Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?


Dear Plamen and Colleagues,
If it can be feasible, I would very much welcome what you propose. Yes, it 
would be great developing a general articulation amongst all our exchanges. 
Roughly, I feel that a fundamental nucleous of neatly conceptualized 
information is still evading us, but outside that nucleous, and somehow 
emanating from it, there are different branches and sub-branches in quite 
different elaboration degrees and massively crisscrossing and intermingling 
their contents. A six-pointed star, for instance, radiating from its inner 
fusion the computational, physical, biological, neuronal, social, and 
economic. The six big branches in perfect periferic colussion and confusion. 
Could a blockchain, along its full develpment in time, represent a 
fundamental cartography of the originating fusion nucleous?
About dataism enchantment, well, too many times we have been said "look, 
this is the great, definitive scientific approach"--behaviorism, artificial 
intelleigence, artifficial catastrophe & complexity theory, and so on. Let 
us wait and see. Welcome in the extent to which it really responds to 
unanswered questions. And let us be aware of the technocratic lore it seems 
to drag.

This was my second cent for the week.

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 10:30:01 +0100 "Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov"  wrote:

These are wise words, Pedro.
What I was meaning with my previous posting on FIS was that there is a 
foundational emerging technology - blockchain - that could give us, scientists 
organized in fora like FIS, IB, IS4IS etc. to become a valuable currency of the 
future. I am speaking not about finances or resources like petrol, gold, water, 
etc. What we are doing all the time with the exchange of ideas online are in 
fact transactions, often with huge potential. Why do not

try to elevate them to the level that they deserve? 

I am not sure if the FIS forum members can follow me. Can you?

All the best.


<> wrote:

head>Dear Alberto,

Many thanks for the kickoff text. I will try to produce acouple of direct 
You have reminded me of the early70's, when I first approached science. A few 
computers had made theirentrance in the university halls. During those years, 
and for somedecades to come, a new mantra was to be ensconced: 
modeling,simulations. Thanks to computers, we had a fascinating new tool; 
amathematical machine that was opening a new window to the world ofscience, 
equivalent to the telescope or the microscope in thescientific revolution. Now, 
almost 50 years
later, after havingprovoked their own "information revolution" it seems that 
computersare more than a new tool. Dataism coupled with 
artificialintelligence, deep learning and the other techniques, have taken 
themto the command post, so that they are becoming direct "agents" of 
thescientific progress. And this is strange. They have already 
defeatedmasters of chess, of go and of other contests... are they going 
todefeat scientists too? Are they the "necessary" new lords of allquarters 
of techno-social complexity?

You have depicted verycogently the new panorama of biomedical research, 
probably themainstream, and I wonder whether this is the most 
interestingdirection of advancement. In some sense, yes (or no!), as it is 
wherebig biomed companies, technological firms, and managementestablishment are 
pointing at. It is easy to complain that they areleaving aside the integrative 
vision, the
meaningful synthesis thatfacilitate our comprehension, the "soul" in the 
machine... But we havebeen complaining in this way at least during the last 
two decades. SoI really do not know. Fashions in science come and go: maybe 
all ofthis is a temporary illusion. Or a taste of the science of the future.

In any case, it was nice hearing from a biomedical researcher inthe wet lab.
Best wishes--Pedro

On Tue, 06Mar 2018 21:23:01 +0100 "Alberto J. Schuhmacher"  wrote:
blockquote>Dear FIS Colleagues,
I very much appreciate thisopportunity to discuss with all of you.
My mentors and scienceteachers taught me that Science had a method, rules and 
proceduresthat should be followed and pursued rigorously and with 
perseverance.The scientific research needed to be preceded by one or 
severalhypotheses that should be subjected to validation or refutationthrough 
experiments designed and
carried out in a laboratory. TheOxford Dictionaries Online defines the 
scientific method as "a methodor procedure that has characterized natural 
science since the 17thcentury, consisting in systematic observation, 
measurement, andexperiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification 
ofhypotheses". Experiments are a procedure designed to test 
hypotheses.Experiments are an important

Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?


Dear Alberto,

Many thanks for the kickoff text. I will try to produce a couple of direct 
You have reminded me of the early 70's, when I first approached science. A 
few computers had made their entrance in the university halls. During those 
years, and for some decades to come, a new mantra was to be ensconced: 
modeling, simulations. Thanks to computers, we had a fascinating new tool; a 
mathematical machine that was opening a new window to the world of science, 
equivalent to the telescope or the microscope in the scientific revolution. 
Now, almost 50 years later, after having provoked their own "information 
revolution" it seems that computers are more than a new tool. Dataism 
coupled with artificial intelligence, deep learning and the other 
techniques, have taken them to the command post, so that they are becoming 
direct "agents" of the scientific progress. And this is strange.
They have already defeated masters of chess, of go and of other contests... 
are they going to defeat scientists too? Are they the "necessary" new lords 
of all quarters of techno-social complexity?
You have depicted very cogently the new panorama of biomedical research, 
probably the mainstream, and I wonder whether this is the most interesting 
direction of advancement. In some sense, yes (or no!), as it is where big 
biomed companies, technological firms, and management establishment are 
pointing at. It is easy to complain that they are leaving aside the 
integrative vision, the meaningful synthesis that facilitate our 
comprehension, the "soul" in the machine... But we have been complaining in 
this way at least during the last two decades. So I really do not know. 
Fashions in science come and go: maybe all of this is a temporary illusion. 
Or a taste of the science of the future.

In any

case, it was nice hearing from a biomedical researcher in the wet lab.
Best wishes--Pedro

On Tue, 06 Mar 2018 21:23:01 +0100 "Alberto J. Schuhmacher"  wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,
I very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss with all of you.
My mentors and science teachers taught me that Science had a method, rules and procedures 
that should be followed and pursued rigorously and with perseverance. The scientific 
research needed to be preceded by one or several hypotheses that should be subjected to 
validation or refutation through experiments designed and carried out in a laboratory. 
The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or 
procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in 
systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and 
modification of hypotheses". Experiments are a
procedure designed to test hypotheses. Experiments are an important tool of 
the scientific method.

In our case, molecular, personalized and precision medicine aims to anticipate the future 
development of diseases in a specific individual through molecular markers registered in the 
genome, variome, metagenome, metabolome or in any of the multiple "omes" that make up the 
present "omics" language of current Biology.
The possibilities of applying these methodologies to the prevention and 
treatment of diseases have increased exponentially with the rise of a new 
religion, Dataism, whose foundations are inspired by scientific agnosticism, a 
way of thinking that seems classical but applied to research, it hides a 
profound revolution.
Dataism arises from the recent human desire to collect and analyze data, data 
and more data, data of everything and data for everything-from the most banal
social issues to those that decide the rhythms of life and death. 
“Information flow” is one the “supreme values” of this religion. The next 
floods will be of data as we can see just looking at any electronic window.

The recent development of gigantic clinical and biological databases, and the 
concomitant progress of the computational capacity to handle and analyze these 
growing tides of information represent the best substrate for the progress of 
Dataism, which in turn has managed to provide a solid content material to an 
always-evanescent scientific agnosticism.
On many occasions the establishment of correlative observations seems to be 
sufficient to infer about the relevance of a certain factor in the development 
of some human pathologies. It seems that we are heading towards a path in which 
research, instead of being driven by hypotheses confirmed experimentally, in 
the near future
experimental hypotheses themselves will arise from the observation of data 
of previously performed experiments. Are we facing the end of the wet lab? 
Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research (and the 
beginning of data-correlation-driven research)?

Deep learning is based on learning data representations, as opposed to 
task-specific algorithms. Learning can be supervised, semi-supervised or 
unsupervised. Deep learning models are loosely 

[Fis] Meta-observer?


Dear FISers,

Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think that expostulating one's 
general framework is going to facilitate the discussions. Perhaps oposite, 
as it will introduce a trend towards generalization that fortifies the 
perspectival differences and makes the rhetorics less adjusted to the 
concrete. The problem basically resides in the persistent immaturity of the 
"information synthesis" so to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a 
different "observer", charged in each case with their favorite 
conceptualizations. Taking into account the apparent multitude of dimensions 
of information, and its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those 
observers has to be in place. And an agile switching among the observers has 
to be established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious 
displacements of the focus...  helas, this means a meta-observer or an

But what sort of reference may such a metaobserver arbitrate? There is no 
conceivable book of rules about the switching between heterogeneous 
disciplinary bodies.
I see only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the 
metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It was 
Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live better." In 
each level of organization it is the life cycle of the concerned entities 
and the aggregates built upon them what matters.
Information is not only about logic-formal aspects. It is the bread and 
butter of complexity, that which allows contemporary social life.

So, in the coming session about "dataism" we can also explore these themes.


Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] What is the “mental model”?


Dear Krassimir and FIS colleagues,

Many thanks for your message & effort to prepare the compilation to be 
published soon. It is good counting with dissemination works that take these 
information debates to different environments so that new insights and 
conceptual cross fertilizations may occur. (These weeks I have been rather 
absent minded, involved with the nasty task of closing my desk room and 
having to transport home all my archives--throwing away lots and lots of 
reprints and docs. No space available at home! It was very fatiguing. 
Hopefully it is almost over.) Well, about Arturo's last comment, am sorry 
about having to leave out of science most of research activities of last 
centuries, including some of the Greatest Founding Books of Biology 
(Darwin's), Neuroscience (Ramon y Cajal's, Sherrington's) and many others. 
No maths there! Watson & Crick's arch-famous paper with the DNA
report had no maths either... They all will join the heaps of papers I 
discarded! Well, more seriously, FIS was conceived to articulate a common 
ground in between the different info worlds, utterly separated, taking from 
the physical/computational, to the biological/neuronal, and to the 
personal/social. There was, and there is, no immediate "informational" 
connection at all. Perhaps after taking various steps behind each one of 
these realms, a sort of general interconnecting thread could be discovered; 
this is what we thought long ago. Hélas, as all these years discussions have 
witnessed, the itinerary resembles an intransitable Moebius band rather than 
a linear path... But at least there is fun in the attempt.
About data, "dataism", and some other curiosities we will have a new 
discussion session at the end of next week. Raquel del Moral will present 
the chair of this new session.


wishes to all,

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 20:50:08 +0200 "Krassimir Markov"  wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

The main result of our paper “Data versus Information” is the understanding that the data 
and information are different (external and internal kinds of reflection for subjective 
consciousness), i.e. "Information = data + something in and by consciousness"

After publishing the paper, Arturo wrote an important remark and I promise to answer in this letter. In private conversation we had discussed some aspects. The conversation was interesting but it is not available for the FIS-list and I have no permission to publish it. Because of this I will use abstract form of questions (Q) and answers (A). 
Dear Arturo, I apologize in advance but I hope there is nothing bad in this and it will be useful. 

The remark of Arturo was: I'm just annoyed that the most represented
position among FISers, i.e., that information is an objective, quantitative, 
physical measure linked to informational entropy, has not been taken into 
account at all.  After all our efforts to maintain our firm position, we 
have been censored.

(A):  Usually we say “we collect information” measuring different real 
features – temperature, distance, weigh, etc. Scientists from physics do this 

The methodical error here is that really we collect data.

After processing the data in the consciousness, the information may be created 
in it. Reflections (data) exist everywhere, but information exists only in 
consciousness. It is important that information in the consciousness of one 
subject is external for another, i.e. it is data for him/her.

Yes, I know that many people believe in the opposite, but still there are no 
scientific basics this believing to become

scientific theory.

I am mathematician who had worked in the institute of mathematics more than 40 years and, in particular, I have taught probability and statistics. I absolutely clearly know (and every good mathematician knows!) that the probabilities are a human model and do not exist in the reality. Because of this, all definitions of information based on probability are the same what we had published in the paper. This kind of information exits only in the concrete human consciousness! 

The rest is data; sometimes called: "statistical data".

(Q):   Statistics is so important, that we can quantify the standpoint of 
our reality, i.e., quantum mechanics, just through statistical tools. If you 
negate statistics in the study of reality, you fully destroy the medicine, the 
scientific method and the prospective and retrospective studies. It is totally 
absurd to negate the
importance of statistics. I'm sorry, but yours is just a metaphysical 
approach to scientific problems.

(A):   Yes, I agree that the statistics is very important and useful. But we discuss "what 
is the information?" and not "is the statistics important or not?".

Only what I say is that the statistics is pure humans' activity. By processing 
statistical data we may predict many events. But this not excludes humans'. 
Computer prosthesis of our brains does not change the situation.

[Fis] End of the NY Lecture


Dear FISers,

Like in previous years, we conclude the Opening Lecture within the first 
week of February.
Many thanks to John Torday and all the participants--maybe he is willing to 
pen some concluding comments.

Otherwise we will be heading towards a new session.

Best regards
PS. By the way, with the New Year I have entered into an interesting 
academic state: retirement!!
Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture


Dear John and FIS Colleagues,
Many thanks for this opening text of the NY Lecture. Indeed 
you have presented us an intricate panorama on one of the most obscure 
scientific problems of our time: the central theory of biology. As you say, 
we find with astonishment that there is literally no cell biology in 
evolution theory. And I would ad that there is no "information biology" 
either. A central theory becomes sort of a big Hall, where plenty of 
disciplinary corridors converge and later criss-cross among themselves. 
Darwinian theory is not that common hall for the really big, big science 
domain of biology. What are or where are the elements to rebuild the common 
Hall of the biological domain? I quote from your opening text:  
"It is as if the unicellular state delegates its progeny to interact with 
the environment as agents, collecting data to inform the recapitulating 
unicell of ecological
changes that are occurring. Through the acquisition and filtering of 
epigenetic marks via meiosis, fertilization, and embryogenesis, even on into 
adulthood, where the endocrine system dictates the length and depth of the 
stages of the life cycle, now known to be under epigenetic control, the 
unicell remains in effective synchrony with environmental changes."
It is really brilliant: a heads up reversal perspective. I think out of 
these ideas there are plenty of disciplinary excursions to make. One is 
"informational", another "topological". Putting together two different 
algorithmic descriptions and making them to build a torus (i.e., gastrula") 
as a universal departure for multicellularity also reminds the ideas of 
Stuart Pivart ("Omnia Ex Torus") about the primordials of multicellularity 
and the role of mechanical forces in the patterning of developmental 

Echoing the ideas

discussed in the Royal Society meeting (November 2016), there is a pretty 
long list of elements to take into account together with epigenetic 
inheritance (symbiogenesis, viruses and mobile elements, multilevel 
selection, niche construction, genomic evolution...). As I have suggested 
above, essential informational ideas are missing too, and this absence of 
the informational perspective in the ongoing evo discussions is not a good 

i any case, it is such a great theme to ponder...
Best wishes to all

  On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 07:15:43 -0800 JOHN TORDAY  wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues, I have attached my New Year Lecture at the invitation of 
Professor Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez. The content relates a novel 
perspective on the mechanism of evolution from a cellular-molecular 
vantage-point. I welcome any and all comments and criticisms in the spirit of 
sharing ideas openly and

constructively. Best Wishes,

John S. Torday PhD
Evolutionary Medicine

Fis mailing list

[Fis] New Year Lecture


Dear FIS Colleagues,
Happy New Year to everybody!

