[Fis] _ Re: Closing Lecture

2016-02-03 Thread Marcus Abundis
Hi Bob (U),

Reading your (Tue Feb 2 21:18:25) note.
> minority opinion among the FIS group . . .
> believe that information possesses both epistemic and ontic features<
I find myself wondering if there is a specific reason you believe this is a
"minority opinion" rather than the exchanges reflecting people struggling
with an interesting problem from various perspectives?

Have I missed something fundamental to this group?
For me, Otto's (Tue Feb 2 13:06) note that:
> seems what is crucially needed is a theory that brings together . . .<
captures the essence of the matter, but that we (FIS?) have yet to surmount.

Loet's note (Mon Jan 18 07:58:42) in reply to my own dualistic struggles on
"Meaning versus Functional Significance" got me to scratching my head . . .
> In my opinion, such an approach is fully consistent with Shannon’s H. > S
= k(B) * H > The Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality
(Joule/Kelvin) so that S is thermodynamic
> entropy. H is a mathematical formula. It can be used to measure your
“functional significances”,
> cannot it?
And, of course he is correct in saying this . . . it is hard to think
that does not entail some manner of (entropic) functional significance. But
teasing apart the differences is something rather different. So the naive
dualistic notion I was proposing did nothing to improve things (really).

As I reflect on this (and Howard's "communications") further I think the
point Terry Deacon raised in his IS4IS talk on "levels of analysis" and the
importance of keeping divisions clear points me toward home. I recall how
Type Theory (naming levels of analysis) was used to resolve similar logical
paradoxes, akin to the dualistic debate seen here. As I said, this all
points to an interesting problem . . .
Fis mailing list

[Fis] _ Re: _ Closing lecture

2016-02-02 Thread Krassimir Markov
Dear Howard,

Thank you very much for your great effort and nice explanation!
I like it!

Only what I needed to see is a concrete answer to the question “what it the 
You absolutely clearly described it and I totally agree with your 
Only what is needed is to conclude with a short definition.
I think it may be the next:

The Information is a reflection which may be interpreted by its receiver in the 
context the receiver has in his/her memory.

>From this definition many consequences follow. In future we may discuss them.

Friendly regards

Dear FIS Colleagues,

1. At the ITHEA web side, the conferences for year 2016 have been announced.
One of them is the XIV-th International Conference on “General Information 
Please visit link:
Welcome in Varna, Bulgaria !

2. May be it will be interesting to read the paper, published in our 
International Journal “Information Theories and Applications” ( 
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/ ) :
Formal Theory of Semantic and Pragmatic Information - a Technocratic Approach
by Venco Bojilov
Please send your remarks to the author to e-mail: off...@ithea.org 


From: howlbl...@aol.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:46 AM
To: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es 
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es 
Subject: [Fis] _ Closing lecture

First, a few responses.  I agree with Hans von Baeyer.  Pedro’s kindness is 

I agree with Gyorgy Darvas that quarks communicate.

I also agree with Jerry Chandler.  Brute force is not the major mover of 
history.  Values and virtues count.  A lot.  In fact, a culture organizes 
itself by calling one way of doing things evil—brute force—and another way of 
doing things a value  and a virtue.  Our way is the value and the virtue.  The 
ways of others are brute force and evil.  We see cooperation  and warmth among 
us.  But only enmity  and destruction among them.  

The  brute force is not within groups, where values, virtues, and compassion 
prevail.  It’s between groups.  It’s in the pecking order battles between 

Which means, in answer to Marcus Abundis, yes, groups struggle for position in 
inter-group hierarchies like chickens in a barnyard.  For example, America and 
China are vying right now for top position in the barnyard of nations.  
Russia’s in that battle, too.  On a lower level, so are Saudi Arabia and Iran, 
whose proxy war in Syria for pecking order dominance has cost a quarter of a 
million lives.  That’s brute force.  Between groups whose citizens are often 
lovely and loving to each other.  Whose citizens are proud of their values and 

Now for a final statement.

Information exists in a context.  That’s not at all surprising.  Information is 
all about context.  As the writings of Guenther Witzany hint.  And as Ludwig 
Wittgenstein also suggested.  Information is relational.  Information does not 
exist in a vacuum.  It connects participants.  And it makes things happen.  
When it’s not connecting participants, it’s not information

FIS gets fired up to a high energy level when discussing the definition of 
information and its relationship to Shannon’s entropic information equation.  
Alas, these discussions tend  to remove the context.  And context is what gives 
information its indispensable ingredient, meaning.

There are two basic approaches in science:  

·the abstract mathematical; 

·and the observational empirical.  

Mathematical abstractionists dwell on definitions and equations.  Empirical 
observers gather facts.  Darwin was an observational empiricist. I’d like to 
see more of Darwin’s kind of science in the world of information theory.

One of Darwin’s most important contributions was not the concept of natural 
selection.  It was an approach that Darwin got from Kant and from his 
grandfather Erasmus.  That approach?  Lay out the history of the cosmos on a 
timeline and piece together its story.  In chronological order.  Piece together 
the saga of how this cosmos has created itself.  Including the self-motivated, 
self-creation of life.

Communication plays a vital role in this story.  It appears in the first 
10(-32) of a second of the cosmos’ existence, when quarks communicated using 
attraction and repulsion cues.  OK, it’s not quite right to call the cues 
attraction and repulsion cues.  When two quarks sized each other up, they 
interpreted the signals of the strong force differently.  If you were a quark, 
another quark might size you up and promptly speed away.  But a quark of a 
different variety might detect the same signals, find them wildly attractive, 
and speed in your direction.  One quark’s meat was another’s poison, even in 
that first form of communication in the cosmos.  

Information is not a stand-alone.  Again, it’s contextual.  It’s ruled by what 
Guenther Witzany calls syntax, semantics, and, most