Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Stan,

Wasn't it Tycho Brahe's suscipio descipiendo, descipio suscipiendo? Nothing
but uncertainty; if order emerges, selection mechanisms must have been
specified.

 

 If uncertainty emerges, particular choices must have been specified.

 

I hesitate: it seems to me that randomness (maximal uncertainty) is the
basic assumption and that order needs to be explained. 

 

Otherwise, I agree with most of your points. We should not move too easily
from probability functions to (continuous) probability density functions.
The Shannon formulas provide us with a calculus in the discrete domain, that
is, the one where differences prevail.

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
  l...@leydesdorff.net ;
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

 

 

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

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Stanley N Salthe]

o, descipio suscipiendo? Nothing
> but uncertainty; if order emerges, selection mechanisms must have been
> specified.
>

 If uncertainty emerges, particular choices must have been specified.


> (That is an epistemological assumption.) However, these selection
> mechanisms are not given. Who would have been the One who could have given
> them to us other than our various intellects and their interacting
> discourses?
>

  Just so!

>
>
> Fortunately, I don’t send this on a Sunday morning. J
>

 Fear not!  I would suppose that you have been absolved by your own
intellect.

STAN

>
>
> With best wishes for a nice Saturday,
>
>
>
> Loet
>
>
> --
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>
>
>
> *From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]
> *On Behalf Of *Stanley N Salthe
> *Sent:* Friday, October 15, 2010 3:35 PM
> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap
>
>
>
> I would like to comment upon Conrad's statement:
>
> "When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the
> underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of
> simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the
> lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow
>
> of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner
>
> loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never
> attainable..."
> This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).
>
>
>
>   This message has been advanced in more detail in my own studies,
> published in:
>
>
>
> 1986.  Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Columbia University Press (Conrad;'s
> work up to then informed this book)
>
> 1993.  Development and Evolution. MIT Press (Chapter 3)
>
> 2002.  Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory.  General Systems
> Bulletin 31: 13-17. (I am updating this paper, and am willing to send a copy
> to anyone who requests it.)
>
>
>
>   The 'devil is in the details' as they say.  From that point of view,
> Conrad's "the flow of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with
> multiple inner loops." requires a lot of work, which I have laid some
> groundwork for in the above listed texts.
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear colleagues, 

 

Perhaps, I misread or misunderstand some of these discussions, but it seems
to me – having read Conrad – that in the background their philosophy is
cosmological or, in other words, an attempt to ground “bits in it”. I
understand that “it” is considered as a fluctuon and no longer a given, but
in flux: the assumed flux generates uncertainty or information.

 

It does not appeal to me. Having studied philosophy, I may no longer be in
need of such grounding in a metaphysics of metabiology (as I am not in need
of a religion). What appeals to me in the mathematical notion of information
is its basis in uncertainty and its dimensionlesness. In philosophical
terms, it seems to me that Shannon mathematized the Cartesian Cogito: the
uncertainty can nowadays be expressed as bits of information. Bits of
information are yet meaningless without the specification of a system of
reference: the cogitatum. Unlike Descartes, however, the cogitatum is no
longer considered as a God (the Transcendent Other), but any system of
reference can be specified. The specification of the system of reference
provides meaning to the information: the difference(s) can then make a
difference for the specified system of reference. The theoretical task is to
specify the selection mechanisms in these systems of reference. 

 

It seems to me important to follow Herbert Simon’s notion of vertical and
horizontal differentiation and then to agree with Conrad that these
differentiations can be interwoven and oblique. Synergies can be expected to
emerge at some places more than others. The autopoiesis model is functional
for the specification of the interactions among selection mechanism. At each
level (vertically) or in each dimension (horizontally) the specification of
selection mechanisms may give rise to new scientific specialisms. This
complex fabric is reflected in the scientific literature; for example, in
the reference relations among scientific texts and journals. Note that what
is considered horizontal or vertical can be tumbled because these remain
constructs of the meta-theoretical descriptions of a dynamics of the
sciences as discursive constructs. 

