Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Karl Javorszky]

al
> sciences as we know them today may be in need of clarifying the nature of
> space and time underlying both the issues. So, suppose a fair coin toss
> game. If the tossing is repeated, the probability of heads or tails up
> would be just fifty-fifty. However, the outcome of each individual
> tossing-up would be either head or tail, and by no means in between like
> the fifty-fifty. What is more, the coin in focus assumes participation of a
> durable agent for repeating its toss-up.
>
>
>
>The statistician takes for granted the participation of the ordinary
> space and time or the static spacetime exclusive to the block-universe when
> the fifty-fifty probability is addressed. On the other hand, the agent
> involved in tossing the coin up is uncertain about the outcome of the next
> toss-up while the results of the preceding attempts already done remain
> definite. The future toward the capricious agent of tossing it up is open,
> while the content of the past has already been definitively fixed. The
> spacetime to such a playful agent is dynamically variable in distinguishing
> between the definite past and the indefinite future. The nature of the
> content of time differs between the past and the future. Information as an
> identifier of the distinction between the definite past and the indefinite
> future goes beyond the scope exclusive to the standard physics limited to
> the static block-universe, in the latter of which both the past and the
> future are definitively determinate at the present in a static manner.
> Nonetheless, there seems to be some hope in quantum mechanics in
> circumventing the present stalemate inflicting a heavy body blow on the
> stymied block-universe physics.
>
>
>
>If both the occurrence of a pure quantum state and its measurement
> could happen to be likely in a natural or experimental setting, such a pure
> state may obtain its duration with probability unity under the conditions
> that the frequency of repeated measurements can be enhanced without facing
> any limit, thanks to the quantum Zeno effect. The quantum player underlying
> such a quantum toss-up game could turn out to be quite steady and durable
> rather than merely being capricious. Biology upholding a durable
> organization of a concrete particular nature seems to take full advantage
> of durable individual events of QM origin.
>
>
>
>Although information seems to be quite a newbie in the
> philosopher-dominating time-honored discipline addressing the hard issue of
> what both space and time may look like, it might be able to enjoy some
> chance of bringing in something new empirically there.
>
>
>
>Koichiro Matsuno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Terrence
> W. DEACON
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:26 AM
> *To:* Foundations of Information Science Information Science <
> Fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH
>
>
>
> All of these claims and counter-claims are null hypotheses - hypothetical
> axioms yet to be tested, both for logical coherence and empirical
> usefulness. Place your bets. Mine are on contrary assumptions: i.e.
> non-Turing computability, fundamental incompleteness, and a deep
> entanglement between information (including reference and functional value)
> and its necessary physical substrates. Of course for this to be science all
> need to eventually yield testable hypotheses. This level of controversy
> over basic issues indicates to me that the science of information is still
> at an early stage and could be potentially held back by the hubris of
> certainty.
>
>
>
> — Terry
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Koichiro Matsuno]

On 19 Sept 2017 at 1:26 AM Terrence W. DEACON wrote:

 

the science of information is still at an early stage and could be potentially 
held back by the hubris of certainty.

 

   Although I do not want to muddy the waters further, the distinction between 
information (to whom; or only to the statistician?) and physical sciences as we 
know them today may be in need of clarifying the nature of space and time 
underlying both the issues. So, suppose a fair coin toss game. If the tossing 
is repeated, the probability of heads or tails up would be just fifty-fifty. 
However, the outcome of each individual tossing-up would be either head or 
tail, and by no means in between like the fifty-fifty. What is more, the coin 
in focus assumes participation of a durable agent for repeating its toss-up.

 

   The statistician takes for granted the participation of the ordinary space 
and time or the static spacetime exclusive to the block-universe when the 
fifty-fifty probability is addressed. On the other hand, the agent involved in 
tossing the coin up is uncertain about the outcome of the next toss-up while 
the results of the preceding attempts already done remain definite. The future 
toward the capricious agent of tossing it up is open, while the content of the 
past has already been definitively fixed. The spacetime to such a playful agent 
is dynamically variable in distinguishing between the definite past and the 
indefinite future. The nature of the content of time differs between the past 
and the future. Information as an identifier of the distinction between the 
definite past and the indefinite future goes beyond the scope exclusive to the 
standard physics limited to the static block-universe, in the latter of which 
both the past and the future are definitively determinate at the present in a 
static manner. Nonetheless, there seems to be some hope in quantum mechanics in 
circumventing the present stalemate inflicting a heavy body blow on the stymied 
block-universe physics.   

