Re: [Fis] Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

2017-10-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

Dear Lou, dear Gordanna,

On 22 Oct 2017, at 05:56, Louis H Kauffman wrote:


Dear Krassimir,
Thank you!!
Yours is the most creative resolution of the Barber Paradox that I  
have encountered.

Perhaps we can apply it also to the Russell Paradox.
I do not know. Let us think about it.
Another paradox that is resolved in the human realm is the card that  
reads



“No one holding this card can verify the truth of this statement  
inscribed upon it.”



For a human holding the card can say “Suppose I were not holding the  
card. Then indeed the statement can be seen to be true
since if my friend Max were holding the card, then the statement  
would lead Max into a contradiction if he were to attempt to verify  
it.
Thus I have verified the statement on the card by imagining that I  
do not hold the card."


I submit that this solution (modal logical as it is) is a close  
relative of your mirror solution to the Barber.
For in your mirror solution the Barber must understand that he does  
not shave himself, but that he shaves his mirror image.
Similarly the card holder must imagine that he does not hold the  
card but that another holds the card.



That is a very nice way to solve the paradox indeed, forcing us to  
make a little out-of-body experience!


I would say that

"This statement is false"

is a "genuine paradox". And the machine's solution is that "false" is  
not definable as predicate (tarski solution).


"this statement is unbelievable" go out of the paradox, not quite  
unlikely this Krassimir's solution, but it makes the statement true  
and definitely not believable except by going out of the body again,  
which machines can do, by the constructive diagonal involved.


Best regards,

Bruno






Very best regards,
Lou Kauffman


On Oct 21, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Krassimir Markov   
wrote:


Dear FIS Colleagues,

It is time for my second post this week.

First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting  
discussion!


Thank you for the nice posts.

More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity which has information activity.  
There were
many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent  
agent”,
“interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent  
subject”,
etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of  
meanings

which caused many misunderstandings.
In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be  
applied
to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept  
“robot”

is not good to be used for a human.

Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no  
meaning
in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I  
shall

use it in my further posts.

I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise  
from
what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that  
this

approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.

***

I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
“Self-reference”!

For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on  
the

basis of an example.

Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and  
Infos.

But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.

Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a  
man)
shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he  
shave

himself?

This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
(x, y, f)
or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
(there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).

I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a  
human.


The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where  
we have

quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
information about “x” because of evidence “f”.

What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?

At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data  
about the

place where the razor has to be put to shave.

Have you ever seen a Blind barber?

NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.

Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA  
about

his/her face, head, or back.

In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of  
the nose

which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!

This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not  
see where

to put the razor!

But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!

But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!

Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?

Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and  
this


Re: [Fis] Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

2017-10-22 Thread John Grisinger

FIS Colleagues:

I offer an alternative view of the Barber’s Paradox.  The term: barber 
does not refer to a person per se.  Rather it refers to a relationship 
between two persons, one of whom, when shaving another,  has the role: 
barber.  By extension, a barber is a person who provides that service.   
When I provide shaving services to others, I am a barber; when I shave 
myself, I am not a barber.  The paradox arises from not recognizing that 
persons and roles are different entities.  With the following 
rephrasing, there is no paradox.


        Bob, being the only barber in town, shaves all and only those 
men who do not shave themselves.


Changing the subject from a service-provider role to a person makes it 
is clear that Bob is one of the men who shaves himself. 



John Grisinger


On 10/22/2017 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Dear Krassimir and FIS Colleagues,

It is time for my second post this week.

First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting 
discussion!


Thank you for the nice posts.

More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity which has information activity. There 
were

many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent agent”,
“interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent subject”,
etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of meanings
which caused many misunderstandings.
In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be 
applied

to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept “robot”
is not good to be used for a human.

Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no 
meaning

in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I shall
use it in my further posts.

I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise from
what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that this
approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.

***

I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
“Self-reference”!


Thank you.



For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on the
basis of an example.

Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and Infos.
But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.

Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a man)
shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave
himself?

This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
(x, y, f)
or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
(there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).

I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a 
human.


The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where we 
have

quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
information about “x” because of evidence “f”.

What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?

At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data 
about the

place where the razor has to be put to shave.

Have you ever seen a Blind barber?

NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.

Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA about
his/her face, head, or back.

In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of the 
nose

which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!

This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not see 
where

to put the razor!

But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!

But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!

Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?

Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and this
way he shaves the man in the mirror.

The Barber paradox does not exist if we take in account that the 
barber is

a human (a kind of Infos) and needs data.