 

For each of the discourses, one can expect the possibility to deconstruct
and to clarify beyond a limited number of interfaces with neighbouring
discourses. Beyond that horizon, the specific selection mechanisms of the
discourse in question can become unsharp and uncertainty begins to prevail.
Uncertainty is the cosmological – or perhaps better: chaological –
assumption about the environments of the (selection) system. 

 

Wasn’t it Tycho Brahe’s suscipio descipiendo, descipio suscipiendo? Nothing
but uncertainty; if order emerges, selection mechanisms must have been
specified. (That is an epistemological assumption.) However, these selection
mechanisms are not given. Who would have been the One who could have given
them to us other than our various intellects and their interacting
discourses? 

 

Fortunately, I don’t send this on a Sunday morning. J

 

With best wishes for a nice Saturday,

 

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 3:35 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

 

I would like to comment upon Conrad's statement: 

"When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the
underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of
simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the
lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow

of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner

loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never
attainable..."
This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).

 

  This message has been advanced in more detail in my own studies,
published in:

 

1986.  Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Columbia University Press (Conrad;'s
work up to then informed this book)

1993.  Development and Evolution. MIT Press (Chapter 3)

2002.  Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory.  General Systems
Bulletin 31: 13-17. (I am updating this paper, and am willing to send a copy
to anyone who requests it.) 

 

  The 'devil is in the details' as they say.  From that point of view,
Conrad's "the flow of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with
multiple inner loops." requires a lot of work, which I have laid some
groundwork for in the above listed texts.

 

STAN  



--

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Stanley N Salthe]

I would like to comment upon Conrad's statement:

"When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the
> underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of
> simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the
> lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow

of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner

> loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never
> attainable..."
> This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).
>

  This message has been advanced in more detail in my own studies,
published in:

1986.  Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Columbia University Press (Conrad;'s
work up to then informed this book)
1993.  Development and Evolution. MIT Press (Chapter 3)
2002.  Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory.  General Systems
Bulletin 31: 13-17. (I am updating this paper, and am willing to send a copy
to anyone who requests it.)

  The 'devil is in the details' as they say.  From that point of view,
Conrad's "the flow of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with
multiple inner loops." requires a lot of work, which I have laid some
groundwork for in the above listed texts.

STAN

>
>
> -
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Pedro,

Thank you for calling my attention and that of the Group to Conrad's vision
and this most important quotation. It is certainly congenial to my logical
system, in which downward causation, imperfect circularity and
self-inconsistency are accepted as a matter of course and assigned their
necessary ontological value.

I also understand the importance of the derived informational perspective
and its consequence for a new understanding of the social recombination of
knowledge, as well as the critical questions you refer to in your last
paragraph - information acting on information, etc. I not only agree with
this perspective, but it was in this "spirit" that I tried to capture the
role of fluctuons in my "9 Points" sent to you personally. (Perhaps you may
consider it appropriate to"publish" the 9 Points now or in the near future.)

The lack of new evidence from physics for fluctuon interactions with higher
levels would not invalidate your/my view of the value of Conrad's vision.
However, such scientific evidence would be valuable in its own right as well
as possibly suggest new, non-reductionist applications.

Stan's statement points in this direction: "Then, Conrad can be seen to have
been working to try to rescue microscopic physics from those maintaining
that there cannot be a view from anywhere; that all views are by someone
located in time and space, and so, in effect, cannot be objective."
Can we talk objectively, at least in part, about the sub-quantum realm that
we will never observe directly? I believe the answer is yes, but it requires
a new approach to the meaning of being "located in time and space". In my
view and I think in that of Koichiro, it is time and space that are "located
in" or associated with us. Evidence of the influence of sub-quantum
fluctuations on biological entities may become more accessible from this
standpoint, or not. To be continued, I hope.

Best,

Joseph

- Original Message - 
From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap


Dear Joseph and FIS colleagues,

"When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the
underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of of
simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the
lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow
of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner
loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never
attainable..."
This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).