 

   If both the occurrence of a pure quantum state and its measurement could 
happen to be likely in a natural or experimental setting, such a pure state may 
obtain its duration with probability unity under the conditions that the 
frequency of repeated measurements can be enhanced without facing any limit, 
thanks to the quantum Zeno effect. The quantum player underlying such a quantum 
toss-up game could turn out to be quite steady and durable rather than merely 
being capricious. Biology upholding a durable organization of a concrete 
particular nature seems to take full advantage of durable individual events of 
QM origin. 

 

   Although information seems to be quite a newbie in the 
philosopher-dominating time-honored discipline addressing the hard issue of 
what both space and time may look like, it might be able to enjoy some chance 
of bringing in something new empirically there.  

 

   Koichiro Matsuno

 

 

 



From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Terrence W. DEACON
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:26 AM
To: Foundations of Information Science Information Science 
<Fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

 

All of these claims and counter-claims are null hypotheses - hypothetical 
axioms yet to be tested, both for logical coherence and empirical usefulness. 
Place your bets. Mine are on contrary assumptions: i.e. non-Turing 
computability, fundamental incompleteness, and a deep entanglement between 
information (including reference and functional value) and its necessary 
physical substrates. Of course for this to be science all need to eventually 
yield testable hypotheses. This level of controversy over basic issues 
indicates to me that the science of information is still at an early stage and 
could be potentially held back by the hubris of certainty.

 

— Terry

 

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

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Lars-Göran Johansson]

18 sep. 2017 kl. 18:25 skrev Terrence W. DEACON 
>:

All of these claims and counter-claims are null hypotheses - hypothetical 
axioms yet to be tested, both for logical coherence and empirical usefulness. 
Place your bets. Mine are on contrary assumptions: i.e. non-Turing 
computability, fundamental incompleteness, and a deep entanglement between 
information (including reference and functional value) and its necessary 
physical substrates. Of course for this to be science all need to eventually 
yield testable hypotheses. This level of controversy over basic issues 
indicates to me that the science of information is still at an early stage and 
could be potentially held back by the hubris of certainty.
I fundamentally agree with Terry; the discussion is about concepts and their 
use, not about real things. In order to move on to testable empirical 
consequences one need to tell how to measure a proposed quantity. And if we 
disagree about how to measure e.g. information, we talk about different 
quantities while using the same word. The only way to establish that 
information as measured in two different ways really is the same quantity is to 
prove that these measurements without exception will yield the same output.
Lars-Göran



— Terry

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
Dear Jose,

On 15 Sep 2017, at 16:37, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero wrote:


Dear Arturo,

Math is indeed a language that CAN describe scientific issues, but it is not 
the only one. And its ability to cuantify scientific issues do not necesarily 
make it superior.
Math and natural language face the same formal and logical problems: they 
cannot make staments about themselves without falling into contradictions or 
paradoxes (as can be inferred from Gödel).

You seem to be too much quick on this. On the contrary, I would say, Gödel 
showed that when we translate the paradoxes of self-reference in arithmetic, we 
get fundamental limitation theorems, not contradictions. In fact Gödel has led, 
with the work of Löb and Solovay, to a complete axiomatization of the logic of 
machine self-reference (complete at the propositional level), and that logic 
re-introduce the nuances discovered by Plato and exploited by the 
Neopythagoreans and the Neoplatonicians theologians. Those "theologies" are 
"theories of everything": they contain physics, and so are testable, and the 
physics of the machine can be shown to be necessary quantum-like already.

Bruno



And your statement is certainly self-contradictory: if it is true then it is 
contradicted by the form of its performance (semantics).

Best regards,

El sep 15, 2017 10:17 AM, "tozziart...@libero.it" 
> escribió:
Dear FISers,
I'm sorry for bothering you,
but I start not to agree from the very first principles.

The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is 
mathematics.
Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through 
entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).

And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is subjective 
and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been already tackled by 
the math of physics: science already predicts that information can be 
"subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both relativity and quantum 
dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY 
physical context of matter and energy.

Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on the 
basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes 
metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful 
possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math).