Following ourtradition we are going to hold the New Year Lecture:
It will be imparted by:

Professor of Evolutionary Medicine
Harbor-UCLAMedical Center
Los Angeles
It will be posted, at hisconvenience, during the coming days.

Best wishes---Pedro

Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain

Fis mailing list


Beatiful ideas. Poetic prose in action... Great, Bruno!

Enviado desde mi dispositivo Samsung

 Mensaje original 
De: Bruno Marchal <>
Fecha: 3/3/17 19:08 (GMT+01:00)
Webinar <>

Dear Pedro and Colleague,

On 27 Feb 2017, at 17:39, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear Arturo and colleagues,

Very interesting piece, indeed. It has strongly reminded me Teilhard de 
Chardin's views on the Omega Point of cosmic maximal complexity--although this 
was for him not a pessimistic outcome but a brilliant and up-beating prospect 
for all humankind. His eclectic views were bitterly rejected by most of the 
scientific and religious establishment of his time (no wonder that particularly 
by evolutionary biologists); but the arrival of Internet, as well as today's 
multi-level selection approaches, and the works of some quantum information 
scientists (Tipler, Deutsch) have vindicated his brave, Quixotic figure. Late 
Popes of the Catholic Church (Benedict XVI) have also vindicated his whole 
intellectual legacy.

My favorite de Chardin's proposition is, from memory:

 "We are not human beings having spiritual experiences, we are spiritual 
beings having human experiences.

That is close to the theology of the neopytagorean Moderatus of Gades, and 
close to the neoplatonist Plotinus, Porphyry, ... And they are formally close 
to the "theology" of the universal numbers. (and even intuitively so assuming 
the computationalist hypothesis in cognitive science, through sequence of 
thought experiences).

It reminds me also of Shrî Aurobindo, when he said:

"What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?

And it is this ...
Existence that multiplied itself
For sheer delight of being
And plunged into numberless trillions of forms
So that it might

Tipler and Deutsch defend Everett "many-worlds", but computationalism per se 
shows that very elementary arithmetic determines a web of dreams, from which 
the physical reality is a sort of limiting projection. Everett quantum 
mechanics (the usual minus the wave packet reduction) confirms somehow the 
internal (canonical) web of dreams interpretation of arithmetic.

I have some minor problems with the present essay, but substituting some of the 
excessively teleological "purposive" terms about life (perhaps all of them?), 
and using instead a more austere description of organizational facts who 
knows! If life contains a unitary principle, I think it is more subtle, and 
cannot be expressed in unilateral physical terms

Provably so if we assume mechanism. Contrarily to a widely spread opinion: 
mechanism is not compatible with even quite weak form of materialism, or 

such as maximum entropy production, symmetry restoration, free energy 
maximization, etc. Well, symmetry and information have more clout and hidden 
complexity, so I express not a rejection but some uneasiness regarding too 
direct "orthogenetic" views on biological and social evolution.

My further suggestion --could it be a good idea that you change Monod's style 
"unpleasantness" (Oh, we the accidental discover that we are alone in the 
cosmos!) and point towards some of Teilhard's and Vernadsky's noosphere and the 
Omega Point? You would have several curious items to choose...

More opinions??

God created the natural numbers, and saw that it was good.

Then she said: add yourself, and saw that is was good.

Then she said: multiply yourself. And then ... she said: oops, ... and lose 

Like the complexity of the prime numbers distribution already illustrates, the 
logicians know that classical logic + addition of integers + multiplication of 
integers leads to the Church-Turing Universality of the reality under concern, 
"generating *all* universal numbers, and they know that the universal machines, 
or universal numbers put a lot of mess in Plato Heaven. The price of 
universality is loss of controllability, and the appearances of realms defying 
all complete theories.

The physical reality is the border of the arithmetical reality "seen from 
inside (by the universal numbers)". The breaking of symmetries are in the 
universal mind, like the symmetries themselves. The universal mind is the mind 
common to all universal numbers. ("universal" always taken in the 
Church-Turing-Kleene-Post-Markov sense).

The "god" of the machine (the relatively locally finite being) seems to be like 
a universal baby playing hide and seek with itself.

I doubt we are alone in the probable apparent Cosmos that we can observe, but 
we are not alone in Arithmetic, provably so if you assume Digital Mechanism (a 
thesis equivalent with the belief that consciousness is 


The exchange below between Arturo and Otto is interesting. I donate one of my 
two cents to relay it. Greetings to all--Pedro

De: []
Enviado el: sábado, 25 de febrero de 2017 8:25
Para: Otto E. Rossler

Dear Otto,
I cannot write you on the FIS list, because I finished my two weekly "bullets".
I read your very nice paper, and my first question is: has it been published? I 
want to quote it asap!
Concerning your framework, there is the possibility to make it also more 
mathematical, if you use the McKean-Vlasov equations for plasma-like 
collisionless movements.  You can find the details in the attached manuscript 
(currently under review).  With such equations, you achieve two goals: 1) your 
collisionless movements are not anymore limited just to cosmic plasma, but can 
be extended to less energetic processes in the Universe; 2) ypu may describe 
all your noteworthy framework on a simple torus-like manifold.

Very, very good stuff: compliments!

Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

venerdì, 24 febbraio 2017, 11:45PM +01:00 da Otto E. Rossler<>:

Dear Arturo:

I liked your abstract.
I have a reversible underlying theory of thermodynamics and cryodynamics which, 
as I learned, is too hard to understand for most specialists. I would very much 
appreciate your maximally sharp criticism.<>

Thank you ver much,
my best,

From: "" 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 7:57 PM

Dear Prof. Ulanowicz,
thanks for you nice words, and for the amazing material you sent me!
There is a 2005, seminal paper that seems to be the "smoking gun" confirming
your hypothesis that life increases the entropy production.
But the key, is rather strangely... the time!

You can find a summary, more details and the proper references here:

Thanks again for your kind response!

P.S.: I go to read better your fantastic, already historical papers!

Arturo Tozzi
AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

>Messaggio originale
>Da: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" 
>Data: 24/02/2017 18.48
>Dear Arturo!
>Most interesting thesis!
>Two paper of mine that touch on this subject:
>All the best,
Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

[Fis] A Curious Story

Dear FISers,

Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and 

Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!

De: Otto E. Rossler []
Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
Asunto: NY session

A Curious Story

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany

Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then make it 
even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I can save your 
house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond by saying “I 
don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist bible.

It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic person 
claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb about to be planted 
into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the other hand, it 
could also be that you, the manager, are a bit high at the moment so that you 
don't fully appreciate the offer made to you. How serious is my offer herewith 
made to you today?

I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no counter-proof in 
the literature to my at first highly publicized proof of danger. I was able to 
demonstrate that the miniature black holes officially attempted to be produced 
at CERN do possess two radically new properties:

  *   they cannot Hawking evaporate
  *   they grow exponentially inside matter

If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing ultra-slow 
miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva means that the 
slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and grow there exponentially 
to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after several of undetectable growth. 
Therefore the current attempt of CERN's to produce them near Geneva is a bit 

What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one finds it 
curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor informs the candidate 
about the outcome of the oral exam with the following words “You are bound to 
laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never understood the punchline. I 
likewise cannot understand why a never refuted proof of the biggest danger of 
history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an unattended piece of 
luggage on the airport called Earth?

To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason that 
everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof would thus alleviate but a 
single person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are thus my last hope that 
you might be able to explain the punch line to me: “Why is it that it does not 
matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I am genuinely curious to 
learn why attempting planetocide is fun.  Are you not?

For J.O.R.

Fis mailing list

[Fis] New Year Lecture

Dear FIS Colleagues,

The 2017 New Year Lecture will be entitled:

"A Curious Story"

It will be imparted by:

Otto E. Rossler
University of Tuebingen

It will be posted in a few days, at the author's convenience. In the interim, 
discussants are kindly requested to take a rest, stop the exchanges, and enjoy 
the festivities (note: given the proximity of the IS4SI event in Gothenburg, we 
might organize a specific session on the what-is-info topic discussed these 
days--suggestions are welcome offline).
Best wishes to all for the New Year!
Fis mailing list

[Fis] Concluding the Session (& Picture)

Dear FISers,

I have been requested the URL of the Nativity scene (blocked by some servers). 
It is in a very beautiful and monumental Church (El Pilar) worth some google 
exploration. Here it is the address:

During these holidays, our tradition at fis is to postpone discussions. After 
Arturo's closing comments (and some others afterwards), a pause is highly 
recommended. We will reassume discussions with the NEW YEAR LECTURE (to be 
announced soon).

All the best--Pedro
Fis mailing list

[Fis] RV: Something positive (From Arturo Tozzi)

De: []
Enviado el: jueves, 22 de diciembre de 2016 14:08
Asunto: Something positive

Dear FISers,

it's excruciating...
We did not even find an unique definition of information, life, brain activity, 
How could the science improve, if it lacks definitions of what itself is 
talking about?
And the old problem of science: from above, or from below?  Which is the best 

It seems that we depicted a rather dark, hopeless picture...  However, there 
is, I think, a light in front of us.
The only way to pursue our common goal, I think, it is to be free.
Free from our own beliefs.
Enlarge our horizons to other fields of science, apart from our own.
Forget metaphysics, of course.
Look at other disciplines, such as physics, medicine, engineering, biology, 

Voltaire said: "Il faut cultiver notre jardin" .  But he was wrong.  We have to 
take care of more than a garden.
Your own garden is too narrow for your beautiful mind.

Therefore, TANTI AUGURI!
And I hope that, the next year, in the 2017 Christmas time, every one of us 
will be expert in a scientific field different from his own.

Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

Fis mailing list

[Fis] Intelligence Science in Chengdu

Dear FIS Colleagues,

During past days a conference on Intelligence Science was hold in Chengdu. It 
was organized by Zhao Chuan (fis member, who presented in this list about the 
same topic last year), and was chaired by Yixin Zhong (well known in this list 
too). Western FIS parties who attended were Gordana, Joseph Brenner (although 
finally read in absentia), and myself. Chinese FIS colleagues Wu Kun, Xiaohui, 
Bi Lin, and others were also attending or presenting. Well, it was quite 
interesting an experience. Rethinking the basic ideas on intelligence, both 
"natural" and "artificial", in parallel to FIS and IS4SI efforts around 
information science looks a promising complementary strategy. A second 
conference will take place next year, in another Chinese city. It will be more 
widely publicized so to facilitate the attendance of Western parties.

Best greetings from Xi'an Information Philosophy Institute, in Jiaotong 
University, one of the earliest and most fruitful Chinese initiatives in 
information studies...


PS. About meaning, what Malcolm says should be obvious: in central nervous 
systems meaning predates human language.
Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

Andrei, have you tried with information as "distintion on the adjacent"? It 
would neatly
apply to the living but also to the physical, i think.  Best --Pedro

Enviado desde mi dispositivo Samsung

 Mensaje original 
De: Andrei Khrennikov 
Fecha: 4/11/16 16:19 (GMT+08:00)
Para: Gyorgy Darvas , John Collier , fis 

Asunto: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

  Dear all,
I want to comment so called information approach to physics, by speaking with 
hundreds of leading experts
in quantum foundations, I found that nobody can define rigorously the basic 
term "information" which is so widely
used in their theories and discussions, the answers are as "information is the 
basic entity" which cannot be defined
in other terms. Well, my impression is that without novel understanding and 
definition of information all these "theories"
are practically empty, well very good mathematical exercises. May be I am too 
critical... But I spent so much time by trying
to understand what people are talking about. The output is ZERO.

all the best, andrei

Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics,
Int. Center Math Modeling: Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive Sc.
Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden

From: Fis [] on behalf of Gyorgy Darvas 
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 10:23 PM
To: John Collier; fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

The article describes very really the conflicting attitudes. Interesting to see 
the diverse arguments together.
I agree, some think so, some do not. I do the latter, but this does not make 
any matter.

On 2016.11.03. 19:52, John Collier wrote:
Apparently some physicists think so.

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Lecture in London: Biophysical Motion, Feeling and Thinking, Response (ERICSSON)


-- Forwarded message --
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith >
Date: Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM
Subject: Lecture in London: Biophysical Motion, Feeling and Thinking, Response

I will be in Europe until Nov 6th and in London next week presenting my work. 
You are welcome to attend if you are in the area or to contact me for 
independent meetings.


The Seventh Tungsten Lecture, TCDIA (Tungsten Centre for Intelligent Data 
Analytics). Goldsmiths, University of London.

The Garden Room, St. James' Hall, Goldsmiths University of London,
RSVP Jessica Ussher :


To be complete, biophysics must include the unique effect of our senses and 
mind. Our sensations and thoughts produce motions that defy simple physics. To 
support these motions I propose a novel basis of experience, one equal in 
status to gravitation and light.

In a fluid environment, this biophysical basis allows a holomorphic shaping 
upon the surface of flexible closed structure (cells and membranes) allowing 
the formation of sense/response hyperfunctors. This approach enables the 
mathematization of sense, thought, and memory, with covariant response 

A particular shape in the biophysical structure is a particular sensation, 
thought, or memory that covaries with the response.

Physical law is algebraically covariant and so we may extend from this 
mathematical view of biology, including sensation and thought, to a unified 
cosmology, successfully including biology in the physical sciences.

In the twentieth-century, physical science has not allowed for these deliberate 
or automatic motions in biophysics. It has explicitly excluded the motion 
between a simple sensation or considered intention and response.

If we look at physiology in terms of conventional physics we can only account 
for some motions but not broad allosteric motions that lead to complex 
behavior. We are coming to understand biochemistry, but there is nothing in 
known physical science that allows an exact account of these unique motions, 
motions that are the consequence of sensation or the mind.

Taking such an approach also suggests a new model of computation, one that 
leads to the engineering of machines-that-experience.

Dr. Ericsson-Zenith completed his doctorate at Université Pierre et Marie Curie 
in 1992 while conducting research at CRI, MINES ParisTech.

Informed by new data in biophysics a long interest in large-scale computational 
structure led in 2006 to the research program on the Foundations of Logic and 

Dr. Ericsson-Zenith has lived in the United States since 1992 and is the 
Principal Investigator at the Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering in 
Los Gatos, California.

Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)


De: Mark Johnson [],

Dear Dai, Rafael, Loet and all,

Thank you for your comments - the theological connection interests me
because it potentially presents a paradigm of a more vulnerable
and open dialogue.

Loet, clearly the redundancy is apophatic, although one has to be
cautious in saying this: the domain of the apophatic is bigger than
the domain of Shannon redundancy. At some point in the future we may
do better in developing measurement techniques for 'surprise' in
communication (I wonder if Lou Kauffman's Recursive Distinguishing is
a way forwards...). Shannon's formulae have served us well because
we've constrained our digital world around them. "Surprise", from a
phenomenological perspective, is a much more slippery thing than the
measure of probability. There are, as Keynes and others identified,
fundamental ontological assumptions about induction which do not
appear to be sound in probabilistic thinking. These questions are not
separable from questions about the nature of empirical reasoning
itself (Keynes used Hume as his reference point), and by extension,
about the communication between scientists. I still don't know what
information is; I've simply found it more helpful and constructive to
think about constraint, and Shannon redundancy presents itself as a
fairly simple thing to play with.