I think that more important than the concrete advancements along the
fluctuon model guidelines is the validity of the pioneering vision. It
was this "vertical flow of percolating information" what inspired in
early 90's the creation of FIS and a new dialog including the social
sciences and the humanities, not restricted to the biological and
ecosystems domains. Beyond the "biomimetic" horizon of Complexity
theorists and Artificial Life schools (then in their peak), this type of
reflection was proposing a new informational perspective to be extended
to the inner generativity of multiple realms in the scientific
enterprise (not to start a new reductionist game, but to offer a
fresh-new player in the whole social recombination of knowledge).

Some trends in information physics are undoubtedly running very close to
this direction (see for instance Lee Smolin's books; or "Decoding
Reality" on quantum information science by Vlatko Vedral, 2010) rather
unfortunately ignoring this pathway. It could be argued that some
parties in Systems Biology are also running along this trend. And
leaders of "advanced" Artificial Intelligence are nowadays proposing a
reflection on the nature of Intelligence that conduces to reconsider
information itself and the foundations of information science in a
general sense.

Perhaps in this general framework our more detailed discussions (eg,
about info signatures) or the extent of Shannon's Theory, or the
plausibility of cellular (quantum?) intelligence, or how to articulate
social information sciences... or my unanswered question on the
materiality of the microphysical laws of nature themselves --as
information that acts on information--- appear with more cogency.

all the best

---Pedro

Joseph Brenner escribió:
> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
> The following "impressionist" recap is intended not as a critique, but
> simply to perhaps help organize the continuation of this fascinating
> discussion.
>
> For me, almost all the notes have illuminated aspects of the
> "Foundations of Information Science", where participants have
> re-presented their theories developed over many years. Some of the new
> interacti

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Joseph and FIS colleagues,

"When we look at a biological system we are looking at the face of the 
underlying physics of the universe... The picture is not one of of 
simple upscale percolation. The higher levels act down scale on the 
lower levels to redefine their fundamental characteristics... the flow 
of influence is thus circular as well as vertical, with multiple inner 
loops. The circularity is imperfect; complete self-consistency is never 
attainable..."
This appears in Conrad (1996, BioSystems vol. 38 p. 108).

I think that more important than the concrete advancements along the 
fluctuon model guidelines is the validity of the pioneering vision. It 
was this "vertical flow of percolating information" what inspired in 
early 90's the creation of FIS and a new dialog including the social 
sciences and the humanities, not restricted to the biological and 
ecosystems domains. Beyond the "biomimetic" horizon of Complexity 
theorists and Artificial Life schools (then in their peak), this type of 
reflection was proposing a new informational perspective to be extended 
to the inner generativity of multiple realms in the scientific 
enterprise (not to start a new reductionist game, but to offer a 
fresh-new player in the whole social recombination of knowledge).

Some trends in information physics are undoubtedly running very close to 
this direction (see for instance Lee Smolin's books; or "Decoding 
Reality" on quantum information science by Vlatko Vedral, 2010) rather 
unfortunately ignoring this pathway. It could be argued that some 
parties in Systems Biology are also running along this trend. And 
leaders of "advanced" Artificial Intelligence are nowadays proposing a 
reflection on the nature of Intelligence that conduces to reconsider 
information itself and the foundations of information science in a 
general sense.

Perhaps in this general framework our more detailed discussions (eg, 
about info signatures) or the extent of Shannon's Theory, or the 
plausibility of cellular (quantum?) intelligence, or how to articulate 
social information sciences... or my unanswered question on the 
materiality of the microphysical laws of nature themselves --as 
information that acts on information--- appear with more cogency.