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/


Messaggio originale
Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
>
Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
A: "fis">
Ogg: [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 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Sep 2017, at 18:25, Terrence W. DEACON wrote:

All of these claims and counter-claims are null hypotheses -  
hypothetical axioms yet to be tested, both for logical coherence and  
empirical usefulness. Place your bets. Mine are on contrary  
assumptions: i.e. non-Turing computability, fundamental  
incompleteness,


Turing universal computability entails fundamental incompleteness.



and a deep entanglement between information (including reference and  
functional value) and its necessary physical substrates.


So you are coherent. Mechanism is not compatible with materialism. If  
you have fundamental substrates, you have to assume non mechanism. My  
main result is


NOT Mechanism OR NOT materialism.   (materialism in the weak sense of  
assuming primitive physical elements).


You keep materialism, I keep mechanism. We are just working in  
different theory.



Of course for this to be science all need to eventually yield  
testable hypotheses.


The hypotheses are general and can never been tested, but we can test  
the consequences, and improve our abandon the theory.




This level of controversy over basic issues indicates to me that the  
science of information is still at an early stage and could be  
potentially held back by the hubris of certainty.



I have not claimed any truth, if this was not clear. I just say that  
Mechanism and Physicalism are incompatible, and that if we keep  
mechanism, the appearances of matter have to be derived in some way  
from the universal machine introspection.  The physical propositional  
logic has been derived in that way, and up to now, it fits with the  
quantum facts.


You can read the following papers:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body  
problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in  
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.


I just keep mechanism, but take very seriously the mind-body problem.

Bruno Marchal





— Terry

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

Dear Jose,

On 15 Sep 2017, at 16:37, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero wrote:


Dear Arturo,

Math is indeed a language that CAN describe scientific issues, but  
it is not the only one. And its ability to cuantify scientific  
issues do not necesarily make it superior.
Math and natural language face the same formal and logical  
problems: they cannot make staments about themselves without  
falling into contradictions or paradoxes (as can be inferred from  
Gödel).




You seem to be too much quick on this. On the contrary, I would say,  
Gödel showed that when we translate the paradoxes of self-reference  
in arithmetic, we get fundamental limitation theorems, not  
contradictions. In fact Gödel has led, with the work of Löb and  
Solovay, to a complete axiomatization of the logic of machine self- 
reference (complete at the propositional level), and that logic re- 
introduce the nuances discovered by Plato and exploited by the  
Neopythagoreans and the Neoplatonicians theologians. Those  
"theologies" are "theories of everything": they contain physics, and  
so are testable, and the physics of the machine can be shown to be  
necessary quantum-like already.


Bruno


And your statement is certainly self-contradictory: if it is true  
then it is contradicted by the form of its performance (semantics).


Best regards,

El sep 15, 2017 10:17 AM, "tozziart...@libero.it"  escribió:

Dear FISers,
I'm sorry for bothering you,
but I start not to agree from the very first principles.

The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues  
is mathematics.
Without math, you do not have observables, and information is  
observable.
Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined  
through entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).


And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is  
subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has  
been already tackled by the math of physics: science already  
predicts that information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL  
frameworks of both relativity and quantum dynamics' Copenhagen  
interpretation.
Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a  
TOTALLY physical context of matter and energy.


Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define  
information on the basis of qualitative (and not quantitative)  
science, information becomes metaphysics, or sociology, or  
psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful possibility of achieving  
knowledge, due to their current lack of math).



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/



Messaggio originale
Da: 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Terrence W. DEACON]

All of these claims and counter-claims are null hypotheses - hypothetical
axioms yet to be tested, both for logical coherence and empirical
usefulness. Place your bets. Mine are on contrary assumptions: i.e.
non-Turing computability, fundamental incompleteness, and a deep
entanglement between information (including reference and functional value)
and its necessary physical substrates. Of course for this to be science all
need to eventually yield testable hypotheses. This level of controversy
over basic issues indicates to me that the science of information is still
at an early stage and could be potentially held back by the hubris of
certainty.