Back to scientific communication, I've been looking at David Bohm
whose thoughts on dialogue are closely related to his thinking about
physics, and to my own concern for constraint. He writes:

"when one comes to do something (and not merely to talk about it or
think about it), one tends to believe that one already is listening to
the other person in a proper way. It seems then that the main trouble
is that the other person is the one who is prejudiced and not
listening. After all, it is easy for each one of us to see that other
people are 'blocked' about certain questions, so that without being
aware of it, they are avoiding the confrontation of contradictions in
certain ideas that may be extremely dear to them. The very nature of
such a 'block' is, however, that it is a kind of insensitivity of
"anaesthesia" about one's own contradictions." (Bohm, "On Dialogue",

The blocks are complex, but "published work" and "reputation" are
important factors in establishing them. I was at a conference last
week where a highly established figure castigated a young PhD student
who was giving an excellent but challenging presentation: "have you
read ANY of my books?!". The student dealt with the attack elegantly;
everyone else thought it revealed rather more about the constraints of
ego of the questioner (confirming a few suspicions they might have had

Our practices of "Not communicating" in science are, I think,
well-demonstrated by considering this encounter between Richard
Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Anthony Kenny.

I think it's worth pointing out the constraints (or "blocks") of their
positions, which (particularly in Dawkins case) are very clearly on
display. My reading of this is that they attempt to communicate by
coordinating terminology/explanations/etc. All the time they are aware
of the fact that they have fundamentally different constraints: there
is no overlap of constraint, and really no communication. The medium
of the discussion is part
of the problem: it structures itself around the 'topics' for debate,
and then it becomes a matter of not making oneself vulnerable within
that frame (this is what Bohm advocated avoiding). Yet for
communication (or dialogue) to take place between
these people, mutual vulnerability (I suggest) would have to be the
starting point. The discussion is also framed by the history and
reputation established through the each participant's published work.

One of the reasons why I mentioned the theological work (and why I
think this is important) is that it is much harder to talk about
theology without making oneself vulnerable - or at least, an
invulnerable theology comes across as dogmatism... of the kind that in
this instance, is most clearly exemplified by Dawkins!

What's missing is usually our vulnerability.

Best wishes,


Dr. Mark William Johnson
Institute of Learning and Teaching
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool

Phone: 07786 064505

Fis mailing list

[Fis] FIS Survey for PhD research.


Dear FIS Colleagues,

A member of our list, Moises Andre Nisenbaum, is investigating for his PhD the 
interdisciplinary links between Physics and Information Science. One of the 
data sources of his empirical research is the FIS mailing list itself. Because 
of this, he wants to directly ask list members, as well as filling in a 
questionnaire. Would you help him to make this request? He will publish the 
directions in the list.

Thanks in advance,

Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Towards a 3φ integrative medicine

Dear Plamen and FIS Colleagues,

Discussing on integrative attempts in medicine is really challenging. I do not 
think that the marriage proposed by Stan, yoking medicine with semiotics in 
films grounds, will have much progeny. Rather, if we disentangle medical 
practice from biomedical research we have at least a little less confusing 
panorama. Actually I think most of Plamen's views on 3φ are mostly in the 
research direction. Given that we are playing with the "3" I will make just 
another three suggestions.

1. In foundation matters, rather than caring about criticality or autopoiesis, 
I would demand and search for a new CELL THEORY. The present state of that 
venerable theory is just awful, even more with the updating of the "Central 
Dogma" proposed by Francis Crick decades ago. It has caused some furore that 
Templeton Foundation has just financed a big project devoted to that purpose: 
updating that venerable theory a little beyond Darwinian classical strictures. 
(Not "anti" Darwinian but somehow "post"). If informational views were properly 
incorporated... (big If). We tried to do something in that style for a European 
Project, but we did not pass the 2nd cut.

2. In physiological matters, there is much to say from criticality, balancing, 
symmetry, symmetry breaking and restoration, network science, etc. Some time 
ago there was a "Physiome" European Project, "From Molecules to HumanKind" 
trying to capture the whole map of physiological regulation. But in my 
impression it is a bioengineering repository of models and resources. It could 
be done differently. The emphasis by Alex, Plamen on criticality and of mine on 
signaling would not be too bad complementary directions.

3. Finally, on integration, I would propose "knowledge recombination" instead. 
The usual way to understand integration is unbounded, without space-time 
limits, like the processing of a Turing Machine. Rather the human practice of 
knowledge, and paradigmatically medicine, is characterized by a growing 
difficulty in integration matters within dozens and dozens of disciplines. 
Heterogeneous fields of knowledge can hardly be integrated at all. What living 
beings have had to rely upon is "recombination"--either genetically, neuronal, 
or socially. It is the unending combination of fragments of heterogeneous 
pieces of knowledge brought into action not randomly but in space-temporal 
frameworks that allow the mutual cross-fertilization. The idea, developed 
specifically for the biomedical arena can be discussed at length in 
[Information 2011, 2, 651-671; doi:10.3390/info2040651] and in [Scientomics: An 
Emergent Perspective in Knowledge. Organization. Knowledge Organization. 39(3), 
153-164. 2012]. In philosophical terms it is sort of a realization of Ortega y 
Gasset's perspectivism... the peculiar phenomenology of the great Spanish 

Better if I stop here. Greetings to all--Pedro

De: Fis [] en nombre de Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov 
Enviado el: miércoles, 18 de mayo de 2016 11:39
Para: Karl Javorszky
Cc: fis
Asunto: Re: [Fis] Towards a 3φ integrative medicine

One more thing on the example with the heart failure. If you go to a 
cardiologist with the same problem, s/he will prescribe a series of 
exampinations related to your heart only (checking your blood pressure, EEG & 
EMG tests incl. 24h recording and physical performance tests,  etc.). Rarely 
you can expect a blood sample analysis related to some kidney or liver failure, 
or a cervical examination because of a possible supply shortage of the 
vertebral artery (in case you have reported accompanying headaches) because of 
a grown bone spur with the first examination. Finally, depending on all these 
tests you will usually obtain a pill prescription to keep yopur blood pressure 
low for the rest of your life and some advise to avoid salty and spicy food. 
Period. If you at some point in time give up to find out and fix the real 
cause(s) for this "simple" heart failure, it is your problem, and not the one 
of the physician or the insurance company.

Now let's turn to the giraffe and the okapi and see how they have managed to 
develop a strong heart with the evolution:

Thus, science can still give important clues to solving problems, incl. what is 
a bonus or threat, but it is not the only source. The central issue is the 
integration of knowledge and sign(al)s about the operation and interaction of 
whole body systems, I think.



On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov 
> wrote:

This is an interesting question, Karl. Without giving a full account, I think 


Dear FIS colleagues,

Thanks to Soeren for his presentation, as usual several themes remain lingering 
and may resurface during future exchanges. But now it is the time of ALEX 
HANKEY.  He will post quite soon his presentation about "Phenomenology of 
Life." (Next Monday I will be able to upload it on the fis web pages, as 
usual.) In the meantime you may have a glance on his intriguing overview:

"OVERVIEW This presentation combines insights from Critical Phenomena and 
Quantum Field Theory to formulate a completely new kind of information theory 
applying at loci of control of biological systems. It thus allows a completely 
new approach to phenomenology. We use the new theory to model direct mind to 
mind communication between humans and animals, for which we present 
considerable evidence. I am honored to present this theory for the first time 
to information scientists."

Best regards
Fis mailing list


Dear FISers,

Tomorrow we will start the new session on Infobiosemiotics, by Soeren Brier. 
Before so, let me pen some comments.

First, to join Plamen and others in thanking Louis. Particularly interesting 
for me was his last text on recursive distinctioning. Quite curiously, an old 
work of mine I mentioned weeks ago was about a sort of algebra for distinctions 
(to be applied to a putative "language of cells" via signaling systems) that 
contains remarkable similarities. Our elimination of items in the letter 
strings was based on three principles: symmetry, economy, and parsimony... we 
used "0" and inverse elements, and after the arrival of some new letters-signs 
the whole set/node was collapsing and "emitting", etc. etc. Anyhow, I will 
re-read with high interest, looking for further connections & ideas.

About some of the biological points raised in the discussion a few days ago 
(unfortunately I was caught in administrative compromises), I would reiterate 
that the present day biomolecular panorama of the simplest cells suggests a 
more cogent relationship between self-production and communication. I already 
gave some arguments: direct communication with the world is a prerequisite for 
organizing a metabolically efficient cellular system. Such direct communication 
via "one component systems" outnumbers any other signaling tools; this is well 
known in signaling science more than 10 years ago but has had no general impact 
yet.  The prokaryote is not really so autopoietic, it could be something else 
(maybe "infopoietic", but is the label needed??)... What the theme strongly 
suggests is a reconceptualization on how the cell "is in the world," only 
viable through unending communication tricks with the environment. 
Communication for "eking out" a life runs densely across the whole evolutionary 
process. Even more, it runs very deeply in the innards of our social life, in a 
curious trans-kingdom evolutionary twist. As I remarked in the previous session 
with Maxine, the origins of our own human communication via language are 
closely related to our wild "microbiome experiment". Given that we count with 
50% less microbiota in our gut and we have to produce an extra 20% of metabolic 
output, the social knitting via language for group feeding (cooking, 
fermentation, etc.) made the miracle. The big, communicative "social brain" 
(Allman, Dunbar) was essentially born for achieving group nutritional survival. 
Group communion... as is symbolically reminded in some religious rites. (Well, 
as an aside, my own mini-group is cooperating in some microbiome research on a 
very essential nutrient, with very curious results that we will publicize quite 
soon. I cannot help but having the theme in mind!). Anyhow, the final point 
from this ignored vital dependence and from similar ones is that we live 
crisscrossed by multitude of information flows that we are unaware of. That 
some disciplines could have deciphered faster some of them has had a tremendous 
influence on how we have approached during last two generations the whole 
information phenomena. Witness the terrible conceptual problems we have in 
whatever aggregate scales (often, already navigated elegantly by nervous 

The gist of the above tangents, is that some sort of premature closure in the 
the relationship between life and formal/philosophical arenas has introduced an 
unnecessary, cumbersome complexity. New forms of thought and of expression may 
be at hand to clarify the biological/social roots of information/communication 
phenomena, also for better capturing the personal meanings of life in these 
strange times of information and complexity overload. McLuhan revisited... And 
finally, a hint addressed to the quantum oriented colleagues: "When we look at 
a biological system we are looking at the face of the underlying physics of the 
universe." (Michael Conrad, First FIS Conference, Madrid 1994).

It will be quite interesting continuing the present discussion under the new 
themes proposed by Soeren.

Best regards

El 31/03/2016 a las 9:49, Louis H Kauffman escribió:
Dear Folks,
I will close with some comments about the relationship between recursive 
distinctioning and replication in biology.
This will be another example of the sort of modeling excursion that one can 
make by looking at patterns and analogies.


This folder contains links to papers related to Recursive Distinctioning. 
Recursive Distinctioning means just what it says. A pattern of distinctions is 
given in a space based on a graphical structure (such as a line of print or a 
planar lattice or given graph). Each node of the graph is occupied by a letter 
from some arbitrary alphabet. A specialized alphabet is given that can indicate 
distinctions about neighbors of a given node. The neighbors of a node are all 
nodes that are 


Dear FISers and New Colleagues,

Louis H. Kauffman (Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, 
University of Illinois at Chicago) is going to start another short discussion 
session, this time it will be focussed on the biologic. He will concentrate on 
the relationships of formal systems and biology, "to consider and reconsider 
philosophical and phenomenological points of view in relation to natural 
science and mathematics."

If there is any trouble in his kickoff message with the attached presentation 
(ineffable filters of Unizar server!) we would arbitrate some dropbox solution, 
as we did in the previous session.

Best regards to all,

fis list coordination

Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History

Dear Howard and colleagues,

Thanks for the comments on "instinctive" justice. I agree on those evolutionary 
roots, although it is not the kind of complex "invented" justice needed even 
for the early urban settlements. The Hammurabi's legendary code, for instance, 
was in the context of a mostly urban civilization, possessing writing, number 
systems, mass-religion, bureaucracy and very different professions. It was 
written because justice administration could not be left to oral vagaries. 
Celts, conversely, never developed writing systems (& decent number systems) 
and so were unable to go beyond the village/tribe stage, where the 
"instinctive" justice and the face-to-face relationships are sufficient to 
cover the collective organization demands. Their very interesting culture and 
folklore had no parallel in permanent sociopolitical structures, irrespective 
that they could improvise astonishing military rampages. In the book by Jared 
Diamond (Guns, Germs & Steel), there is a very interesting Table in pp. 268-9 
that describes the whole conditions for ascending in social complexity: bands, 
tribes, feuds, kingdoms, empires... Each society has to find, first, an 
adequate ecological environment (or being able to built it "artificially") and 
then has to invent the further organizational requisites (or has to receive 
them from abroad). That Table is quite interesting and may be important for 
further advancing the "informational approach" to human history.

Thereafter, the social "superorganism" becomes possible due to the long term 
work of human knowledge (or "reason" as Hans puts), through language, deictic 
combinatorics, etc., in an exercise of collective intelligence, mostly of the 
AP type (Angelic!). Science as the great social method to 
create/invent/innovate is probably the best paradigm for AP values. Justice is 
as much essential, but the invented one, for it must be differentiated and 
evolved for the larger and larger social organisms. Failure to develop the 
appropriate legal developments and judiciary instances means that the conflicts 
always inherent in the LP human reality will paralyze and even destroy the 
existing social order. Collapse is always close by (what happened with URSS 
colossal empire?). In our times, those perennial, intractable conflicts are 
fueled not just by conflicting memes, but by a series of arbitrariness, errors, 
force exhibitions, retaliations, occupations, etc. that cannot be examined and 
judged by any judiciary system. The Western failure even to glimpse that 
absence is but an epochal blindness.

Bob has drafted the universal drama, where the elements of the two different 
scenarios AP & LP mix and intertwine forming more and more complex tapestries. 
Perhaps the essential point of all this deployment was marked in Howard's first 
paragraph of the kickoff text: "What are the forces of history? And what do 
they have to do with information science?" But a previous question may be in 
order: is "force" the most cogent term to rationalize the upheavals of human 
history? Is "force" an interesting element at all for advancing the 
informational worldview?

