes on 15 July. Also, I apologize for my delay in responding to
Krassimir's note as I had not seen his post (I was no longer
Thank you for your surprisingly shameless and preemptive session closing.
This spares you a need to explain “freewheeling speculation” and to convey
actual intellectual content. I hoped for a better show of your intellectual
bravura, or perhaps, that was it?
Still, failure to incite
at 5:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
> Marcus, List:
> Comments inserted. And comment on your concluding comment.
> On Jul 9, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JERRY (re 7 July post):
Greetings to all,
This A Priori Modeling session began Thursday, 16 June, and today marks
four weeks. As “session leader” some meta-comments seem needed. In gauging
our progress, a sense akin to that in Terry Deacon’s 30 Jan 2015 post comes
> . . . I haven't felt that the specific
Thank you for the added Mechanics info., I will study the archives to
see what else I find.
> strictly remaining within Shannon's and anthropocentric <
> discourse boundaries there is no way out. <
• Still in “raging agreement” – thus my S-B-D (Shannon, Bateson, Darwin)
JOHN (re 7 July post):
• Your abruptness is understandable. I have seen your “battle to take a
view of information [as including] physical properties that has a dynamics
of its own.” First, I opposed this “minority view”(?), so I was an
opponent. But after investing time (stirred by your posts!)
Thank you for your Fri Jul 1 post:
> to define information as “a difference which makes a <
> difference”. . both differences have to be specified.<
> Differences(1) can make a difference(2) for a system of <
> reference (receiver). <
• This is surely correct! This also aligns with
John – thank you for the intriguing article on the back hole information
paradox. But I was surprised you saw Krassimir's note as insulting that at
"the same time he/she has no [idea] what is 'information'”. This caused me
to take a closer look at the article, which seemed to affirm Krassimis's
In an offline exchange, Michel asks some questions (on my reply to
Annette), summarized below.
> Your "material variation" seems identical to "spatial <
> structure" which is classically used in informational <
> ecology. Why not ? <
• “Why not?“ what? I am unsure of what you are asking. In
I hoped to reply to your posts sooner as of all the voices on FIS I
often sense a general kinship with your views. But I also confess I have
difficulty in precisely grasping your views – the reason for my delay.
>[while Shannon’s] concept of information (uncertainty) <
Dear Emanuel – thank you for your opinions and judgements.
> The video . . . looks great <
• Given what follows, I am unsure of how to view this note.
> I asked you to provide me with a printed version . . . <
• I had no request and I offered nobody anything beside the introductory
text and its
In an online exchange, Annette raises a few points and questions that I
> Please give me your basic definition of entropy <
My short answer is that I define entropy as "material variation" of any
type, as clarified in paper #2 and detailed starting on page 5 (actually
Please use the Dropbox links below to access the supplemental files.
At least one of you has reported problems with downloading the
supplemental papers (#2, #3, #4). Please email me if you also have this
problem. I will then email the papers directly to you, if you wish.
Fis mailing list
Hi António – thank you for your questions. I paraphrase your questions
below and respond in the order as given:
*• “How does a map constitute metadata?”*
You immediately strike the key issue.
Metadata is often known as “data ABOUT data.”
We might simplify this to “ABOUT-ness.”
Or, we might expand
;higher-order" debate, re Deacon's [from IS4IS] "keeping our levels
I look forward to hearing your thoughts . . .
Description: Adobe PDF document
Fis mailing list
Dear Stanley & Loet,
Gentlemen, when you speak of "origin" I am unsure of what *exactly* you
have in mind. Is it the "origin of the capacity for movement" that you
think about? The origin of life, itself, along with all its causal roles?
> Then, many of the living do not ‘move’. . . Plants
Hi Bob (U),
Reading your (Tue Feb 2 21:18:25) note.
> minority opinion among the FIS group . . .
> believe that information possesses both epistemic and ontic features<
I find myself wondering if there is a specific reason you believe this is a
"minority opinion" rather than the exchanges
>From Terry's post on Mon Jan 18 00:27
> . . . relation between potential (micro)states of the system (signal,
> medium) under consideration and a constrained variant state . . .
Seeing this note, and then closely rereading the OP – I have a hard time
not “hearing echoes“ of coherence &
> the pecking order, in fact, can be traced back to hierarchies within
atoms 380,000 years after
> the big bang and to the hierarchies within galaxies and solar systems
400 million years after
> the big bang.
An assertion like this requires more explanation I think . . . I am still
Thank you for your well crafted (typical Pedro) synthesizing statement,
it was a pleasure to read. Thanks also for the reminders of J. Diamonds
work. It has been ages since I read it, but it was certainly a treasure
(hmm, now where I put my copy . . . )
> Bob has drafted
> Social groups compete. They battle for pecking order position in a
hierarchy of groups.<
Your chicken example seemed to be talking about behavior WITHIN groups,
where this (above) note seems to consider behavior BETWEEN groups – please
clarify? You see them as the same?
Moises – thanks much for this analysis. Yes, tagging by the author would be
preferred, and even better if tagging was part of the posting process (but
not available with the software used).
In the spirit of discussing the discussion (not sure how far we want to
push this) . . .
Re ". .
to be an
unexplainable mystery? As I understand Terry's view (and my own) it is
essentially reductionistic, but I would also say that I don't think it
strives to be naively reductionistic.
in agreeing the FIS group goals.
Fis mailing list
While the interviews on the video are interesting, in general, I also find
them a bit annoying. I never hear information actually described in a
specific way. They could as easily be discussing raw data as far as I can
tell. For example, when is meaning associated with information (or data)
? As a new member, I simply wish to
know what might be reasonably tolerated.
Thanks to all for your earlier thoughts!
Fis mailing list
used here. Thoughts?
Fis mailing list
Hi Terry – and “first-time greetings“ to FIS colleagues,
First, Terry, thank you for your continued effort with this contentious
topic. It is truly necessary and worthwhile “heavy lifting.“
Second, in reading all prior postings I am drawn to your 30 Jan. note:
. . . I haven't felt that the
order to get unto speed. Thanks!
Fis mailing list
Mail list logo