— Terry

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Dear Jose,
>
> On 15 Sep 2017, at 16:37, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero wrote:
>
> Dear Arturo,
>
> Math is indeed a language that CAN describe scientific issues, but it is
> not the only one. And its ability to cuantify scientific issues do not
> necesarily make it superior.
> Math and natural language face the same formal and logical problems: they
> cannot make staments about themselves without falling into contradictions
> or paradoxes (as can be inferred from Gödel).
>
> You seem to be too much quick on this. On the contrary, I would say, Gödel
> showed that when we translate the paradoxes of self-reference in
> arithmetic, we get fundamental limitation theorems, not contradictions. In
> fact Gödel has led, with the work of Löb and Solovay, to a complete
> axiomatization of the logic of machine self-reference (complete at the
> propositional level), and that logic re-introduce the nuances discovered by
> Plato and exploited by the Neopythagoreans and the Neoplatonicians
> theologians. Those "theologies" are "theories of everything": they contain
> physics, and so are testable, and the physics of the machine can be shown
> to be necessary quantum-like already.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> And your statement is certainly self-contradictory: if it is true then it
> is contradicted by the form of its performance (semantics).
>
> Best regards,
> El sep 15, 2017 10:17 AM, "tozziart...@libero.it" 
> escribió:
>
> Dear FISers,
> I'm sorry for bothering you,
> but I start not to agree from the very first principles.
>
> The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is
> mathematics.
> Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
> Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through
> entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
>
> And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is
> subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been
> already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that
> information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both
> relativity and quantum dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
> Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY
> physical context of matter and energy.
>
> Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on
> the basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information
> becomes metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with
> doubtful possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of
> math).
>
>
> *Arturo Tozzi*
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
> Messaggio originale
> Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
> A: "fis"
> Ogg: [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,
> 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
per com-prendere l'esistenza e la conoscenza  esiste un'unica legge: quella
dell'informazione. Materia, energia, spazio, tempo, etc., non sono altro
che informazione materiale, informazione energetica, informazione spaziale,
informazione temporale, etc. Sono pervenuto anch'io (ma non siamo in molti)
a questa non definitiva o non immutabile conclusione attraverso
l'elaborazione della NUOVA ECONOMIA della conoscenza o la conoscenza della
NUOVA ECONOMIA contenuta in tanti miei libri e ultimamente in:
"Una nuova avventura tra l'idolatria del denaro e lo spirito dell'amore con
com-passione o viscerale emo-ra-zionalità", Aracne editrice, Roma, 2017.
Sono stato sempre consapevole di essere un "poverino esponenziale", ma con
la mia tenace volontà e non smettendo mai la mia attività di ricerca e di
studio ho com-preso ciò che sembra(va) in-com-prensibile, ma niente è
incomprensibile a questo mondo basta avere un'immaginazione creativa e non
poca umiltà.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco Rizzo

2017-09-16 13:50 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson :

> Dear Arturo, all,
>
> First of all, thank you to Pedro for exciting the list again - I was
> missing it!
>
> I have sympathy with Arturo's position, not because I am a
> mathematician (I'm not), but because I get tired of the "posturing"
> that qualitative positions produce among academics. I work in
> education, and education theory is full of this. Chomsky had a go at
> Zizek and much postmodern social theory for this very reason:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0. He's got a point hasn't
> he?
>
> One of the exciting aspects of quantum mechanics is that some of what
> we intuitively know about social life seems to be mirrored in the
> quantum world and is expressible in mathematics. That this has some
> empirical foundation upon which scientists can agree presents the
> prospect of a deeper rethinking of a logic which might encompass a
> broader spectrum of life and lived experience. This is not a new
> dream: it is very similar to aims of the early cyberneticians who met
> in the Macy hotel in the late 1940s.
>
> However, progress towards this is hampered by a number of things.
> 1. The splits between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, and
> between quantum mechanics and relativity seem to arise from
> irreconcilable originating perspectives. A colleague of mine at
> Liverpool, Peter Rowlands has been hammering away at this for over 30
> years (see https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Physical-Law-
> Peter-Rowlands/dp/9814618373/ref=sr_1_1?s=books=UTF8&
> qid=1505562032=1-1=peter+rowlands+physical+law),
> establishing a coherent mathematical description which unites
> classical and quantum mechanics - but of course, such attempts often
> meet with incomprehension by the physics community who have
> established careers on the back of existing paradigms. There is a
> human problem in addressing the physics problem!
>
> 2. The nature of mathematics and number itself is a question. It's a
> very ancient question - I was delighted and surprised to learn that
> John Duns Scotus worked out a logic of "superposition" in the 13th
> century (he called it "synchronic contingency") see
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-John-Duns-Scotus/dp/0748624627.
> Maths is a discourse, like physics and sociology. If there wasn't
> coordination between mathematicians about the symbols they use and
> their meaning, there would be no maths. Curiously, neither would there
> be maths if all the mathematicians in world perfectly agree on all
> symbols and meaning! (there'd be nothing to talk about).
>
> 3. given point 2, to put maths before information is to invite the
> challenge that maths is information (as discourse), and without
> information there is no maths!
>
> However, can we do better than "posturing". Yes, I think we can, and
> this may well involve new empirical practices, but this requires a new
> shared perspective. Maybe our approaching quantum computers will give
> us this by making the weirdness of superposition, entanglements and
> the inherent dynamic symmetry of the quantum world part of everyday
> life...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
> On 15 September 2017 at 14:16, tozziart...@libero.it
>  wrote:
> > Dear FISers,
> > I'm sorry for bothering you,
> > but I start not to agree from the very first principles.
> >
> > The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is
> > mathematics.
> > Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
> > Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through
> > entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
> >
> > And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is
> > subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been
> > already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that
> > information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both
> > 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Mark Johnson]