Best wishes to all (and particularly thanks to Hans for his hyper-kind comment!)
De: []
Enviado el: miércoles, 06 de enero de 2016 0:37
Asunto: Re: [Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History

good commentary, pedro.

where do compassion and love--the archangel principle--fit into the   lucifer 
principle?  and why have groups progressed in complexity since the end of the 
last ice age eleven thousand years ago?

to form a superorganism, a cohesive group, you need huge amounts of 
collaboration and cooperation.  love is one cohesive force, one bonding 
element, one form of social glue.  justice is another.

justice resolves differences in the group without violence.  justice is at work 
in chimpanzee societies, where new leaders are required to uphold the weak and 
the downtrodden and to settle disputes.  if a new leader doesn't understand 
this imperative and is a mere bully, the females in the group oust him from 

justice is at work in !Kung San societies, where the days are devoted to 
hunting and gathering and the nights are devoted to story telling and dispute 

but where does the increasing complexity of human societies come from?  humans 
are drawn to the sight of other humans.  when architects in the 1960s tried to 
fashion contemplative spaces around office buildings so the buildings'  
inhabitants could get a touch of calm during lunch hours, it didn't work.  the 
buildings' workers shunned the contemplative spots and sat on the buildings' 
outdoor steps.  why?  to watch the sight of other people going by o

Re: [Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History

Dear Howard and Colleagues,

Many thanks for your contribution! This is the third time we have a New Year 
Lecture, and the first one devoted to humanities. Well, to the "inhumanities" 
should I say, as what you have depicted succinctly with the Lucifer Principle 
describes the main evil that has been torturing human history.

There are matters of detail to comment (as previous messages have already 
pointed out), but also of general perspective. First about the apparent 
simplicity. The LP scheme looks simple, too simple... but at the same time it 
may be powerful, really powerful in explanatory capabilities. I really do not 
particularly like any of the three components involved (super-organism, pecking 
order, meme/group-identity), and do not trust much about their respective 
"scientificity", but their combination is chilling. It reminds some of the 
Marxian strictures about class struggle, partially right but missing and 
transposing essential ingredients of human life. Presumably some more 
objectivity in this case --but also missing some counterpart, say the 
"Archangel Principle", that has confronted and resisted the solvent forces of 
the Luciferian complex and, in the long trend, supported the complexity growth 
of societies and improved their structural decency.

With only the action of LP, history would not go beyond barbaric empires 
briefly raising from a mosaic of ever fighting tribes... That's plausible, and 
some parties may remind Tom Stonier in this list, late 90's I think, on warfare 
as part of the adaption scenario of human evolution. Then, what could be the AP 
"bright forces" of history that have counteracted LP? The Pantheon of 
politheistic cultures could give a hint... I venture to single out three 
components of AP: knowledge, justice, and the third... what about 

Anyhow, both the details of your LP scheme and the general canvas of human 
history need an informational perspective, we completely agree. And it is 
interesting that the whole trinity of LP have biological/informational origins; 
but disentangling the info physics from the info bios has not been done yet 
(and so your final comment is well intended but still confusing in my view). 
Let me ad, looking both at the achievements of our times and at the open 
intractable conflicts, that it is amazing the absence of a real international 
system of justice...

Discussing on justice, on its capability to social problem solving and to 
quench the LP permanent hunger, might not be a bad idea.

Best wishes to all for the New Year.

De: Fis [] en nombre de 
Enviado el: lunes, 04 de enero de 2016 6:45
Asunto: [Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History

The Force of History--Howard Bloom

In 1995, I published my first book, The Lucifer Principle: a Scientific 
Expedition Into the Forces of history.  It sold roughly 140,000 copies 
worldwide and is still selling.  Some people call it their Bible.  Others say 
that it was the book that predicted 9/11.  And less than two months ago, on 
November 13, 2015, some current readers said it was the book that explained 
ISIS’ attacks on Paris.  Why?  What are the forces of history?  And what do 
they have to do with information science?
The Lucifer Principle uses evolutionary biology, group selection, neurobiology, 
immunology, microbiology, computer science, animal behavior, and anthropology 
to probe mass passions, the passions that have powered historical movements 
from the unification of China in 221 BC and the start of the Roman  Empire in 
201 BC  to the rise of the Empire of Islam in 634 AD and that empire’s modern 
manifestations, the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran and ISIS, the 
Islamic State, a group intent on establishing a global caliphate.  The Lucifer 
Principle concludes that the passions that swirl, swizzle, and twirl history’s 
currents are a secular trinity.  What are that trinity’s three components?  The 
superorganism, the pecking order, and ideas.
What’s a superorganism?  Your body is an organism. But it’s also a massive 
social gathering.  It’s composed of a hundred trillion cells.  Each of those 
cells is capable of living on its own.  Yet your body survives thanks to the 
existence of a collective identity—a you.  In 
 Harvard biologist William Morton Wheeler noticed that ant colonies pull off 
the same trick.  From 20,000 to 36 million ants work together to create an 
emergent property, a collective identity, the identity of a community, a 
society, a colony, or a supercolony.  Wheeler observed how the colony behaved 
as if it were a single organism.  He called the result a 
Meanwhile in roughly 1900, when he was still a child, Norway’s Thorleif 
Schjelderup Ebbe got into a strange habit: counting the number of pecks the 
chickens in his family’s flock landed 


Dear FIS Colleagues,

During these early days of 2016, we will have the customary New Year Lecture, 


Imparted by:

Howard Bloom

Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of 
Member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement 
of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human 
Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology, 
Scientific Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, 
Journal of Space Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, 
National Space Society. Etc.

Best wishes to all, and a Happy New Year!

Fis mailing list

[Fis] RV: Tragedy in USA (from Krassimir)


De: Krassimir Markov []

-Original Message-

Dear Michel and FIS Colleagues,

Please, let me share the sorrow about victims of the terror!

Now the world is under great danger!
Civilization could not stop the aggression!

We need to understand clearly the origin of these processes.

It is in the new level of separating of world based on economical interests.

At the first place, I can point the aggression of Russia against Ukraine
which started the new type of war - The Hybrid war!!!

Many specialists point it as the III World War!

With deep sympathy to families and relatives of victims,


-Original Message-
From: Michel Petitjean
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2015 2:48 PM
To: fis
Subject: [Fis] Tragedy in USA

Dear All,

Please let me address my condolences to the families of the victims of
the killing at San Bernardino.

Here follows a list :
(partial; apologies for the forgotten items)

Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Cameroon, Denmark, India, Indonesia,
Irak, Egypt, France, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Tchad,
Tunisia, UK, USA, ...

Anybody can be victim : young, old, man, woman, christian, muslim,
living in a pacific country or not, ...

Political problems explain few.
Most of that is due to obscurantism, conjugated to the ambition of
some gurus of sects, who do not care about the lives of the victims
and of lives of the mistaken young people serving these gurus.

No progress since the Middle Ages.
No progress since the Antiquity.

Education was efficient for sciences and techniques, but light is
still missing in our poor brains.


Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

[Fis] RV: FIS List – Locality? From Marcus

The list is now working well, all should address their messages directly... 

De: Marcus Abundis []
Enviado el: lunes, 28 de septiembre de 2015 17:57
Para: Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Asunto: FIS List – Locality?

Hi Stephen,

I am embarrassed to admit I feel I don't quite grasp the notion of Locality 
you reference. This seems to be a key initial concept in your model, and thus I 
feel I cannot comment specifically on following matters. By locality do you 
mean the “fact“ of specific items being specifically situated in specific 
environments? Please point me to the passage/post where you feel you explain 
this most succinctly (sorry?).

Otherwise, I *think* I agree with the general Gestalt of your model . . . 
but again I am getting stuck early on and cannot comment specifically. Help is 
appreciated . . .


Marcus Abundis

Fis mailing list

[Fis] RV: What are information and science?

Dear FIS colleagues,

The message (below) is quite interesting, as were several others e.g., the 
ongoing exchange between Moises and Loet. The clever work on the maps of 
science can help quite a bit to provide a more firm grounding to the whole 
informational enterprise (domain) and to others disciplines of our choice --a 
renewed info science as the strategic nucleus of the domain.

As for Marcus' question, each one can answer from his/her standpoint on 
information. As I have often advocated in this list about info as distinction 
on the adjacent, mostly looking for a pan-biological and pan-human sense, then 
the big enterprise of science indeed becomes informational, and the 
particular disciplines of concern may be seen as the artificial ordering of 
distinctions... in the term artificial (or 'art-full') would enter the 
particular rules and conditions (entities, presences, absences, processes, 
experiences, logics, communities) that concern each discipline.

With an explicit caveat, that disciplines are not rational constructs but 
historical ones, and contain highly heterogeneous stuff, in general not 
amenable to single-logics explanation concerning their foundations, 
developments, paradigms, etc. Besides, they number in the thousands, for they 
are social-informational in the deepest sense, containing a division of work 
tailored to the cognitive limits of the individual. So, as more knowledge 
accumulates, disciplines split and new communities of problem-solvers are 
formed, or they are dissolved when the contents become obsolete (Max Planck 
made a much-cited sardonic comment about that). Along this line, recent 
particularities of big science and professional science of our times appear 
more sensibly, somehow.

In these disciplinary  social accumulation of knowledge matters, the point of 
view of info science has a relative advantage, but it needs to be accompanied 
by cohorts of other disciplines, depending on the troubling informational 
aspect we inquire... I would never bet for a new info-reductionism, or 
explanatory monism, science is an elegant Babel construction always condemned 
--or enjoying-- the plurality of disciplinary languages and views. So our 
continuous dialog!!


De: Fis [] en nombre de Marcus Abundis 
Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de mayo de 2015 6:45
Asunto: [Fis] What are information and science?

Greetings to all,

As I read these comments I have a hard time finding an effective anchor 
upon which to add notes. I see informational processes as essentially being 
proto-scientific – how is any science not an informational process? First, I 
think this places me in the camp of Peirce's view. Second, I am unsure of how 
to regard the focus on higher-order interdisciplinary discussions when a much 
more essential view of lower-order roles (i.e., What are science and 
information?) has not been first established.

From my naive view I find myself wondering how informational process is 
not the ONE overarching discipline from which all other disciplines are born 
(is this too psychological of a framework?). As such, I argue for one great 
discipline . . . and thus wouldn't try to frame my view in terms of science, 
mostly because I am unclear on how the term science is being formally used 
here. Thoughts?

Marcus Abundis

Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list



De: Rafael Capurro []
Enviado el: martes, 19 de mayo de 2015 14:06
Asunto: Re: Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

...then the problem is, how can a 'realist' detach theoretical problems
from the real problems of the real world. Mario Bunge said once that
Popper's 'world 3' is a platonic phantasy and Carl Friedrich von
Weizsäcker told me about Popper'ontology' it is bad ontology. To put
it more crude: if after a catastrophic event all human beings (or beings
capable of understanding what is put in 'world 3') disappear then 'world
3' is meaningless. Or: it makes no sense (to me) to advocate for the
independence of each of the three 'worlds' and to speak of 'worlds' when
talking about 'things' that cannot be be counted _as_ worlds.

Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics 
Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information 
Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, 
South Africa.
Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (
Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) 
Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)

Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Steps to a theory of reference significance

Thanks for the response Jeremy. I appreciate the rigor of your piratic comments 
(perhaps at fis we are more relaxed concocting the arguments; rather than a 
tightly-knit discussion group, fis is more like a caravan of very heterogenous 
knowledge traders)... Anyhow, concerning the plausibility of approaching the 
prokaryotic, it is an attempt that my mini-group has developed in several works 
(not very successfully attracting the attention of peers; but, helas, that's 
quite another matter!), see: On prokaryotic Intelligence... (Marijuan et al., 
BioSystems 99,2,94-103, 2010) which is perhaps the best exemplar. Also del 
Moral et al. in 
43(6):846-864, 2014, and several others focused in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. 
Even at the very elementary level we have worked, there seems to be ample room 
for advancing in information-related directions. Perfectly congruent with the 
main theme of this discussion too (reference  significance). Beyond the single 
cell level, there are several information-thresholds of 
communication-thresholds in biological evolution that need to be understood 
better. Once crossed, complexity runaways take place ... (also in our 
societies). I think the story would make better sense if the intertwining of 
self-production flows and communication flows is contemplated differently, 
entering the idea of absence too (at least, I have also attempted!). Although 
minimally, we should be able to contribute to the social-informational arena of 
our times. See for instance the great works on social physics by Alex 
Pentland (shouldn't it be social information science?). But in order to do 
that, we should take care that the microphysical advances in the foundations of 
information can escalate with some parsimony...

These comments have become pretty tangential --but often at fis we draw this 
sort of free wheeling tangents!
best ---Pedro

De: Jeremy Sherman []
Enviado el: viernes, 09 de enero de 2015 0:39
Cc: fis
Asunto: Re: [Fis] Steps to a theory of reference  significance

Hi Pedro,

Jeremy Sherman here, a long-time pirate. Pleased to meet you. You say:

I am also critical with the autogenesis model systems--wouldn't it be far 
clearer approaching a (relatively) simple prokaryotic cell and discuss upon its 
intertwining of the communication and self-production arrangements? The way a 
bacterium sees the world, and reorganizes its living, could be a very useful 
analysis. I think it leads to a slightly different outcome regarding 
reference/significance, and meaning/value/fitness.

Terry and the Pirates have a long standing rule: One cannot employ as 
explanation that which hasn't yet been explained. Failing to hold this standard 
opens researchers up to merely taxonomical work, positing forces, properties 
and capacities defined solely by their consequences, in effect mistaking 
questions as answers. Hence, our focus on exploring reference at its earliest 
possible emergence, and explaining exactly how that emergence occurs, since 
emergence is also a question, not an answer, an explanandum not an explanan.

Somewhat related, I recently came across this:

Epistemological particularism is the belief that one can know something without 
knowing how one knows that 
 By this understanding, one's knowledge is justified before one knows how such 
belief could be justified. Taking this as a philosophical approach, one would 
ask the question What do we know? before asking How do we know? The term 
appears in Roderick Chisholm's 
The Problem of the 
Criterion, and in the 
work of his student, Ernest Sosa 
(The Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence versus Foundations in the Theory of 
Knowledge). Particularism is contrasted with 
Methodism, which answers 
the latter question before the former. Since the question What do we know 
implies that we know, particularism is considered fundamentally anti-skeptical, 
and was ridiculed by Kant in 

We Pirates do what we can to stay on the epistemological methodist side of 

Even the simplest prokaryotic cell is extraordinarily complex. We don't want to 
run before we can walk.  The briskest runners-before-walkers are those who want 
to go straight from physics to human consciousness, a leap that we think makes 
the endeavor thoroughly intractable.



On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
Dear Terry and colleagues,


Re: [Fis] MEPP

Terry, about the below, it is quite correct; you don't need to respond all 
messages, even more if they leave the main theme. Usually the two messages per 
week rule terminates automatically those chained responses and 
counter-responses. In any case, it is upon you, our invitee.  best --Pedro

De: Fis [] en nombre de Terrence W. DEACON 
Enviado el: sábado, 10 de enero de 2015 20:14
Para: Stanley N Salthe
Cc: fis
Asunto: Re: [Fis] MEPP

[...] Since MEPP is not the point of the paper and the information proposal is 
dependent on which interpretation of MEPP we accept, we should
probably continue this aspect of the discussion off list (perhaps with
Guy and my colleague Koutroufinis) so that it doesn't clog up the
discussion space [any feedback on this use from our moderator?]...

Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

[Fis] RV: Response to Pedro's first comments. --Bob Ulanowicz

Message from Bob Ulanowicz

De: Robert E. Ulanowicz []
Enviado el: viernes, 09 de enero de 2015 19:30
Asunto: Re: [Fis] Response to Pedro's first comments:

Terry Deacon wrote:

 3. The self-regulating self-repairing end-directed dynamic of autogenesis
 provides a disposition to preserve a reference target state (even when its
 current state is far from it). This serves as the necessary baseline for
 comparative assessment, without which reference and significance cannot be
 defined because these are intrinsically relativistic informational
 properties (there is a loose analogy here to the 3rd law of thermodynamics
 and the relativistic nature of thermodynamic entropy).

I think Terry does us a service by invoking the Third Law. We often forget
that information and entropy (complementarities) are both necessarily
relative to a reference distribution. What Terry's Autogen does is
establish an *extrinsic* reference point, which is helpful in maintaining

I'll just remark that internal reference is possible as well. For example,
when Rutledge et al. (J. Theor. Biol. 57:355-371) applied IT to weighted
digraphs, they accomplished a stroke of genius by comparing the
distribution of outputs from each node to the corresponding distribution
of inputs into the *same* set of nodes. Thereby the self-referential
mutual information that results quantifies the organization intrinsic to
the network. None of the formalities of communication theory need be

Unlike with Autogen, there is no halting to this process. When applied to
an autocatalytic set of processes, internal self-selection of nodes and
properties ensues that tends to increase the mutual information of the
system. Bertrand Russell saw in this tendency towards self-organization
(and the concomitant centripetality it induces) the primary drive for

Even though self-reference is not extrinsic, it nonetheless can function
as an asymmetric form of homeostasis. If any disturbance occurs which
decreases mutual information (organization), the natural tendency is to
push the system back in the direction from which it was disturbed. If it
returns near to its undisturbed state, one can call this healing. If it
goes towards to different but survivable (or even more propitious) state,
then evolution has occurred.

Best to all,

Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: +1-352-378-7355
Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory  |  FAX: +1-352-392-3704
Department of Biology  |  Emeritus, Chesapeake Biological Lab
Bartram Hall 110   |  University of Maryland
University of Florida  |  Email
Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA |  Web

Fis mailing list

[Fis] FIS 20, Summer in Varna

Dear FISers,
this is a reminder about the FIS Summer Conference in Varna to celebrate the 20 
years of this initiative. Below I include the basic technical information of 
the meeting. An important point: the period for early inscription and important 
discount in hotel prices will end the next 28 February. The meeting  will start 
on 3th July with a celebratory Gala Dinner --and toasts!-- followed by two work 
days in July 4-5. Given that we will hold the meeting conjointly with GIT 
sessions (General Information Theory), the FIS conference might be extended to 
the 6th July, depending on the number of inscriptions. Apart from the 
individual presentations, some general discussions are planned: 
definition/undefinition of information, consensus notion on information, 
strategies for the renewal and extension of information science, the next 20 
years... All parties from the germane organizations (IS4IS, ITHEA, Symmetry 
Institute, Chinese Sections...) are cordially invited to share a nice time in 
Best regards,
ITHEA International Scientific Society-- ITA 2014
GIT  FIS 2014
XX-th anniversary of FIS initiative
XII-th International Conference
General Information Theory

- February 28, 2014: booking of hotel, submission of registration forms and 
visa application forms by e-mail: and
- March 31, 2014: submission of final paper by the ITHEA ISS Submission Web 
- April 15, 2014: notification of the paper acceptance by the ITHEA ISS 
Submission Web System
The camera-ready copy of the manuscript should be received by the ITHEA Journal 
Submission System ( http://ij.ithea.org ) or respectively 
by the ITHEA Conference Submission System ( 
http://ita.ithea.org ); e-mail for questions:
Please observe the folling rules and deadlines!
Manuscripts need to be formatted in DOC or TeX formats according the sample 
sheets given at:
- DOC template:
- TeX template:
Accepted manuscripts will be published by ITHEA as follow:
- regular papers in English or Russian from 4 up to 12 pages and long papers or 
surveys in English from 12 up to 20 pages will be published  in the 
International Journal Information Theories and Application ®(IJ ITA), 
International Journal Information Technologies and Knowledge®(IJ ITK), and 
International Journal “Information Models and Analyses” ®(IJ IMA).


Membership of ITHEA ISS is free and may be done by registration at the 
Submit registration cards and visa forms to: Krassimir Markov, e-mail:

Registration Fee is EURO 250 or 500 Leva per paper.
Registration fee for members of ITHEA ISS: EUR 150 or 300 Leva.
Registration fee includes publication fee and participation fee for one person.

Publication Fee is EURO 125 or 250 Leva per paper.
Publication fee for members of ITHEA ISS: EURO 75 or 150 Leva per paper.
Publication fee includes only one exemplar of the issue in which the paper has 
been published.

Participation Fee is EURO 125 or 250 Leva per presentation.
Participation Fee for members of ITHEA ISS: EURO 75 or 150 Leva per paper.
Participation fee includes participation for one person and permits 
presentation of one paper without publishing.

Accompanying Persons’ Fee is EURO 50

Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformacion / Bioinformation Group

Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. San Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza
Tfno. +34 976 71 68 18
fis mailing list

[Fis] RV: Encoding and Decoding information-- From Jerry Chandler


De: [] en 
nombre de Jerry LR Chandler []
Enviado el: domingo, 02 de febrero de 2014 6:33
Asunto: Re: Encoding and Decoding information

From: Jerry LR Chandler
Subject: Encoding and Decoding information
Date: February 1, 2014 11:30:44 PM CST


John writes:

Sometimes ignored in the mathematics of Shannon's approach are the coding and 
decoding steps, which he does not put in mathematical form, but appear in his 

John, I think your remark goes to the very heart of the problems of foundations 
of information sciences.

I heartily concur.

I would add a couple of brief comments on why this is such a profoundly 
difficult problem.  Over the years, I have attempted to induce a conversation 
here on FIS on the coding problems, to no avail. I am delighted to learn of 
your interest in it. Problems of this depth strain our individual and 
collective resources.

At the root of the problem, from my perspective, is the very notion of codes. 
In the absence of direct sensory communication, all human communication is by 
artifacts, symbol systems invented and used by individuals.  A priori, all 
symbol systems, as human artifacts, must be learned anew by each passing 
generation. As human inventions, no necessity for consistency exists. They are 
intrinsically unstable. Ever human being tends to adapt their own perspectives 
on the meaning, if any, of a particular code.

The two exceptions are the codes for mathematics and chemistry. The rigid 
structure of number systems and arithmetic operations is sufficient to preserve 
the foundation codes of arithmetic for millennia, since the Sumerians, yet 
flexible enough to allow steady expansions of meanings of new symbols.  The 
code of chemistry is grounded in physical atomism. Natural elements are rigidly 
defined in terms of properties that appear to be stable for millions/billions 
of years

Thus, as social communities, the mathematicians and the chemists communicate 
very effectively within their own symbol systems. But no formal logic exists 
which match the meanings of these two coding systems.

Other communities, for example, philosophy and political and economic and music 
and religion and ... have deep problems in establishing consistent encoding and 
decoding pathways. The nature of encoding and decoding severely limit the 
discourse in bio-semiotics and make communication extremely difficult. The many 
conundrums in bio-semiotics are often merely mis-codings of natural processes.

In my own lifelong work on biological mutations as changes of the biological 
encoding of information, I have encountered conundrums of encoding and decoding 
in its many molecular biological forms. It appears to involve many forms of 
differential equations.

IMO, An understanding of the processes of encoding and decoding is essential to 
the understanding of the foundations of information sciences.

A trivial example of the perplexities of encoding and decoding are the 
relationships among computer languages, an area that Ted Gorenson has focused a 
lot of attention and who I have learned much from.



On Feb 1, 2014, at 5:09 AM, wrote:

Send fis mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of fis digest...
Today's Topics:

  1. Re: The Interaction Man (John Collier)
  2. Re: The Interaction Man  Cognitive Informatics
 (Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic)

From: John Collier
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Interaction Man
Date: February 1, 2014 12:26:09 AM CST
To: Bob Logan


Sometimes ignored in the mathematics of Shannon's approach are the coding and 
decoding steps, which he does not put in mathematical form, but appear in his 

There has been some work in this area, the best of which I think to be 
Information Flow by Barwise and Seligman. It is a difficult book, and could 
have been a lot more clear. In any case there is a potential solution to the 
coding issue in the idea of infomorphisms being relations between two sets of 
classifications. The 

Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture


Dear Hans and FIS colleagues,

Thanks for the elegant text! It marks a great beginning for the FIS tradition 
of celebrating a Lecture with the New Year!

Not being very conversant with QM interpretations let me restrict myself to 
general aspects of QBism that grab my attention. First, about the 
reinterpretation of the relationship between subject and object. In my own 
views, as discussed in the recent Xian meeting, self-production and 
communication (signaling) should go hand with hand in the definition of the 
basic informational entities. The way these two aspects interlock and how 
inferences are made by the informational entity strongly reminds me the 
reappraisal of human experience proposed by QBism. How should we contemplate 
the necessarily social dimension of human knowledge? The quotations in the text 
and those from Schrodinger and Freud in Ref. 2 are excellent. About that, in 
middle 90's I worked (following maverick K.P. Collins) on the automatization 
of knowledge within central nervous systems. I think some of those ideas are 
still valid and in strong sync with these Bayesian inspired views. The 
intrinsic duality of knowledge was one of the outcomes.

Information in QM, whatever the interpretation, becomes itself a big word. 
Technically, Quantum Information Science has become a pan-inclusive term also 
encompassing Q Computing. Let me put a minor question then: would QBism 
become the most natural framework for Qbitsm? Or perhaps the subjective 
understanding of qubits might not be totally compatible with their applied use 
in quite definite computations? But it is really a minor thing. What I most 
like of this new quantum approach is the radicalism regarding meaning, 
experience, knowledge, science... This is good news for the people who sees 
information science as an occasion to contemplate anew the relationship of the 
individual with the increasing stock of knowledge accumulated by our 
civilization, where the ratio of our individual experience to the total is 
acceleratedly approaching zero!, and where the blind spots of collective 
intelligence are shining in too many areas of global life... It is healthy that 
the explicit limitation of the individual is also a message contained in QBism, 
at least in my understanding --seemingly, one of the proponents of QBism, 
Robert Spekkens, has developed some of the fundamental characteristics of 
QTheory by imposing a knowledge balance principle on the bits that a limited 
observer can exchange with its environment.

In comparison with other interpretations, there is QBism's good sense (Occam's 
razor) in not multiplying the universes just to save a theory, like the 
many-worlds interpretation does. Probably, as John says, there is something 
visceral in how realist and antirealist positions are taken, or in how the 
Bayesian or the frequentist approach to probability are taken. In any case, we 
have a lot to gain in information science by staying closer and cooperating 
with our Q Information colleagues, particularly with this new QBism 
interpretation.  Altough these topics are really difficult, we should try to 
connect... at least I promise to re-read the references and get more to the 
point during next weeks.

Thanks again for your brilliant opening lecture Hans, in the best style. 
Hopefully there will be great continuators too in the coming years.

fis mailing list

[Fis] RV: Nomino-realism and QM? Modal Possibilty or Modal Necessary Logic?


De: en nombre de Jerry LR Chandler []
Enviado el: viernes, 03 de enero 2014
List, Joseph:

On Jan 3, 2014, at 2:55 AM, wrote:

Happy New Year and Goodwill to all FIS'ers and distinguished guests!

I found the concept of Quantum Bayesianism as presented by Professor von Baeyer 
most interesting. From the point of view of bringing the subject-object balance 
back into physics it is very congenial to Logic in Reality (LIR). I have 
several criticisms of this approach, however, which I will try to make clear in 
the absence of any real skills in quantum mechanics:

1. QBism seems not to consider the option of using non-standard, 
non-Kolmogorivian probabilities to describe quantum and non-quantum nature, 
that is, with values 0 but 1.

2. It excludes the case, impossible by classical logic, but basic to physics 
and LIR, of a dynamic interaction between the subject and the object which 
allows both views (belief and facts) to be partly true or better operative 
at the same time or at different times.

3. Since the QBism interpretation does not deal with points 1. and 2. above 
(also in the Fuchs, Mermin, Shack paper), it leaves the door open to an 
anti-realist interpretation not only of quantum mechanical reality, but of 
reality /tout court/ which must be based on and reflect the quantum 'situation'.

I would welcome responses to the above that might help me and others understand 
the scope of QBism and whether, as I hope, my LIR approach, which is based on 
values like non-standard probabilities might actually supplement rather than 
contradict it.

Best wishes,


A quick response to your questions:

1. Why do you assume that the Bayesian approach excludes “non-standard” 

2. How does the grammatical assumptions of subject and object relate to 
Bayesian concepts?

3. Realism is intrinsic to the initial conditions for representation of quantum 
particle, is it not?.  Indeed, the very notion of quantum systems presuppose a 
form of both nominalism and realism.  In other words, quantum-mechanical  
systems of equations presuppose nomino-realism.  This is a necessity of 
representation of physical motion, is it not?

Happy New Year, Everyone!



fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] social flow

Dear FIS colleagues,

Many thanks for the comments exchanged.
Welcome to Roly, the first party of the Xian's conference publishing in the 
list (I mean concerning the invited speakers, as Bi-Lin who also posted 
recently was a Xian participant too). I agree with Roli's interpretation and 
Joseph's points, and also with the direction started by John. It is one of the 
few times we are producing interesting ideas on social information 
infrastructures. Perhaps at the time being the received wisdom on 
communication  social information is not working terribly well.  For instance, 
Jakobson six communication functions could be perfectly collapsed into three, 
or expanded into nine... I have found a similar relativity in the not so many 
approaches to cellular / biological communication.
One of the essential points to reconsider is, in my opinion, the lack of 
connection between communication and life itself. Without entering 
self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning. The notion of 
information flow (rather than the signal) has helped me to cohere the 
cellular intertwining scheme. But, little problem, how can the gap to the human 
dimension be crossed? Essentially human communication is not logical, but 
bio-logical... amorphously structured around the advancement of one's life, and 
that includes masterminding well organized motor apparatuses, as those involved 
in language production and language interpretation (cerebellar computation). 
Logics is a byproduct of this motor/perceptual system underlying our concepts 
and the interlinking of our exchnges, which becomes mastermined by the fitness 
demands within social groups --responding to Bi-Lin's off line comments too. 
Actually most of our social exchanges are supradetermined by status, 
self-image, ambitions, affinity, collective identities, deception, 
self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life itself!
Haven't we a lot of work to be done in these essential matters?

best ---Pedro

De: Joseph Brenner []
Enviado el: jueves, 21 de noviembre de 2013 20:22
Asunto: Re: [Fis] social flow

Dear Roly, Dear Pedro,

Thank you for taking this thread in a for me very interesting direction. As you 
know, interesting means what I find my logical system can confirm, improve, 
validate, etc. The two notes share one feature that one might criticize, 
namely, that they deal essentially with present, conscious material, whereas 
information flow almost  by defintion seems to involve components that are 
absent, potential, unconscious, etc.