So, the answer of the question “Does he shave himself?“ is NO!, he
doesn’t, he shaves the man in the mirror who do not shave himself 
because

the razor is in the hand of barber and no paradox exists.

Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?



Hmm... Let say a village exists where the barber shaves all and only 
men who does not shave themselves (nor beard in that village!).


Then we have the logical paradox. If he does not shave himself he has 
to shave himself, by definition, and if he shaves himself, he shaves 
someone shaving himself, which he can't do.


The solution of the paradox is simple: there is no such village. (we 
cannot solve so easily the paradox of the set of all set which do not 
belong to themselves, though).


The idea of adding a "time parameter" is good though, and that is what 
make the notion of enumeration of all partal computable functions 
possible, but with the price that the one everywhere defined will be 
sparsed in an 

Re: [Fis] Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

2017-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal


Dear Krassimir and FIS Colleagues,





It is time for my second post this week.

First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting  
discussion!


Thank you for the nice posts.

More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity which has information activity. There  
were
many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent  
agent”,
“interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent  
subject”,
etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of  
meanings

which caused many misunderstandings.
In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be  
applied
to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept  
“robot”

is not good to be used for a human.

Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no  
meaning
in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I  
shall

use it in my further posts.

I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise  
from

what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that this
approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.

***

I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
“Self-reference”!


Thank you.





For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on the
basis of an example.

Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and  
Infos.

But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.

Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a  
man)
shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he  
shave

himself?

This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
(x, y, f)
or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
(there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).

I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a  
human.


The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where  
we have

quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
information about “x” because of evidence “f”.

What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?

At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data  
about the

place where the razor has to be put to shave.

Have you ever seen a Blind barber?

NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.

Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA about
his/her face, head, or back.

In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of the  
nose

which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!

This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not see  
where

to put the razor!

But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!

But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!

Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?

Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and  
this

way he shaves the man in the mirror.

The Barber paradox does not exist if we take in account that the  
barber is

a human (a kind of Infos) and needs data.

So, the answer of the question “Does he shave himself?“ is NO!, he
doesn’t, he shaves the man in the mirror who do not shave himself  
because

the razor is in the hand of barber and no paradox exists.

Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?



Hmm... Let say a village exists where the barber shaves all and only  
men who does not shave themselves (nor beard in that village!).


Then we have the logical paradox. If he does not shave himself he has  
to shave himself, by definition, and if he shaves himself, he shaves  
someone shaving himself, which he can't do.


The solution of the paradox is simple: there is no such village. (we  
cannot solve so easily the paradox of the set of all set which do not  
belong to themselves, though).


The idea of adding a "time parameter" is good though, and that is what  
make the notion of enumeration of all partal computable functions  
possible, but with the price that the one everywhere defined will be  
sparsed in an non computable way, leading to incompleteness and  
intrinsic ignorance.


Yet, if we cannot build a machine comprehending its own semantics, we  
can build a machine referring to any of its parts, including the whole  
part of itself, by the use of the second recursion theorem of Kleene,  
or Gödel self-reference.
The basic idea is elementary: you apply a duplicator to its self  
description (in some universal machinery). If D'x' = 'x'x'', D'D'  
gives 'D'D'' (with a reasonable notion of quoting). Similarly if D'x'  
gives T('x'x''), D'D' gives T applied to itself T('D'D'').  With the  
term "human", you might have added a piece of non 3p communicable  
insight, in which case you were referring, I guess, partially at  
least, to the non nameable first person transported by that 3p self.  
(in 

Re: [Fis] Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

2017-10-21 Thread Louis H Kauffman
Dear Krassimir,
Thank you!!
Yours is the most creative resolution of the Barber Paradox that I have 
encountered.
Perhaps we can apply it also to the Russell Paradox.
I do not know. Let us think about it.
Another paradox that is resolved in the human realm is the card that reads


“No one holding this card can verify the truth of this statement inscribed upon 
it.”


For a human holding the card can say “Suppose I were not holding the card. Then 
indeed the statement can be seen to be true
since if my friend Max were holding the card, then the statement would lead Max 
into a contradiction if he were to attempt to verify it.
Thus I have verified the statement on the card by imagining that I do not hold 
the card."