Dear Arturo, all,

First of all, thank you to Pedro for exciting the list again - I was missing it!

I have sympathy with Arturo's position, not because I am a
mathematician (I'm not), but because I get tired of the "posturing"
that qualitative positions produce among academics. I work in
education, and education theory is full of this. Chomsky had a go at
Zizek and much postmodern social theory for this very reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVBOtxCfan0. He's got a point hasn't
he?

One of the exciting aspects of quantum mechanics is that some of what
we intuitively know about social life seems to be mirrored in the
quantum world and is expressible in mathematics. That this has some
empirical foundation upon which scientists can agree presents the
prospect of a deeper rethinking of a logic which might encompass a
broader spectrum of life and lived experience. This is not a new
dream: it is very similar to aims of the early cyberneticians who met
in the Macy hotel in the late 1940s.

However, progress towards this is hampered by a number of things.
1. The splits between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics, and
between quantum mechanics and relativity seem to arise from
irreconcilable originating perspectives. A colleague of mine at
Liverpool, Peter Rowlands has been hammering away at this for over 30
years (see 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Physical-Law-Peter-Rowlands/dp/9814618373/ref=sr_1_1?s=books=UTF8=1505562032=1-1=peter+rowlands+physical+law),
establishing a coherent mathematical description which unites
classical and quantum mechanics - but of course, such attempts often
meet with incomprehension by the physics community who have
established careers on the back of existing paradigms. There is a
human problem in addressing the physics problem!

2. The nature of mathematics and number itself is a question. It's a
very ancient question - I was delighted and surprised to learn that
John Duns Scotus worked out a logic of "superposition" in the 13th
century (he called it "synchronic contingency") see
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophy-John-Duns-Scotus/dp/0748624627.
Maths is a discourse, like physics and sociology. If there wasn't
coordination between mathematicians about the symbols they use and
their meaning, there would be no maths. Curiously, neither would there
be maths if all the mathematicians in world perfectly agree on all
symbols and meaning! (there'd be nothing to talk about).

3. given point 2, to put maths before information is to invite the
challenge that maths is information (as discourse), and without
information there is no maths!

However, can we do better than "posturing". Yes, I think we can, and
this may well involve new empirical practices, but this requires a new
shared perspective. Maybe our approaching quantum computers will give
us this by making the weirdness of superposition, entanglements and
the inherent dynamic symmetry of the quantum world part of everyday
life...

Best wishes,

Mark

On 15 September 2017 at 14:16, tozziart...@libero.it
 wrote:
> Dear FISers,
> I'm sorry for bothering you,
> but I start not to agree from the very first principles.
>
> The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is
> mathematics.
> Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
> Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through
> entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
>
> And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is
> subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been
> already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that
> information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both
> relativity and quantum dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
> Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY
> physical context of matter and energy.
>
> Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on
> the basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes
> metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful
> possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math).
>
>
> Arturo Tozzi
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
>
> Messaggio originale
> Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
> A: "fis"
> Ogg: [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). 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Christophe Menant]