Similarly, the application of the Square of Opposition in Roly's reference 
would at first sight appear to be explanatory, but on closer inspection, I find 
everything reduced back to binary logic, arrows in a box. What has to be added, 
pace Jakobson, is some notion of the actual dynamics of what Roly calls a 
mutual relateable framework. And let's not be too greedy: let's get the 
pairwise interactions right and then see where we can go with more complex ones.



- Original Message -
From: Roly
To: Pedro C.
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow

Dear Pedro

Thank you! there is some sort of synchronicity here: I was just recently 
thinking about Roman Jakobson and his 6 levels of semiotic analysis. Especially 
the phatic expression, as some kind of white noise that is necessary for the 
interpersonal informational handshake. That is, an infosphere - be it organic 
or more like artificial info networks - would need to have actants operate in a 
mutually relateable framework (even if it is only pairwise).

The meaningless/senseless datum is important for establishing the lines of 
communication, and perhaps some emergent properties (such as intimacy, 
grouping, pre-communicative  acceptance).
Do you know of any quantified work re Jakobson? (I keep 
 around for different purposes)


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
Dear FIS colleagues,

Just a wandering thought, in part motivated by the highly formal
contents of the other discussion track. What are the major contents,
topics, and styles in our social, spontaneous exchanges? Seemingly the
response is that most of those exchanges are just casual, irrelevant,
performed for their own sake. There are scholarly references about
that---though our own perusal of social life may quite agree. The
information flow, the circulation of social information, becomes the
message itself (echoing McLuhan), amorphously gluing the different
networks of the social


Dear FISers,

We are starting the new course 2013-14. Lets begin by

Raquel del Moral
(Bioinformation Group, IACS)

The kickoff text will be posted next days...

Best wishes,
fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Information Revolution/ What next? --Msg from V.A.


- Mensaje original -
De: vann1936
Fecha: Jueves, 2 de Mayo de 2013, 9:06 am
Asunto: Fwd: Information Revolution/ What next?
A: Marijuan Pedro C.

 Dear Pedro
 Sorry to disturb you by a communication problemI failed to send this message 
 to the directly. Could you help?

(Thanks,Vladimir! --Pedro)

-- Forwarded message --
 From: vann1936
 Date: 2013/5/2
 Subject: Information Revolution/ What next?
 Dear colleagues
 I am impressed by the poem The Song of the Computer, as well as comments on 
 Information Revolution in Moscow I reply by other poem.  
 Песня Интернету         The Song of the Internet 
 Русский текст – Владимир Анненков; translated to English by Vladimir 
 Я люблю тебя, Сеть,   I like you, the Net!
  Что само по себе и не ново.     It is no new for brain :)
  Я люблю тебя, Сеть,   I like you, the Net!
  Я люблю тебя снова и снова.        I like you again and again
 Чуть забрезжил рассвет,   Just the sun is rising, 
  Снова в Сеть выхожу я упрямо. I enter the Internet.Я люблю тебя, Сеть,
        I like you, the Net.
  И хочу, чтобы лучше ты стала. I hope, you’ll be best
   Нам немало дано -        Now we haveИнтернет как 
глобальная пряжа.   Internet like a global web.
  Нам известно давно:           Long ago we know:В океане плыть надо 
отважно.   In the ocean float doughtily Неизвестных морей      
   Reach new seas
  Достигать, чтоб раскрыть его тайны.   To discover their mysteries.И единства 
людей                Achieve human unity
 Добиваться в потоке СО-ЗНАНИЯ.In the flow of our Consciousness
 *  As a geographer then scholar of information science and technology, as 
 well as an adult facilitator in net communities I use the Internet since 
  There are many thought and feel with WWW. I wrote this poem February 14 2009. 
We were fast to create WWW, but are slow to understand all consequences for 
learning in the XXI century. 

Global Communication over Clouds This is my answer to the question: 
Information revolution/What is next? Due to Internet the net communities add 
new dimension to traditional face-to-face societies. Now we can communicate in 
global village in real time. And to prepare the meeting in Moscow May 21-24 in 
previous distant communication. We may beguin just now in 
 Good luckVladimir Annenkov,  
 (This is an experiment of collecting materials on info for a personal culture 
 of teacher-learner)!forum/isis-2013 (This is a new group for 
 discussing issues of the FIS 2013. Welcome!)

fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] FIS News (Moscow 2013)

Dear Joseph and FIS colleagues,

Thanks for the friendly message. Let me introduce you all the organizing team 
of the Open University conference: Magnus Ramage, David Chapman, and Chris 
Bissell --they did a great job there and we are fortunate that they have joined 
our list too. As I invited them during the conference, they could chair our 
next discussion session, in a few weeks or days if they wish. A short text of 
around 500 or 800 words with some focus in themes discussed at Milton Keynes 
would suffice to kick off the discussion. As other people have recently joined 
the list, all of them should remind our strict limitation of a maximum of two 
messages per week. This is a list emphasizing slow thinking and scholarship.

By the way, my management experience during all these months has lead me to 
think and start work on a new theme: the information flow in complex 
organizations. The properties or limits of natural communication (conversation) 
in our social groups determine the structural patterns of complex bureaucratic 
organizations...  terrible committees included! Next weeks I will post more on 

best wishes


- Mensaje original -
Fecha: Viernes, 12 de Abril de 2013, 7:12 pm
Asunto: RE: [Fis] FIS News (Moscow 2013)
A:, br
 !--div.bwmail { background-color:#ff; font-family: Trebuchet 
 MS,Arial,Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; margin:0; 
 padding:0;}div.bwmail p { margin:0; padding:0; }div.bwmail table { 
 font-family: Trebuchet MS,Arial,Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; 
 }div.bwmail li { margin:0; padding:0; }--  
 Dear Pedro,
 Glad to hear from you. Your silence was, of course, expressive, containing 
 much information . . .
 Now all of us will be waiting impatiently to learn about the the new, 
 exciting themes that were discussed at the Milton Keynes Conference.
 Best wishes,
 Message d'origine
 Date: 12.04.2013 11:02
 Objet: [Fis] FIS News (Moscow 2013)
 Dear FIS Friends,
 Apologies for my long silence. As I have already said several times, my 
 science management duties are killing not only my time but also my nerve 
 (well, not completely!). Imagine what is happening with the financing 
 and organization of Spanish science these years...
 Anyhow, a couple of good news about our common Information Science 
 endeavor. First, there has been an excellent conference in Milton 
 Keynes, organized by the Open University, about Information (the 
 difference that makes a difference). Quite exciting discussions on our 
 most dear themes, and some new ones that we have rarely addressed here. 
 The organizers, a very active team indeed, are cordially invited to lead 
 a discussion session in our FIS list to continue with the conceptual 
 explorations addressed in their conference.
 And the second news is about an imminent FIS CONFERENCE, MOSCOW 2013, 
 the Sixth FIS, and the 1st of the ISIS organization. It will be held 
 this May, from 21 to 24 in Moscow. This time the Russian organizers have 
 followed a singular procedure, a relatively closed conference centered 
 in the diffusion of information science in the Russian scientific 
 community.  At the time being, to my knowledge (I could not follow very 
 well the process), only the members of the ISIS board have been enlisted 
 as foreign participants. But given that there will be several absences, 
 interested FIS parties might ask about their possible participation.  
 The schedule is too tight for travels, visas etc, and again I have to 
 apologize for not having posted this info before (info glut!). In any 
 case, am sure that our colleague Konstantin  Kolin ( ), 
 leading organizer, and member of the Russian Academy of Science, will be 
 happy to respond to interested parties and help them to accelerate the 
 Best wishes to all
 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)
 fis mailing list

fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Dark Matter (R.Ulanowicz)


- Mensaje original -
De: Robert Ulanowicz
Fecha: Sábado, 29 de Diciembre de 2012, 4:26 pm
 We know that the Fine-Structure Constant, alpha, has changed 
 over the
 course of the universe I 
 wrote in my
 last book how I suspect others have evolved as well.
 What is needed is a good dimensional analysis. Unfortunately,
 dimensional analysis seems foreign to physicists. Otherwise, they
 wouldn't be making some of the incredible claims that are 
 abroad! :)
 Quoting Stanley N Salthe
  Gordana has said:
  Information and Energy/Matter
    What can we hope for from studies of information 
 related to energy/matter
  (as it appears for us in space/time)? Information is a concept 
 known for
  its ambiguity in both common, everyday use and in its specific 
 technical applications throughout different fields of research 
 and technology.
  However, most people are unaware that matter/energy today is 
 also a concept
  surrounded by a disquieting uncertainty. What for Democritus 
 were building
  blocks of the whole universe appear today to constitute only 
 4% of its
  observed content. (NASA 2012) [1] The rest is labeled dark matter
  (conjectured to explain gravitational effects otherwise 
 unaccounted for)
  and dark energy (introduced to account for the expansion of the
  universe). We do not know what dark matter and dark energy 
 actually are. This indicates that our present understanding of 
 the structure of the
  physical world needs re-examination. [...]
  Information and Energy/Matter
  Gordana Dodig Crnkovic
  Information 2012, 3(4), 751-755;
  Special Issue Information and Energy/Matter
  See it on (
  , via Papers (
  I would like to inquire whether any fis'rs might react to the 
 following notion:
  Dark matter is postulated because the amount of matter 
 detectable in
  galaxies would be insufficient alone to explain how they hold 
 together given the value of the gravitational constant.
  However, the information we glean from galaxies represents 
 their condition
  as it was a very long time ago, in an earlier universe.
  Is it not possible to resolve this puzzle less radically than 
 by inventing
  dark matter by supposing that the gravitational constant has 
 not been
  constant but has instead been changing, and was much stronger 
 in the past,
  which is when we detect these distant clusters of 
 matter?  Perhaps G as
  been scaled to the rate of expansion of space?  Perhaps 
 the rate of
  expansion was greater then than now, even with current acceleration?

fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Step Six

Sorry for the delay, Karl. Here it is.  ---Pedro

- Mensaje original -
De: Karl Javorszky
Fecha: Martes, 18 de Diciembre de 2012, 3:55 pm
Asunto: spam filter
A: Pedro C. Marijuan

 Hi Pedro,
 happy Xmas and New Year!
 The spam filter has rejected Step Six. Maybe you could ask it to 
 publish it?
  Step Six of Learn to
 Count in Twelve Easy StepsWhat happened
 previously:  Step 1.:We have introduced
 additional describing aspects of the logical sentence a+b=c. Next to a,b,c, we
 also make use of u=b-a, k=b-2a, t=2b-3a, q=a-2b, s=17-(a+b|c), w=2a-3b.Step 
 2.:We have introduced the
 collection of additions we shall use. We have generated the aspects
 {a,b,c,k,u,t,q,s,w} of the 136 smallest pairs of a,b. Step 3.:We have shown 
 that a sort
 on the data set – with any of the aspects as first, a different aspect as the
 second sorting argument – assigns a place to an addition; different sorts may
 assign different places.Step 4.:Ordering the data set on
 all pairs of aspects brings forth 72 variants of realisations of the order
 principle based on {|=|}. Some of the sorting orders are identical,
 some contradictory. The contradictions are visible on
 {place|amount|frequency|order}. The task is to consolidate the
 contradictions.Step 5.:Those sorting orders which
 to each addition assign identical sequential numbers build a common “clan”
 together. In the version of the Table presented here, 20 clans are visible.
 Members of a clan can differ on their number of teeth; the place of an element
 within a tie is not quite indeterminable but is rather dependent of how finely
 has the preceding sorting order had sorted previously.Step 
 6.:Reordering:After having eliminated the
 easy cases, where no reordering is needed, we now confront the mechanics of
 transforming the sequence alphabeta into the sequence gammadelta. (V[alfabeta,
 gammadelta]=.f.) This procedure is called “reordering” and as its effect, an
 element j that previously had the sequential place p1 has now the
 sequential place p2. (p1 {=|#} p2)Of specific interest is the
 case, wherein during a reorder, several elements have to move together in the
 course of a reordering. This is the main concept of the Twelve 
 Steps.Explaining the main
 concept: The central concept can be
 pointed out exactly, by deictic methods. Before doing so, let us try to
 explicate the idea in colloquial speech. One knows from everyday life that a
 change of places may be an intricate business, as oftentimes someone has to
 vacate first the place in which a different person will come to sit, while the
 person expelled has to ask a 3rd one to liberate his place in turn,
 etc. This can get quite complicated, but normally people don’t talk much about
 it, as it normally has a solution that is evident to all.  Rubik’s cube shows 
 a specific instance of the
 central concept at work. (Please see 6.graph.Rubik). The concept presented 
 is similar to that made visible in the cube, but for the following points:
 there, 6 planes are given and 24 elements move while 6 are fixed; the task is
 deducting from the known results of the planes the collection and the sequence
 of the repetitive procedures (“operations”) that will result in the goal being
 achieved. Here, we have 136 elements, none of them fixed and the number of
 planes can be a subject of a spirited debate. The task here is to deduct the
 appearance of the planes after having gone thru all repetitive procedures
 (“operations”). In the case of the cube, the pleasure of having solved the
 puzzle encounters one as soon as one understands the procedures of which the
 resulting planes are an implication; here, success comes from having 
 the planes that result from the applications of the procedures.In logistics 
 would speak of “merchandise in transit”, where one will use effective and
 expected matches between material and spatial references.Names for the main
 concept:Wittgenstein calls the idea
 discussed here a Sachverhalt (pls see around 2.01 in
 It appears ok to interpret, that the Sachverhalt is that “amount j is on
 place p”, while the Zusammenhang is that “j moves together within
 {j,j’,j’’,...etc} during a reorder from alphabeta into gammadelta”. 
  Heraclit has predicted the
 dynamic interdependence among realisations of the order without giving a
 specific name to it. He points out the “upward-downward path” 
   Here, we may make use of
 the ideas – and the names – of the connotations of a convoy, chain, string or
 rhythm for the Zusammenhang and step or tact for the Sachverhalt.Data:The 
 deictic definition is
 done by presenting a fragment of Table T (please see 6.num). Each line in 
 T is one step in the process of reordering. We 

Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

Dear colleagues,

Yes, the foundations are trembling... as usual during quite long a time. Maybe 
too many aspects have to be put into line in order to have new, more consistent 
foundations for human knowledge. Until now the different crisis of Mechanics, 
the dominant scientific culture, have been solved at the small price of 
leaving conceptual inconsistencies until the rug of brand new fields or 
subdisciplines while at the same time fictive claims of unity of sceince, 
reductionism, etc. were upheld. Good for mechanics, as probably there were few 
competing options around --if any. Bad for the whole human knowledge, as 
multidisciplinary schizophrenia has been assumed as the natural state of 
mental health.

My opinion is that information science should carefully examine the problematic 
claims at the core of mechanical ways of explanation, as some (many?) of them 
refer to the information stuff: unlimited communication (even between physical 
elements), arbitrary partitions and boundary conditions, ideal status of the 
acting laws of nature, ominiscient observer, idealized nature of human 
knowledge  (no neurodynamics of knowledge), disciplinary hierarchies versus 
heterarchical interrelationships, logical versus social construction and 
knowledge recombination, idealized social information, etc.etc. Probably I have 
misconceived and wrongly expressed some of those problems, but in any case it 
is unfortunate that there is a dense feedback among them and a strong 
entrenchment with many others, so the revision task becomes Herculean even if 
partially addressed.

