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