Interesting points  Guy,
Let me proposed a few things that can come in addition.
“Fitness” could be worded “conformance to a demand”, or “satisfaction of a 
constraint”. And there we are talking about existing relations, like satisfying 
a ”stay alive” constraint for animals, a ”look for happiness “ one for humans 
and an “avoid obstacles “ one for a robot.
Also distinguishing between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ is indeed key.
I believe that we have first to agree that the concept of information exists by 
the meanings that can be associated to information. Humans have invented 1+1=2 
because 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples to avoid starving. The modeling of reality 
is not for free. Take away the concept of meaning, the one of information 
disappears. The relations between the two can be pretty complex but a thread is 
that meanings are the results of interpretation of information by agents.  So 
the concept of “meaning generation” by an agent submitted to an internal 
constraint, as already addressed in our FIS forum.
Best
Christophe



De : Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> de la part de Guy A Hoelzer 
<hoel...@unr.edu>
Envoyé : vendredi 15 septembre 2017 20:25
À : Foundations of Information Science Information Science
Cc : tozziart...@libero.it
Objet : Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

I agree with Arturo.  I understand information exclusively as matter and 
energy, and the diversity of their states through space/time.  What else it 
there?  The alternative would be to accept ‘information’ as merely an heuristic 
concept that helps us to communicate and make sense of our lives without the 
goal of identifying real phenomena.  I think the freedom to create and use such 
heuristic concepts is essential for many reasons, but we are constantly 
challenged as scientists with distinguishing between these terms and those we 
think and hope approximate real phenomena.  A grad student I worked with 
suggested the term “tool words” to label terms we recognize as mainly 
heuristic.  As an evolutionary biologist, I would suggest the term “fitness” 
has been a very useful heuristic term, but that “fitness” does not actually 
exist.  This statement might surprise or even put off many of my colleagues, 
which I think illustrates the problem caused by failing to make this 
distinction explicit.  As I have argued before, I think clearly distinguishing 
between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ would be a good first step in this 
direction.

Regards,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno

Phone:  775-784-4860
Fax:  775-784-1302



On Sep 15, 2017, at 6:16 AM, 
tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it> wrote:

Dear FISers,
I'm sorry for bothering you,
but I start not to agree from the very first principles.

The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is 
mathematics.
Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through 
entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).

And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is subjective 
and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been already tackled by 
the math of physics: science already predicts that information can be 
"subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both relativity and quantum 
dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY 
physical context of matter and energy.

Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on the 
basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes 
metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful 
possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math).



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farturotozzi.webnode.it%2F=01%7C01%7Choelzer%40unr.edu%7C97485102689b43316b2308d4fc3c1d76%7C523b4bfc0ebd4c03b2b96f6a17fd31d8%7C1=zC9isQ6gnnAJWc3ZKGqZh6YWPC4x7kiQ%2BAuKKa2WZ3g%3D=0>


Messaggio originale
Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
A: "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Ogg: [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

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Guy A Hoelzer]

I agree with Arturo.  I understand information exclusively as matter and 
energy, and the diversity of their states through space/time.  What else it 
there?  The alternative would be to accept ‘information’ as merely an heuristic 
concept that helps us to communicate and make sense of our lives without the 
goal of identifying real phenomena.  I think the freedom to create and use such 
heuristic concepts is essential for many reasons, but we are constantly 
challenged as scientists with distinguishing between these terms and those we 
think and hope approximate real phenomena.  A grad student I worked with 
suggested the term “tool words” to label terms we recognize as mainly 
heuristic.  As an evolutionary biologist, I would suggest the term “fitness” 
has been a very useful heuristic term, but that “fitness” does not actually 
exist.  This statement might surprise or even put off many of my colleagues, 
which I think illustrates the problem caused by failing to make this 
distinction explicit.  As I have argued before, I think clearly distinguishing 
between ‘information’ and ‘meaning’ would be a good first step in this 
direction.

Regards,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of Nevada Reno

Phone:  775-784-4860
Fax:  775-784-1302



On Sep 15, 2017, at 6:16 AM, 
tozziart...@libero.it wrote:

Dear FISers,
I'm sorry for bothering you,
but I start not to agree from the very first principles.

The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is 
mathematics.
Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through 
entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).

And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is subjective 
and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been already tackled by 
the math of physics: science already predicts that information can be 
"subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both relativity and quantum 
dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY 
physical context of matter and energy.

Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on the 
basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes 
metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful 
possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math).



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/


Messaggio originale
Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
>
Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
A: "fis">
Ogg: [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 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Michel Petitjean]

Dear Pedro, dear Arturo and dear FISers,

Thank you Pedro for these 10 principles of information science.
Even if it happens that somebody could disagree with some of these
principles, at least these 10 principles exist and they constitute a
suitable basis (if not a reference) for further discussions and
refinements.