The big problem some of us see, and I tried to argument about that in the last 
Beijing FIS meeting, is that without an entrance of some partial aspect in the 
professional science system, none of the those challenges has the slightest 
possibility of being developed in the amateur mode/marginal science our studies 
are caught into. Therefore a common challenge for FIS, the new ISIS society, 
ITHEA, Symmetrion, INBIOSA, etc. is to take some piece or problem, with 
practical implications, and enter it into the institutional system, it does not 
matter where and by whom, and little by little expand the initial stronghold 
with the collective support of all of us. There is a terrific collection of 
individualities and scholars in the FIS enterprise and the germane entities, so 
that any small oficializing attempt should prosper quite soon.

Let us think about that... there is hope for non-trembling foundations! 
Provided we are institutionally clever.

best wishes


PS. by the way, I would like to hear in this list from our flamboyant Beijing 
FIS Group, as without discussion they and the colleagues at Wuhan are the best 
situated to try to respond institutionally to the above challenge. My special 
greetings to all the Chinese FIS friends!

- Mensaje original -
De: Koichiro Matsuno
Fecha: Sábado, 3 de Noviembre de 2012, 6:11 am
Asunto: Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

    Bob U said The foundations, they are trembling! I 
 have taken it to imply that propositional
 calculus itself is also in a bad shape. This observation reminds 
 me of the hanging paradox first
 invented by an American logician Arthur Prior more than 60 years 
 ago. It goes like this:
    On a certain Saturday a judge sentenced a man to 
 be hanged on Sunday or Monday at noon,
 stipulating at the same time that the man would not know the day 
 of his hanging until the morning of
 the day itself. The condemned man argued that if he were hanged 
 on Monday, he would be aware of the
 fact by noon on Sunday, and this would contravene the judge's 
 stipulation. So the date of his
 hanging would have to be Sunday. Since, however, he had worked 
 this out on Saturday, and so knew the
 date of his hanging the day before, the judge's stipulation was 
 again contravened. The date,
 therefore, could not be Sunday either. The prisoner concluded 
 that he would not be hanged at all.
 However, the official gazette issued on Tuesday reported that 
 the man was hanged on last Sunday. 
    The logician-prisoner (the externalist) was right 
 in his deduction upon the trusted propositional
 calculus, while the judge (the internalist) was also right in 
 faithfully executing the sentence. But
 both cannot be right at the same time. Despite that, the 
 internalist could finally come to preside
 over this empirical world. I had a hard time to convince myself 
 of it. Strange?
    Koichiro Matsuno
 fis mailing list
fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

Dear FISers,

Is it interesting the discussion on wether those informational entities contain 
realizations of the Aristotelian scheme of causality or not? 

The cell, in my view, conspicuously fails --it would be too artifactual an 
scheme. Some parts of the sensory paths of advanced nervous systems seem to 
separate some of those causes --but only in a few parts or patches of the 
concerned pathway. For instance, in visual processing the what and the 
how/where seem to be travelling together undifferentiated along the optic 
nerve and are separated --more or less-- after the visual superior colliculus 
in the midbrain before discharging onto the visual cortex. The really big flow 
of spikes arriving each instant (many millions every few milisec) are mixed and 
correlated with themselves and with other top-down and bottom-up preexisting 
flows in multiple neural mappings... and further, when those flows mix with the 
association areas under the influence of languaje, then, and only then, all 
those logic and conceptual categorizations of human thought are enacted in the 
ephemeral synaptic networks. 

I am optimistic that  a new Heraclitean way of thinking boils down in network 
science, neuroinformatics, systems biology, bioinformation etc. Neither the 
Parmenidean eliminative fixism of classical reductionists, nor the 
Aristotelian organicism of systemicists. Say that this is a caricature. However 
you cannot bathe twice in the same river not just because we all are caught 
into the universal physical flow of photons and forces, but for the 
Heraclitean flux of our own neurons and brains, for the inner torrents of the 
aggregated information flows. The same for whatever cells, societies, etc. and 
their physical structures for info transportation. 

Either we produce an interesting new vision of the world, finally making sense 
of those perennial metaphors among the different (informational) realms, or 
information science will continue to be that small portion of incoherent 
patches more or less close to information theory or to artificial intelligence. 
In spite of decades of bla-bla- about information revolution and information 
society and tons of ad hoc literature, the educated thought of our contemporary 
society continues to be deeply mechanistic! 


best wishes


     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
     (For completeness sake I add that efficient 
 cause determines only
     'when it happens', while final cause points 
 to 'why it happens'.  It
     would be quite exciting to find that these 
 informations were also
     carried on separate tracts.)
 It would be exciting, as that would seem to refute the 
 Aristotelean idea 
 of the four causes as four aspects of all causation. However an 
 information channel can carry some part of the information from 
 source, which would be a sort of filter or abstraction of the 
 So, for example, a channel might be sensitive only to the how, 
 but not 
 the what, and vice versa. A channel is fundamentally a mapping 
 classes from a source to a sink that through instances that 
 retain the 
 mapping (see Barwsie and Seligman, Information Flow: The Logic 
 Distributed Systems). So in this case, a channel sensitive to, 
 what, would retain the what classifications of the source in a 
 that the sink could use, but perhaps not any other information. 
 channels themselves could still maintain all four aspects of 
 Aristotelean causation, so Aristotle need not be refuted. This 
 still be very interesting, though. I am unclear what functional 
 advantage there would be, though we certainly manage to separate 
 causes in much of our thinking (perhaps even, we can't help it).
 === Please find our Email Disclaimer here--: ===
 fis mailing list
fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

Dear FISers,

Continuing with the comments on the how versus the what, it is an important 
topic in mammalian (vertebrate) nervous systems. They are subtended by mostly 
separate neural tracts (though partially interconnected), it is the dorsal 
stream, specialized in the how  where, and the ventral stream stream about the 
what. In the case of C elegans, endowed with one of the simplest invertebrate 
nervous systems, I do not know whether the previous distinction makes sense 
there. The what, the identity of the object is in this case heavily 
dependendent on the genetic wiring of axons and on specialized  molecular 
receptors... But whatever the case, both the what and the how/where resolve in 
flows of electrical discharges through a series of neural networks. They are 
but the same flux of evanescent stuff, several hundred of spikes flowing for a 
few seconds.

About the deterministic outlook of both models, the cellular and the neuronal, 
I think there is an important problem of bulk complexity non tractable at the 
time being. Putting in stochastic form those hundreds of coupled differential 
equations with the whole cellular kinetics becomes too tough a demand. During 
these weeks we have also witnessed the resolution of the ENCODE project, what 
looks quite worryings is the highly specialized nature of the numeorus results, 
almost unreadable except for people with a strong background in bioinformatics 
and systems biology. People outside the field, theoretical biologists for 
instance, will have a very difficult time. Are we witnessing the birth of 
another esoteric realm like particle physics? Bad news for bio-information 
afficionados indeed.

These milestones, and similar ones during very recent years (in network 
science specially), whatever their virtues and defects, have dramatically 
altered our information science panorama. One of the things we can do, in my 
view, is to carefully explore the concepts related to information flows. 
Cellularly, Neurally, Socially, the respective information items generally 
travel in waves, along channels that self-modify with the ongoing flux, and 
continuously alter the respective material/informational structures in 
communication.  Does it make sense contemplating the neuron as an information 
flow entity? I think so. And the people within an organization too.

Somehow, the challenge is to bring a corpus of fundamental ideas in line with 
the complex communication experiences of our time (and of all times!)

best greetings


fis mailing list

[Fis] ongoing FIS discussion


- Mensaje original -
Message from Bruno Marchal--Hi Jerry, hi 
 On 06 Jun 2012, at 17:43, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
 but offhand it seems to me to depedn on a sort of idealism that I do not 
 It does not. It does rely on Church thesis, which relies on arithmetical 
 realism, that is the idea that elementary arithmetical truth are NOT a 
 creation of the mind, which is a form of 
 I am utterly confused by this post.
 It seems to intermingle mathematics, logic, philosophy and personal beliefs 
 without any apparent connection to the history of the subjects or science.
 My post was a pointer to a (technical) paper which proves that digital 
 mechanism, or computationalism, is incompatible with physicalism. The paper 
 In my url, you can find longer and more detailed versions (the longer one are 
 in french, alas).
 I have not any idea what elementary arithmetics truths means.  It is a 
 standard expression for logicians. It means all first order arithmetical 
 statements true in the usual structure (N, +, *).
 A first order logical sentence is a sentence build with the logic symbols (, 
 V, -, for all, it exists ...) and the arithmetical symbols s, 0, +, and 
 *. For example 6 is even abbreviates the true arithmetical sentences:
  It exists x such that s(s(s(s(s(s(0)= s(s(0)) * x.   (or 
 Ex(s(s(s(s(s(s(0)= s(s(0))*x)
 Elementary arithmetical truth can be seen as the collection of such 
 sentences. That set is well defined, even if it is not axiomatizable, nor 
 constructively definable. Technically, only a tiny subset has to be supposed 
 true independently of me.
 Do you wish to include or exclude logs?Log is not among the primitive 
 notions. But you can already defined the ceiling of log just with addition 
 and multiplication. Thanks to the work of Matiyasevich, it is not to 
 difficult to prove that addition and multiplication of natural numbers are 
 Turing universal. We can define all computable functions with s 
 (successor), (, ),  and + and *, and 0.
 Either way, are you including or excluding arithmetic and/or geometric 
 progressions from arithmetic realism?Could you be specific and point out 
 the exact relations between truths as used in this context and your 
 philosophy of physics?  Or the nature of physics?Truth means satisfied by 
 the model (N,+, *). (in the logician's sense, quite akin to our intuitive 
 idea of truth in arithmetic).
 The reasoning detailed in the paper mentioned above is hard to sum up. I hope 
 you agree that science has not yet decide between the Aristotelian 
 conception of reality and the Platonist conception of reality. 
 Basically, for the Aristotelian, the physical reality (what we observe and 
 measure) is real.For the Platonist, the physical reality is only the 
 shadow, or the border of something vaster. 
 What I explain in the paper is that IF we assume that there is a level of 
 description of my brain (even in a very large sense of the word) such that I 
 would survive with a digital substitution respecting functionality at that 
 level, then the Aristotelian picture of reality is no more consistent, and 
 the Platonic one is correct. The proof is constructive and explain how to 
 derive physics from arithmetic. It makes comp testable.
 a creation of the mind  ??  What does this possibly mean in this context? 
 In particular, do you wish to imply or infer or illate that the human mind 
 before the social creation of arithmetic symbol systems was somehow 
 non-creative??  VERY CONFUSING from a historical perspective.
 We must distinguish the arithmetical propositions and their content, with the 
 shape of the sentences used by humans to communicate and think about those 
 propositions. Comp needs Church's thesis, and Church's thesis need 
 arithmetical realism to make sense. But we need only to be realist on a tiny 
 fragment of arithmetic, usually accepted by both classical and intuitionist 
 mathematicians. Such tiny part of arithmetic is also needed to define what is 
 a formal system, and is accepted by formalist. It is equivalent with the 
 admission that all programs/machine stop or don't stop. This can be 
 translated into an arithmetical sentence.
 a form of anti-idealism??? Perhaps you mean something to do with 
 representation or symbolization of your beliefs?  Why introduce form as a 
 concept related to a personal view of anti-idealism   Makes no sense to 
 me.Your point is not clear. Idealists believe that reality is a creation of 
 the mind, and I explained that computationalism (my working hypothesis), just 
 to make sense, needs to assume that the arithmetical truth (actually a tiny 
 part of it) is independent of me (and you, and the physical universe if that 
 For example I accept that the table of addition and 

[Fis] Information Dichotomies

Dear FISers,

Just a couple of comments on the many subjects raised last week. 

When Koichiro Matsuno discusses several dichotomies related to information, the 
disjunction he makes between treatment or description by first person and by 
third person is quite intriguing. I think that in every instance of 
communication there is a continuous jumping between each other. From first 
person rumination (not very different in the case of a single cell), generally 
caught within an undescribable network of selfconstruction processes, 
information is uttered/poured onto a public channel where it becomes crisp and 
physical, arriving then to other parties where again it becomes a first person 
attribute, to be loaded with meaning, value, and so on. In all these endless 
jumps or info flows, there is an intertwining and influencing of each other 
realm. And that is dramatically evidenced in the evolution of our own 
societies, based precisely on the multiplication and acceleration of such info 
flows... At stake is whether a new info science could be conceived with the 
best of both worlds reconciling the physical and the non-physical 
(self-constructing) sides of information/communication.

In another mindful post, Bill Seaman (nice to hear from people bridging with 
the social cognition/creativity side) mentions his recombinant informatics 
and insight engine. Apart from his further semiotic expostulations, not too 
far from the above I think, the link with the elementary cognitive dynamics of 
life would also be an aspect to explore. More and more we are realizing that, 
say, the knowledge-management commonalities of life --cellular, neuronal, 
social, and scientific-- have been butchered by the disciplinary system. It is 
discussed in a paper that Raquel, Jorge and me have published about scientomics 
recently: From Genomics to Scientomics: Expanding the Bioinformation 
Paradigm.   It is in the special issue 
of the journal Information where quite many parties of this list also 

Well, both comments are related to life--and to the need of new theoretical 
(informational) biology thought.

Best wishes---Pedro
fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] There is no Information Science.

