Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins
Welcome to our icis2018 in PKU http://www.intsci.ac.cn/icis2018/cfp.jsp http://www.intsci.ac.cn/icis2018/committees.jsp iPhone -- Original -- From: Burgin, Mark Date: ,3?? 29,2018 5:11 To: tozziarturo , fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Welcome to Knowledge Market and the FIS Sci-coins Dear Arturo, Set theory is a particular case of named set theory. If set theory solves some problem, then named set theory solves the same problem. Use logic and some knowledge and you'll see truth. Sincerely, Mark On 3/21/2018 11:48 PM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: Dear Mark, the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox. Therefore it would be better to use, in such approaches, the best theory available, i.e., the Fraenkel-Zermelo sets. In turn, the latter displays some limits: for example, the need of a set with infinite elements. Therefore, set theory is not able to tackle information problems. You have to go back to other mathematical approaches. Il 21 marzo 2018 alle 23.42 "Burgin, Mark" ha scritto: Dear Krassimir and other FISers, After reading the interesting contribution of Krassimir, I would like to share with you some of my impressions and ideas. I like very much the term INFOS suggested by Krassimir. It??s possible to suggest that Krassimir assumed the following definition. An INFOS is a system functioning (behavior) of which is regulated by information. This definition implies that each INFOS has an information processor. Then it is possible to distinguish different categories and types of INFOS. For instance: INFOS only with acceptors/receptors INFOS only with effectors INFOS with both acceptors/receptors and effectors Then it is possible to develop an interesting theory of INFOS. At the same time, the difference between reality and consciousness needs improvement because what many people mean using the word reality is actually only one of the variety of realities, namely, the physical or material reality, while consciousness is a part of the mental reality. It is possible to find more information about different realities and their interaction in the book (Burgin, Structural Reality, 2012). Please, don??t confuse Structural Reality with virtual reality. One more issue from the interesting contribution of Krassimir, which allows further development, is the structure of a model. Namely, the relation (s, e, r) between a model s of an entity r forms not simply a triple but a fundamental triad, which is also called a named set. Why this is important? The reason to conceive the structure (s, e, r) as a fundamental triad or a named set is that there is an advanced mathematical theory of named sets, the most comprehensive exposition of which is in the book (Burgin, Theory of Named Sets, 2011), and it is possible to use this mathematical theory for studying and using models. For instance, the structure from Figure 1 in Krassimir??s letter is a morphism of named sets. Named set theory describes many properties of such morphism and categories built of named sets and their morphism. The structures from Figure 2 in Krassimir??s letter are chains of named sets, which are also studied in named set theory. To conclude it is necessary to understand that if we want to apply mathematics in some area it is necessary to use adequate areas of mathematics. As Roger Bacon wrote, All science requires mathematics, but mathematics provides different devices that are suited to different input. In this respect, when you give good quality grains to a mathematical mill, it outputs good quality flour, while if you put the same grains into a mathematical petrol engine, it outputs trash. The theory of named sets might be very useful for information studies because named sets and their chains allow adequate reflection of information and information processes. Sincerely, Mark On 3/11/2018 3:34 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote: Dear Colleagues, This let
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear colleagues The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal production of knowledge is about to come. Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 08:57:37 In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge exponentially grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends can detonate the spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in ancient times. Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 2,000-year-long knowledge production method to do spiritual product processing.The double-chessboards based on the wisdom integrated theory and cultural gene system engineering practice came into being. Its primary feature is that it is a combination of humans and machines that can instantly complete the knowledge production of any one knowledge module. The formation and promotion of popularity has gradually highlighted its unique charm.For example, any text segment imported into the word chessboard web development environment and application platform can instantly form almost all the language points, knowledge points, and original points contained in the world-wide super collaboration of the text segment. . This not only provides the convenience for the original creators or experts themselves to confirm their themes, styles, or characteristics, but also provides a common platform for teachers, students and the general public to participate in the finishing of knowledge modules. Such a large-scale production of knowledge is supported by the three major system engineering practices of language, knowledge, and software. It is a brand-new approach to education informatization. At the same time, it provides a typical example of collaborative innovation that focuses on the intelligence capabilities of human-computer dual-brain intelligence. Both men, women, and children can discover from their most interesting speech