I agree with the principle 1, in the sense that, in my opinion
information is not physical: it is in our heads, either as a
mathematical model of some physical situation, or as a concept we need
to deal with some real situation.
An observed physical phenomenon should not be confused with any
mathematical model produced by scientists to get a more or less
simplified description of this phenomenon.
E.g., the thermodynamical entropy can be modeled by an equation
formally identical to the well-known one used in communication
science.
Does it mean the informational entropy and the thermodynamical entropy
are the same thing because both lead to a common equation?
I do not believe so: one word, two meanings.
Then, the possibility to measure information in communication science
does not mean that information becomes a physical quantity in other
contexts, such as matter (the case of energy is more complex, I skip
it).
Finally, why not try to define information in metaphysics, sociology
or psychology?
Dictionnaries contain thousands of words defined without the help of
mathematics, and fortunately these definitions are of great help in
most situations.
However, finding a unifying definition of information is still a challenge.
But is it feasible? Is it desirable?
I don't know...

Best regards,

Michel.

Michel Petitjean
MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7,
35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
E-mail: petitjean.chi...@gmail.com (preferred),
michel.petitj...@univ-paris-diderot.fr
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html

/*

Unifying symmetry definition in maths:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01552499


Recent highlight: chirality can be defined without the help of any
orientation concept:

Chirality in metric spaces. In memoriam Michel Deza.
Optim. Letters, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-017-1189-7

*/

2017-09-15 15:16 GMT+02:00 tozziart...@libero.it :
> Dear FISers,
> I'm sorry for bothering you,
> but I start not to agree from the very first principles.
>
> The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is 
> mathematics.
> Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
> Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through 
> entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
>
> And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is subjective 
> and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been already tackled by 
> the math of physics: science already predicts that information can be 
> "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both relativity and quantum 
> dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
> Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY 
> physical context of matter and energy.
>
> Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on the 
> basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes 
> metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful 
> possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math).
>
>
> Arturo Tozzi
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
>
> Messaggio originale
> Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
> A: "fis"
> Ogg: [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 

Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[Jose Javier Blanco Rivero]

Dear Arturo,

Math is indeed a language that CAN describe scientific issues, but it is
not the only one. And its ability to cuantify scientific issues do not
necesarily make it superior.
Math and natural language face the same formal and logical problems: they
cannot make staments about themselves without falling into contradictions
or paradoxes (as can be inferred from Gödel).
And your statement is certainly self-contradictory: if it is true then it
is contradicted by the form of its performance (semantics).

Best regards,
El sep 15, 2017 10:17 AM, "tozziart...@libero.it" 
escribió:

Dear FISers,
I'm sorry for bothering you,
but I start not to agree from the very first principles.

The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is
mathematics.
Without math, you do not have observables, and information is observable.
Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined through
entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).

And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is
subjective and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been
already tackled by the math of physics: science already predicts that
information can be "subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both
relativity and quantum dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.
Therefore, the subjectivity of information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY
physical context of matter and energy.

Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on
the basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information
becomes metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with
doubtful possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of
math).


*Arturo Tozzi*

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/


Messaggio originale
Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
Data: 15/09/2017 14.13
A: "fis"
Ogg: [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 be  processed
(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-cycles underlie
the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.

6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication
exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social
nature."

7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient
knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by applying
rigorous methodologies.

8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially
overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies."

9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous
actualization 

[Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers, I'm sorry for bothering you, but I start not to agree from the 
very first principles.
The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is 
mathematics.Without math, you do not have observables, and information is 
observable. Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined 
through entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is subjective 
and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been already tackled by 
the math of physics: science already predicts that information can be 
"subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both relativity and quantum 
dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.  Therefore, the subjectivity of 
information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY physical context of matter and 
energy.  
Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on the 
basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes 
metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful 
possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math). 

Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 

Data: 15/09/2017 14.13

A: "fis"

Ogg: [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 be 
  processed (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-cycles
  underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.

6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential
  communication exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the
  core of its "social nature." 

7. Human information may be systematically converted into
  efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and
  further up by applying rigorous methodologies.

8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are
  partially overcome via the social organization of "knowledge
  ecologies." 



9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous
  actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and
  disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna. 



10. 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