I submit that this solution (modal logical as it is) is a close relative of 
your mirror solution to the Barber.
For in your mirror solution the Barber must understand that he does not shave 
himself, but that he shaves his mirror image.
Similarly the card holder must imagine that he does not hold the card but that 
another holds the card.
Very best regards,
Lou Kauffman


> On Oct 21, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:
> 
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
> 
> It is time for my second post this week.
> 
> First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting discussion!
> 
> Thank you for the nice posts.
> 
> More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
> problem with concept of entity which has information activity. There were
> many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent agent”,
> “interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent subject”,
> etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of meanings
> which caused many misunderstandings.
> In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be applied
> to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept “robot”
> is not good to be used for a human.
> 
> Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no meaning
> in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I shall
> use it in my further posts.
> 
> I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise from
> what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that this
> approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.
> 
> ***
> 
> I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
> “Self-reference”!
> 
> For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on the
> basis of an example.
> 
> Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and Infos.
> But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.
> 
> Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a man)
> shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave
> himself?
> 
> This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
> (x, y, f)
> or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
> (there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).
> 
> I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a human.
> 
> The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where we have
> quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
> information about “x” because of evidence “f”.
> 
> What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?
> 
> At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data about the
> place where the razor has to be put to shave.
> 
> Have you ever seen a Blind barber?
> 
> NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.
> 
> Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA about
> his/her face, head, or back.
> 
> In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of the nose
> which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!
> 
> This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not see where
> to put the razor!
> 
> But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
> Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!
> 
> But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
> It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!
> 
> Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?
> 
> Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and this
> way he shaves the man in the mirror.
> 
> The Barber paradox does not exist if we take in account that the barber is
> a human (a kind of Infos) and needs data.
> 
> So, the answer of the question “Does he shave himself?“ is NO!, he
> doesn’t, he shaves the man in the mirror who do not shave himself because
> the razor is in the hand of barber and no paradox exists.
> 
> Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?
> 
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> 

[Fis] Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

2017-10-21 Thread Krassimir Markov
Dear FIS Colleagues,

It is time for my second post this week.

First of all I am glad to participate in such very interesting discussion!

Thank you for the nice posts.

More than 25 years ago, working on the new theory, I had to solve the
problem with concept of entity which has information activity. There were
many candidates for such concept: “robot”, “agent”, “intelligent agent”,
“interpreter”, “subject”, “information subject”, “intelligent subject”,
etc. Every such concept had its own history and many domains of meanings
which caused many misunderstandings.
In the same time, if one had a single meaning then it couldn’t be applied
to all entities with information activity. For instance, concept “robot”
is not good to be used for a human.

Because of this, we had proposed a new word: “INFOS”, which had no meaning
in advance and may be defined freely without misunderstandings. I shall
use it in my further posts.

I do not want to define it now. Step by step its meaning will arise from
what I shall write. In many discussions till now, I had seen that this
approach is the best way to introduce a new concept.

***

I want specially to thank Bruno for his post from 18.10.2017 about
“Self-reference”!

For me, it is very important it to be analyzed. I shall do this on the
basis of an example.

Not all kinds of self-reference concern information activity and Infos.
But, if at least one case exists, then we have to analyze it.

Such case, for instance, is the Barber paradox: A barber (who is a man)
shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves. Does he shave
himself?

This paradox exists only in “3D” mathematical world based on triad
 (x, y, f)
or, in other writings: (x, f, y), y=f(x), etc.
(there are several nice publications of Mark Burgin about triads !).

I.e. paradox exists only if we ignore the fact that the Barber is a human.

The paradox could not exist in the “4D” world of informatics where we have
quadruple (x, y, f, I) or, in other words, for Infos “I”, “y” is
information about “x” because of evidence “f”.

What is happen when the Barber shaves someone?

At the first place, it is a direct collecting, by eyes, the data about the
place where the razor has to be put to shave.

Have you ever seen a Blind barber?

NO! OK, this is a fundamental condition.

Not only Barber, but every human COULD NOT DIRECTLY COLLECT DATA about
his/her face, head, or back.

In another case, for instance, we have to have eye on the end of the nose
which has to be as long as the elephant trunk!

This means: the barber cannot shave himself because he could not see where
to put the razor!

But every man can shave his beard! How he can do it?
Of course, everyone will say, by using a mirror!

But this is NOT DIRECT REFLECTION (data collecting).
It is TRANSITIVE SELF-REFLECTION via mirror!

Who does the barber shave: himself or the man in the mirror?

Of course, the second!!! Barber puts the razor on his own beard and this
way he shaves the man in the mirror.

The Barber paradox does not exist if we take in account that the barber is
a human (a kind of Infos) and needs data.

So, the answer of the question “Does he shave himself?“ is NO!, he
doesn’t, he shaves the man in the mirror who do not shave himself because
the razor is in the hand of barber and no paradox exists.

Simple question: What we really see in the mirror?

Friendly greetings
Krassimir




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