Dear FIS colleagues,Thanks toMarcin for his well-thought reinterpretations of 
the blind men parable. Time ago Iwas concerned about the reactions that the FIS 
project would provoke amidstclassical information science practitioners (very 
susceptible blind men type).I was invited to some conferences in the field and 
could realize that ingeneral the idea of a larger info science was very well 
received, say the wayengineering minded parties would respond to ongoing 
unification projects in paralleltheoretical fields. For them it was quite 
timely, and sensible, in line withadvancements in quantum information science, 
biological info-revolution, consciousnessstudies, information society, etc. 
Besides it was seen within the convergence ofnew perspectives needed for data 
driven research, data mining, network science, and so on. It is quitedifficult, 
however, articulating a general syllabus for information science –withouta 
previous consensus in some delicate matters, so often herein discussed. Atthe 
time being an interesting option could be a “central themes” core accompaniedby 
a spattering of introductory topics on info disciplines (or subdisciplines).As 
I said, my experience teaching info history of societies and bioinfo wasquite 
successful in terms of graduate students.  But I did not venture in preparing 
the centralthemes part…Some posts have already made good suggestions. The real 
teaching is the taste of the pudding, we badly need that experience.
Finally, away to think on the relationship between the “mother” info science 
and the “child”recombinatory info subdisciplines would again conduce to 
something similar to theblind men parable. The problem is the inevitable loop 
between info conceptionsand disciplinary or philosophical stances. Let me put 
it in this way: ifinformation is taken as “distinction on the adjacent”, each 
of the different sciencesbecomes “an artificial ordering of distinctions, 
involving regimentedperceptions, standardized actions, and logico-formal 
structures and conceptualizations.”The syllabus discussion may continue more 
easily through the distinctional bridge common to the informational and the 
sceintific... I think.
Best wishes---Pedro

- Mensaje original -
Fecha: Sábado, 17 de Diciembre de 2011, 2:00 pm
Asunto: Re: There is no Information Science.
A:, Pedro C. Marijuan, fislist

 Dear Tian-qing Qiao,
 Thank you for sharing your view with us and for interesting 
 parable of five blind men and an elephant. However, I read the 
 moral of the story just the opposite way. 
 If we read this allegory with the elephant representing 
 information, it shows that Information Science with a broad 
 theory of information is necessary, unless we want to stay in 
 the position of the blind, who are using only practice, which 
 necessarily is limited to specific instances. 
 We know now that the view of Francis Bacon, who opposed 
 formulation of any theory which is not strictly a posteriori 
 result of inductive, purely empirical procedures faulty. Every 
 experiment or observation involves a priori theoretical 
 framework involving conceptualization of the problem (Kant) or 
 more down to earth simple fact that we need theoretical 
 description of the experimental procedures and equipment. We 
 know that positivistic idea of purely observational 
 statements is an illusion. 
 Moreover, there were many instances of important contributions 
 to scientific discoveries made by bold theoretical models 
 anticipating later experimental results. Schroedinger's little 
 book What is life? is a good example. It is his purely 
 theoretical concept of aperiodic crystals which stimulated 
 Crick in his later work with Watson on the structure of DNA.
 Thus, we are in the position of the blind men who are 
 exploring an elephant, i.e. information, who can even measure 
 it. The actual breakthrough can come only when we have a 
 theory of information which describes not only its quantity, 
 but also its structural and dynamical characteristics. 
 We can read the story different way, probably closer to your 
 interpretation of this allegory. The elephant represents the 
 world, universe, or reality. But, in this case I see exactly 
 the same moral. We will stay blind, if we do not develop 
 methods of integration of the pieces of information coming 
 from practice, from reports of the specific domains of 
 investigation. Here we have a very clear role of the 
 development of the theory and methods of integration of 
 information, which in my opinion in the most important task of 
 Information Science. It is much more important that the 
 ability to measure information. 
 Thus, no matter how we look at the story of the blind men and 
 the elephant, it shows that Information Science is of great 
 importance. Whether it is possible or not to give it shape 
 similar to other, older 

Re: [Fis] Our condolences to Japan colleagues for the earth quake tragedy in Japan --K.Markov

2011-03-12 Thread Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
We all join Krassimir's message of solidarity and condolences with our FIS 
colleagues of Japan. Such a tragic event... ---Pedro

- Mensaje original -
Krassimir Markov
Saturday 12 March 2011, 11:33 am
Our condolences to Japan colleagues for the earth quake tragedy in Japan

Dear FIS Colleagues from Japan,
 Please receive our condolences for the earth quake tragedy in Japan!
 It is really great loss for all of us!
 Please do not hesitate to ask us for support and help in this sorrow 
fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Background to Modern Science

2011-02-04 Thread Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
Dear James and FIS colleagues,Thanks for the scholarly text! I much appreciate 
allthe contents of your well-framed essay –so the task of establishing 
adiscussion on its contents is not easy at all. Given my general agreement with 
the structureof “presences” you have established,  Iwill go for the 
“absences”.Along with the reasons you provide on why science andtechnology did 
flourish in medieval times, my contention is that that milestonein Paris 1277 
you mention would not have been crossed (neither the technologicaladvances you 
also mention) without the previous contribution of the Monastic Institution.In 
a few words (some references later) it is in the monastic environment of the 
high medieval periodwhere a new informational order is born, around the “codex” 
on the one side andaround the “mechanical arts” on the other. What the “ora et 
labora” means is adefinite dignification of technological and manual work, now 
put at the samelevel than the bookish work.  As anhistorical novelty in the 
Western world, a number of monastic codices appearwith humble technical-manual 
contents. The “workshop” tied to the “bookshop”…  that strange union had 
occurred only in verybrief periods of the Alexandrian Library and Museum 
history. Now it was occurring in anumber of humble European monasteries, 
symbiotically linked to their environment andnot parasitizing upon it as the 
Alexandrian institution was unfortunatelyestablished. Somehow “universities” 
will be created later on in the wake ofsuch a highly successful monastic 
institution, now translated into the urban milieu… But the next 
informational-ordertransition, from hand-written codices to printing press (the 
“Gutenberg Galaxy”)was the clarion end for the Monastic mission, and its 
definite decline in favorof the universities and the urban bourgeoisie clerks 
and intellectuals.In the above disordered barrage I have been liberally mixing 
ideas and influences from the great Marshall McLuhan,James O’Donnell, Michael 
Hobart, Zachary Schiffman, Alex Wright, etc. So tospeak these authors have been 
the founders of the field “social-information-history”.One day, perhaps not too 
far away, a discussion on the “informational history”of societies will be 
firmly grounded. And the second leg of my “absences” comments to James 
concernsthe sheer magnitude of the silent “technological transfer” that 
occurred fromOrient to Occident, from China to Western Europe. Paper making, 
printing press,gunpowder, magnetic compass… directly propelled Western science 
and technology;plus very probable influences occurred in horse harnessing, 
distillation, clockescapement, porcelain and mosaics, textiles and silk 
manufactures, glassmaking, etc. (I am following just by heart the readings I 
made on our distinguishedcolleague Joseph Needham, “Science and Civilization in 
China”; to be honest there is some good discussion on the above in James' book, 
but not enough for my taste). Obviously Chinese colleaguesof our list will 
comment far better than me on this important matter.The big question unanswered 
yet, also put andpartially responded in James’ book: Why the 
scientific-technological revolutionoccurred in a few small Western territories 
and not before in more advanced medieval societiessuch as China or even in 
Moorish Andalusia? To return to James’ terse opening, I have to ask for 
hisbenevolence about my rushed comments on this couple of absences, both in the 
presentessay and in the (splendid!) book itself.Best wishes---Pedro   
fis mailing list

[Fis] FW: The Background to Modern Science

2011-02-02 Thread Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
From: James Hannam [] 
Sent: 02 February 2011 13:17
To: ''
Subject: The Background to Modern Science 
Dear FIS list members,My sincere thanks to Pedro for asking me to contribute to 
a discussion on the origins of modern science.  The subject is vast and so the 
comments below are very much focused on my own areas and period of concern.  I 
hope this is of some interest to list members.Best wishesJames The Background 
to Modern ScienceHowever much we might admire the achievements of the ancient 
Greeks or the celebrated civilizations of China and Islam, modern science as we 
understand it arose in Western Europe within a deeply Christian milieu.  
Historians have now rejected the idea that there has been an inevitable 
conflict between science and religion, preferring what John Hedley Brooke has 
dubbed a “complexity thesis” or what I call “creative tension”.  But the larger 
question of why science flourished when and where it did remains unanswered.  A 
recent attempt by Toby Huff was greeted, rather unfairly, by something 
approaching derision in the history of science community. 
Despite the excellence of their mathematics, the Greeks never produced an 
experimental science which was able to distinguish between hypotheses about 
nature.  As a result, they relied too much on reason.  This led to notorious 
mistakes, such as Aristotle’s belief that heavy objects fall faster than light 
ones and that a moving object must be moved by something else.  In the Middle 
Ages, Greek philosophy was still studied, but there had been important changes 
in several key areas. 
Christian Metaphysics 
Medieval science took place against an entirely different metaphysical 
background from that in pagan Greece.  For medieval Christian natural 
philosophers, such as William of Conches, the world was not a product of 
natural forces but was created by an intelligent and loving God.  This gave 
them sanction to study nature, even though there were no practical advantages 
to doing so.  Today science is justified, in large part, by the technological 
marvels, like computers and medical drugs, which it helps to develop.  But this 
close relationship between science and technology is a product of the 
nineteenth century.  Before that time, the concept of applied science hardly 
existed (at least excepting the esoteric disciplines of alchemy and 
astrology).  The religious sanction of natural philosophy meant that there was 
a good reason for studying it.  Together with mathematics and other subjects, 
it became a compulsory part of the curriculum at the new universities.  Indeed, 
in order to study theology, a student required a thorough grounding in the 
lower sciences. 
The Christian doctrine of creation had other implications for the study of 
nature.  Aristotelian science presupposed an eternal universe which was the 
product of logically necessary relationships.  This meant that the laws of 
nature were necessarily the way that they are and so could be established 
through the exercise of pure reason.  This view was deemed heretical by the 
Bishop of Paris in 1277 and Christians were required to believe that the 
Creator was free to do as he liked.  Thus, he could make the world as he saw 
fit and not as Aristotle said he ought to have done.  This freed natural 
philosophers to consider cases, such as vacuums, that Aristotle said were 
impossible.  It also encouraged them to successfully challenge the most basic 
axioms of Greek science.  In the early twentieth century, Pierre Duhem 
suggested that 1277 represented the birth of modern science because this was 
when the stranglehold of Aristotle was broken.  Although this now seems an 
exaggeration, Edward Grant continues to emphasise the importance of the 
condemnations at Paris.VoluntarismIn the seventeenth century, Descartes 
explicitly stated that the doctrine of divine freedom, known as voluntarism, 
must lead to an empirical science.  If God was free to create the universe as 
he liked, Descartes said, the only way to find out how he had done it was to go 
out and look.   But experimental science needs more than careful observation 
(something at which the Greeks excelled).  Nature must also be put to the 
question, in the sinister phrase of Sir Francis Bacon.  This required that the 
holistic worldview be abandoned.  Nature had to be expected to perform in the 
laboratory in the same way that she did in the wild.  In fact, there is no 
particular reason to believe that the aberrant situation of the controlled 
experiment can yield results that are generally applicable.  This conclusion 
could only be drawn after a good deal of trial and error.Technological 
AdvanceAlthough technology as applied science was practically unknown before 
the nineteenth century, medieval inventions helped to illuminate science and 
provide the apparatus necessary to do experiments.  For example, the invention 
of spectacles in Italy in the late 

Re: [Fis] Fw: Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

2010-10-15 Thread Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
Forwarded message, From Jamie Rose 

James Rose

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:42:39 -0700 (PDT)



Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

And not to be overlooked is Robert Rosen's extensivework identifying and detailing the complex pluralism of effective information relationships call "entailments".By at least 2 decades before Conrads "the flowof influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple innerloops." Jamie Rose

fis mailing list

[Fis] news from Beijing

2010-08-24 Thread Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
Dear FIS colleagues,The conference in Beijing is over. Both in contents  discussions, and in organizational advancements, a remarkable success has been achieved.Such an exciting time we have have had! Important novelties concerning future discussion-sessions in the list, new research possibilities and, above all, steps towards the creation of an "International Society for Information Studies" will be announced during next weeks / months, as well as the state of the publications in process. We also count with a number of new FIS colleagues out from the conference list of participants (the "mass subscription" performedcan be easily reversed via web if some parties are not willing to stay in the list--or they can just tell me).It was great seeing again FIS friends of past conferences! Close to 30 participants were from FIS and ScII,plus another 50-60 new ones which were mostly from China but also from Japan, USA,Russia,Germany, etc.Needless to say, they are invited to send conference reports and juicy comments about these unforgettable days.What can I add? We have enjoyed the warm hospitality of our Chinese colleagues, and we very much thank toALL of them. It will be really nice continuing our conversations by means of this very list...All the best,---PedroPS. The discussion-sessions will start around the middle of September (it will be announced). All parties are cordially reminded thateach participant can send no more thantwo messages per week, they have to be sent to, remember also that attached files are ratherunwelcome.

fis mailing list

[Fis] Info Science Comments

2009-12-02 Thread Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez

I am athome, incubating a flu, and during a week or so I will be out of touch 
–justwith Morpheus. About the comments received, not having the messages here, 
Iwill try to remember the initial bunch of contents.

In Rafael’squestion on the info status of our concepts, I would take them as 
signals,sophisticate ones exchanged as mandated along our life cycles. My 
preference isfor Fuster “cognits” which try to approach language and thought 
under the basicprocessual unit of the nervous system: the action/perception 
cycle... We shouldnot go beyond the main science involved, in this case 
neuroscience, as forinstance a theory of consciousness is missing yet. So at 
the time being I wouldbe reluctant at trying to answer the great conceptual 
questions of classicalphilosophy.

Johncomment on information physics is completely endorsed. Both quantum 
computingand cosmology are advancing informational approaches in very elegant 
ways. AsBob commented days ago, Heisenberg and Pauli principles contain that 
“absence”side which makes them susceptible of being expressed in info terms; 
perhaps themeasurement problem too (not to forget “ecosystems” within the 
catalog of infoentities).

 Stan is right when criticizes the truncateddecalog of “principles”. Let me put 
them as basic “propositions” temporarilyfielding the field...  Jerry isalso 
right when demands a more fine tuned and less overlapping version. Aboutthe 
power law with exponential cutoff in the summands of natural numbers 
partitions,it is explained in a paper of Garcia Olivares and me: 
doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2004.02.005 (“Emergence of power laws from partitional 

Loet’s preference forShannon (and only Shannon) is fine, but this was the 
status quo during last 60years... Joseph makes a well-addressed comment on the 
new knowledge needed forsustainability issues. This is timely, as complexity 
theorists have left thecommunication theme aside in their mathematical and 
computer centered vision,and an enlarged approach to information (absences, 
needs, signals, meaning,value, knowledge, recombination  networking, and so 
on) makes a lot ofsense in todays society. I think the whole Info Sci. 
enterprise is mature for a conjoint conference with avariety of scholarly and 
scientific organizations --eg, symmetry.

And that was all.

fis mailing list

[Fis] list discussions

2008-05-22 Thread Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez

Dear FIS colleagues,

It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I have
not been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob Logan's
one, due to work reasons (changing to a new job months ago). It is not
sure at all that in a few weeks there will be a new session arranged.
However, several weeks ago, Stan suggested starting an open, informal
discussion around a simple question: 

Is Nature Orderly? 

As a side comment (or response of sorts), I quote from P.M. Binder: "The
field of complex systems currently appears as an unfinished mosaic.
Many capable researchers are polishing and gluing the tiles that may
turn it into the queen of all sciences, the science of synthesis and
surprise. As we realize how much everything is connected, both
cooperation [or emergence] and dynamical frustration can become
important tools for our understanding of how the world works."
(2008, Nature, 320, pp. 320-21)... just substituting information
science for complex systems, and another couple of terms (more subtle
ones I do not see yet) for cooperation and dynamical frustration, it
becomes my first reaction to Stan's.

By the way, small organization initiatives are in the way, e.g.,
financing for a FIS European meeting has been applied by Wolfgang and
others (around November there will be confirmation). More will

best wishes


PS. Interested parties may take note of my new address:

Pedro C.
Bioinformation Group
Aragons de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gmez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11
50009 Zaragoza. Spain
Phone: 34 976 71 6584 - Fax: 34 976 71 5554

fis mailing list