fragments. Their respective real interests, hobbies, and good at, and then used them to participate in the integration of teaching and learning of social system engineering and the combination of soft and hard language and formal system engineering double practice, so as to reflect the three basic categories of object-oriented text The generalized textual cultural genetic system project contributes meager forces and gradually discovers and finds their precise positioning in the overall system of human knowledge building construction. Data, language, information, and knowledge all have intersections. Therefore, it is often misunderstood. The text that records knowledge is a typical type of data. Obvious ambiguity allows the machine to be automatically ejected; human experts are easily ambiguous in their respective fields; the most difficult ambiguity is the category of overlapping (basic concepts). Best wish! Zou Xiaohui iPhone -- Original -- From: Syed Ali Date: ,3?? 6,2018 11:20 To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> Cc: ?? , fis Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Many thanks Zou. Syed Confidential: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forward, printing, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:35 PM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear Colleagues and Syed?? Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your questionCould you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?: Undoubtedly,the point of view ?? information is the container of meaning?? is certainly wrong. For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content information. Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come from ambiguity. Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or subject of information science). These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or suggestions! Thank you! Best wish! Zou Xiaohui iPhone -
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear Colleagues and Syed?? Thank you for your attention!Let me answer your questionCould you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ?: Undoubtedly,the point of view ?? information is the container of meaning?? is certainly wrong. For first and foremost, phenomenal information is all-encompassing, in addition to carriers of mass and energy, which can be anything in the physical world, anything in mind, anything in narrow and broad language or generalized text. Among them, there is both formal information and content information. Furthermore, looking at ontology information, which is simplified in many ways and then focused on the same meaning or content, aims to disambiguate. Many people's cognitive errors and misunderstandings come from ambiguity. Finally, in fact, and most importantly, the essential information that can be calculated by using truth (this is the fundamental object or subject of information science). These are Zou Xiaohui's point of view. Please give comments or suggestions! Thank you! Best wish! Zou Xiaohui iPhone -- Original -- From: Syed Ali Date: ,3?? 5,2018 4:26 To: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> Cc: ?? , fis Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Colleagues:Could you critique a view: Information is the container of meaning ? Syed ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:00 AM, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> wrote: Dear colleagues and Xueshan?? The relationship between meaning and information: 1. Three levels to understand them 1.1 words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and information. 1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of information, where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use of synonymy, respectively; if both mean something different then they are two different concepts. 1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms specifically refer to. 2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about them both from an informational perspective. In principle, they should not be discussed both in linguistics and in information science. Otherwise, they will encounter the contradiction between the two. Best wishes, Xiaohui, Zou ?? 1.1.?? 1.2. 1.3. 2.?? ?? iPhone -- Original -- From: ?? Date: ,3?? 4,2018 9:18 To: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Dai, S?0?3ren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my responses as follows: Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on information, me
Re: [Fis] A Paradox
Dear colleagues and Xueshan?? The relationship between meaning and information: 1. Three levels to understand them 1.1 words in language: there are just two different words,meaning and information. 1.2 concepts in thought: the meaning of meaning, the meaning of information, where both are the same, then they are two usages of one use of synonymy, respectively; if both mean something different then they are two different concepts. 1.3 objects in world: the meaning and the information of these two terms specifically refer to. 2. Either look at them from a linguistic point of view, or talk about them both from an informational perspective. In principle, they should not be discussed both in linguistics and in information science. Otherwise, they will encounter the contradiction between the two. Best wishes, Xiaohui, Zou ?? 1.1.?? 1.2. 1.3. 2.?? ?? iPhone -- Original -- From: ?? Date: ,3?? 