Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture – The Correct Level of Analysis?

2015-04-27 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Caro Marcus Abundis,
il non-duale o l'uni-duale modello non è costituito da rumore (entropia) &
segnale, ma da interpretazione & informazione (neg-entropia). E se vogliamo
approssimarci di più alla realtà liberamente creata dobbiamo analizzare
l'uni-trialità: entropia (rumore), interpretazione, neg-entropia
(segnalazione) o significazione (informazione). Come se l'interpretazione
fosse l'interfaccia tra entropia e neg-entropia o tra Boltzmann e Shannon
in un quadro più ampio comprendente l'informazione naturale o
termodinamica, genetica, matematica o cibernetica e semantica. Cfr. anche
l'e-mai inviata a Tutti il 25 aprile scorso.
Saluti cordiali.
Francesco Rizzo

2015-04-27 13:32 GMT+02:00 Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Terry – and “first-time greetings“ to FIS colleagues,
>
>
> First, Terry, thank you for your continued effort with this contentious
> topic. It is truly necessary and worthwhile “heavy lifting.“
>
>
> Second, in reading all prior postings I am drawn to your 30 Jan. note:
>
> > . . . I haven't felt that the specific components of this proposal have
> been addressed in this thread. <
>
> I find myself wondering if this is still the case, in the current thread.
> This also prompts me to wonder WHY is this “informational topic“ so
> doggedly contentious? Your January essay and your April preamble both
> emphasize a need for “reductive“ study of the topic, but which does not
> seem to truly arise here. This drives me to ask, indeed: “What is the
> correct level of analysis?“, and what is the level of analysis exhibited.
> To be clear, I support the reductive vista you seem to endorse.
>
>
> My impression is that there is little focus on the MOST reductive issues,
> and there is a bit of reasonable “jumping around“ as people reach for
> exemplars to explain/explore/connect their own view of things. But I also
> think a problem is buried in “jumping explanatory levels“ due to the nature
> of “emergent things.“ The unavoidable (co-incident?) inclusion of emergent
> elements (homunculi?), due to jumping explanatory levels seems likely to
> introduce logical gaps, that can leave people confused and argumentative.
> In some ways, your teleodynamic model may even encourage jumping around,
> simply due to its ambitious nature. Thus, I wonder if that ambitiousness
> hinders the model’s accessibility. Thoughts? (Yes, some ambitiousness is,
> generally speaking, required).
>
>
> Third, I am a bit confused (or just unclear) on your assertion of a
> “non-dual model.“(?) I suspect you must recognize some “dual material
> aspect,“ at least, as part of Shannon’s model (noise & signal), and your
> January essay seems to aim to explore a “dual aspect“ vis-a-vis Boltzmann
> and Shannon – yes, they are connected, but there are also clear
> distinctions to be made too, no?
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


[Fis] New Year Lecture – The Correct Level of Analysis?

2015-04-27 Thread Marcus Abundis
Hi Terry – and “first-time greetings“ to FIS colleagues,


First, Terry, thank you for your continued effort with this contentious
topic. It is truly necessary and worthwhile “heavy lifting.“


Second, in reading all prior postings I am drawn to your 30 Jan. note:

> . . . I haven't felt that the specific components of this proposal have
been addressed in this thread. <

I find myself wondering if this is still the case, in the current thread.
This also prompts me to wonder WHY is this “informational topic“ so
doggedly contentious? Your January essay and your April preamble both
emphasize a need for “reductive“ study of the topic, but which does not
seem to truly arise here. This drives me to ask, indeed: “What is the
correct level of analysis?“, and what is the level of analysis exhibited.
To be clear, I support the reductive vista you seem to endorse.


My impression is that there is little focus on the MOST reductive issues,
and there is a bit of reasonable “jumping around“ as people reach for
exemplars to explain/explore/connect their own view of things. But I also
think a problem is buried in “jumping explanatory levels“ due to the nature
of “emergent things.“ The unavoidable (co-incident?) inclusion of emergent
elements (homunculi?), due to jumping explanatory levels seems likely to
introduce logical gaps, that can leave people confused and argumentative.
In some ways, your teleodynamic model may even encourage jumping around,
simply due to its ambitious nature. Thus, I wonder if that ambitiousness
hinders the model’s accessibility. Thoughts? (Yes, some ambitiousness is,
generally speaking, required).


Third, I am a bit confused (or just unclear) on your assertion of a
“non-dual model.“(?) I suspect you must recognize some “dual material
aspect,“ at least, as part of Shannon’s model (noise & signal), and your
January essay seems to aim to explore a “dual aspect“ vis-a-vis Boltzmann
and Shannon – yes, they are connected, but there are also clear
distinctions to be made too, no?


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