4,2018 9:18 To: FIS Group Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox Dear Dai, S?0?3ren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my responses as follows: Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics, which reveals the relationship between tenor and vehicle, ground and figure, target and source based on rhetoric. But where is our information? It looks like Syed given the answer: "Information is the container of meaning." If I understand it right, we may have this conclusion from it: Information is the carrier of meaning. Since we all acknowledge that sign is the carrier of information, the task of our Information Science will immediately become something like an intermediator between Semiotics (study of sign) and Semantics (study of meaning), this is what we absolutely want not to see. For a long time, we have been hoping that the goal of Information Science is so basic that it can explain all information phenomenon in the information age, it just like what Sung expects, which was consisted of axioms, or theorems or principles, so it can end all the debates on information, meaning, data, etc., but according to this view, it is very difficult to complete the missions. Syed, my statement is "A grammatically correct sentence CONTAINS information rather than the sentence itself IS information." S?0?3ren believes that the solution to this paradox is to establish a new discipline which level is more higher than the level of Information Science as well as Linguistics, such as his Cybersemiotics. I have no right to review your opinion, because I haven't seen your book Cybersemiotics, I don't know its content, same as I don't know what the content of Biosemiotics is, but my view is that Peirce's Semiotics can't dissolve this paradox. Karl thought: "Information and meaning appear to be like key and lock." which are two different things. Without one, the existence of another will lose its value, this is a bit like the paradox about hen and egg. I don't know how to answer this point. However, for your "The text may be an information for B, while it has no information value for A. The difference between the subjective." "??Information?? is synonymous with ??new??." these claims are the classic debates in Information Science, a typical example is given by Mark Burgin in his book: "A good mathematics textbook contains a lot of information for a mathematics student but no information for a professional mathematician." For this view, Terry given his good answer: One should firstly label what context and paradigm they are using to define their use of the term "information." I think this is effective and first step toward to construct a general theory about information, if possible. For Stan's "Information is the interpretation of meaning, so transmitted information has no meaning without interpretation." I can only disagree with it kindly. The most simple example from genetics is: an egg cell accepts a sperm cell, a fertilized egg contains a set of effective genetic information from paternal and maternal cell, here information transmission has taken place, but is there any "meaning" and "explanation"? We should be aware that meaning only is a human or animal phenomena and it does not be used in any other context like plant or molecule or cell etc., this is the key we dissolve the paradox. In
[Fis] 回复： Fw: PRINCIPLES OF IS. The Pre-Science of Information
【What could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines in the different organization layers, but at the same time they should try to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the information world.】by Pedro C. Marijuan http://kben.koderx.com/article/94/board http://kben.koderx.com/article/94/group by Xiaohui ZOU http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-94143-942186.html http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=94143&do=blog&id=1079152 -- 原始邮件 -- 发件人: "joe.brenner";; 发送时间: 2017年10月2日(星期一) 下午4:45 收件人: "fis"; 主题: [Fis] Fw: PRINCIPLES OF IS. The Pre-Science of Information Dear Pedro, Dear FISers, In the 2 weeks I have been away, an excellent discussion has self-organized as Pedro noted. Any preliminary comments and criticisms of Pedro’s 10 Principles I could make now can refer to this. I would have said first that Pedro is to be thanked for this construction. Preparing a list of principles involves defining not only the content but also the number, order and relation between the entries. Zou, Stan and Ted in particular have recognized the existence of the list as such and the work involved. My own view is that we are all currently involved in reworking the Foundations of Information Science. These Foundations are not themselves science, but they look forward to the increased understanding of Information Science as Terry suggests. I propose the term “Pre-Science” for this process activity, a pun on the word ‘prescience’ whose normal definition is foreknowledge or foresight. The people who tend to make mistakes in this effort will be those who claim that any simple concept or set of concepts can do the job itself, supported by claims to authorities such as Peirce. Sets of principles, on the other hand, are tools more difficult to use but they permit directed consideration of several perspectives at the same time. Principles are the basis for an interpretation of what is in the physical and biological processes that are the proper subjects for non-computational Information Science, without – yet – providing any explanations. Now this is a lot more philosophical that may have been expected when the discussion started. However, today, unlike when Pedro and his colleagues started out, we have the Philosophy of Information of Luciano Floridi and Wu Kun to work with, as well as my logic. I am surprised that no-one has yet referred to Floridi or Wu. Going back over the postings to-date, I have noted a few which seem constitutive of a ‘Pre-Science’ of Information: Emmanuel’s ‘duality’, Stan’s hierarchies; Michel Godron’s and John Torday’s bridges to biology, Pedro’s reworking of communication, etc. I will resist comments that the concepts of Pre-Science are to be thrown out as part of non-science or ‘just’ philosophy. As Koichiro clearly said on 20.09, information can, and in my view is already, bringing in something new empirically to questions of space and time. In the Pre-Science of Information, ideally, it should be possible to retain mechanism and materialism or realism; computationalism and non- or natural computationalism; information as a physical reality and a non-physical appearance. I look forward with great interest to the lines of development of this thread. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From:Pedro C. Marijuan To: 'fis' Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 2:13PM Subject: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS Dear FISColleagues, As promised herewith the "10 principles of informationscience". A couple of previous comments may be in order. First, what is ingeneral the role of principles in science? I was motivated by the unfinishedwork of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea of principle in Leibniz and theevolution of deductive theory" (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentativeinformation science seems to be very different from other sciences, rathermultifarious in appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale toscale. What could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather thanopening homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these informationprinciples would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with essentialtopics of other disciplines in the different organization layers, but at thesame time they should try to be consistent with each other and provide acoherent vision of the information world. And second, about organizing thepresent discussion, I bet I was too optimistic with the commentators scheme.In any case, for having a first glance on the whole scheme, the opinions ofphilosophers would be v
Re: [Fis] (no subject)
> Dear Fiser?? It is possible to formalize what is information (phenomena, essence and ontology) with the simplest symbolic system. ??0??1?? ??00??01??10??11?? ??000??001,111?? ?? 1. "Ecological Characteristics of Information and Its Scientific Research" has been published in Proceedings and is available online: > Abstract: http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/59/ > PDF Version: http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/59/pdf > 2. "Fundamental Law of Information: Proved by Both Numbers and Characters in Conjugate Matrices " has been published in Proceedings and is available online: > Abstract: http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/60/ > PDF Version: http://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/60/pdf iPhone ------ Original -- From: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> Date: ,10?? 4,2017 10:43 To: fis Cc: 949309225 <949309...@qq.com>, ?? <407167...@qq.com> Subject: Re: [Fis] Dear Pedro and Joseph, Dear FISers, Physical information; Psychological information; Mathematical information; The difference between the above phenomenon of information and its essence is the difference between the ancient??modern and the contemporary focus. Best wishes, Xiaohui ZOU in Beijing___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] (no subject)
Dear Pedro and Joseph, Dear FISers, Physical information; Psychological information; Mathematical information; The difference between the above phenomenon of information and its essence is the difference between the ancient??modern and the contemporary focus. Best wishes, Xiaohui ZOU in Beijing___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS
a pair of information for any brain and any computer and any kind of another body iPhone -- Original -- From: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> Date: ,9?? 16,2017 8:15 To: Pedro C. Marijuan , fis , deacon Cc: ?? Subject: Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS 0-10zou's view PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 0??its unit??. a bit of it ??in information theory??or a pair of it??Xiaohui ZOU?? 1??three basic categories??. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. 2??form of it??. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows. 3??it both for Brain and computer??. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally). 4??and for life??. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows. 5??it can inform between bodies or from one to another??. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales. 6??it main form as language??. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social nature." 7??it can be known??. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by applying rigorous methodologies. 8??but it difficulty to know all about it??. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies." 9??it is helpful for creativity??. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna. 10??see it in scientific way??. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social governance. iPhone -- Original -- From: Pedro C. Marijuan Date: ,9?? 15,2017 8:15 To: 'fis' Subject: Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS Dear FIS Colleagues, As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple of previous comments may be in order. First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems to be very different from other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines in the different organization layers, but at the same time they should try to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the information world. And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival end to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone FIS 1994 conference)... But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the only customary limitation of two messages per week. Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro 10 PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy. 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows. 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can beprocessed (either computationally or non-computationally). 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows. 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cyc