all the best

---Pedro

Joseph Brenner escribió:
> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
> The following "impressionist" recap is intended not as a critique, but 
> simply to perhaps help organize the continuation of this fascinating 
> discussion.
>
> For me, almost all the notes have illuminated aspects of the 
> "Foundations of Information Science", where participants have 
> re-presented their theories developed over many years. Some of the new 
> interactions, such as those between Robert U., Loet and Koichiro, 
> deserve development in their own right.
>
> However, my and Kevin K.'s basic question of whether /new evidence 
> exists of any interaction between the world modeled by fluctuons and 
> the thermodynamic world/ has in my opinion not been answered. If none 
> of us has this knowledge, then we must somehow "send a mission" to 
> those who might have it that could report back to us. I do not 
> consider myself as competent enough in physics to simply rephrase 
> Conrad's statements from the papers available.
>
> In relation to this, it is helpful when participants indicate their 
> basic positions about Conrad's /kind/ of theory. Steven did. There is 
> also the idea of a "physics-neutral" theory. Perhaps a total picture 
> of information can be built up without /any/ reference to the 
> structure (or lack of it) of the sub-quantum world?
>
> I disagree, of course: microphysical laws will, I believe, define the 
> information about information "in reality" that Pedro refers to. This 
> thread, that includes Karl's approach to physics and logic, needs to 
> be explored further. It is possible, (by now I guess it is reasonable 
> to assume most of you know my view on this), that information cannot 
> be defined completely by reference to a sentential logic such as that 
> proposed by Karl. Further, I am very curious, and would welcome 
> comments on in relation to information, about progress in the theory 
> of dissipative systems that has been made /since/ Prigogine, such as 
> the catastrophe theory of Thom and Petitot (itself rather outdated).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
> 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 1:37 PM
> Subject: [Fis] Recapping the discussion?
>
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> A usual practice in past chaired discussions is that after the first
> round of debates, after three weeks or so like in

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Stanley N Salthe]

I am glad to find that Koichiro's statement here corroborates my suspicion
as to what fluctuons were intended to do.  I see the framework here to be
'internalism'.  On the fluctuon idea, supposed material operations from
moment to moment at the fermion/boson level in one locale, which cannot be
observed -- as opposed to, on a common QM perspective, the observer being
part of these interactions inasmuch as the results cannot be detected
without clever constructions internally within the discipline of physics.
 We then have a compositional hierarchy:  [physical laboratory [macroscopic
manipulations [perturbed quark-gluon plasma]]]. Here we have internalities
within internalities.  This Copenhagen-kind of view is, in effect,
postmodern -- a category that most natural scientists abhor.  Then, Conrad
can be seen to have been working to try to rescue microscopic physics from
those maintaining that there cannot be a view from anywhere; that all views
are by someone located in time and space, and so, in effect, cannot be
objective.

STAN

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Koichiro Matsuno wrote:

> Folks,
>
>   Joseph wrote:
>
> >my and Kevin K.'s basic question of whether /new evidence exists of any
> interaction between the
> world modeled by fluctuons and the thermodynamic world/ has in my opinion
> not been answered.
>
>   Evidence is very old.
>
>   In a nutshell, mechanics is about the equality of quantities of the same
> quality, e.g., three
> laws of motion in Newtonian mechanics. The quality of motion remains
> invariable in mechanics. In
> contrast, thermodynamics is about the equality of quantities of the
> different qualities, as revealed
> in the first law of thermodynamics presiding over the conservation of
> energy while allowing for the
> transformation of its quality. What is unique to thermodynamics is the
> participation of an internal
> agency being capable of identifying and processing the difference of
> qualities.
>
>   The apparatus James Prescott Joule reported in 1843 demonstrated that the
> gravitational potential
> energy lost by the weight attached to a string causing a paddle immersed in
> water to rotate was
> equal to the heat energy gained by the water by friction with the paddle.
> It was not the physicist
> (or former brewer) Joule himself, but was the internal agency of material
> origin that was
> responsible for keeping the relationship between heat, the current, which
> generates it, and the
> conductor through which it passes. Somewhere right in the middle of the
> energy transformation
> changing its quality from the potential to the heat energy, some ambivalent
> situation would
> inevitably arise such that a residual amount of energy is not clear whether
> it may belong to the
> potential or to the heat energy, or to neither. Nonetheless, the
> conservation of energy must be
> observed in the finished record. Thermodynamics leaves conservation laws as
> being consequential upon
> the more fundamental motion of material origin, though such a feat is
> totally inconceivable in
> mechanics.
>
>   It was regrettable to see that the subsequent takeover of thermodynamics
> by atomic physics which
> duly and triumphantly dismissed any chances for an agency of material
> origin other than the
> physicists themselves. However, a mere dismissal by a decree is not all
> that powerful. A touchstone
> is to see any likelihood of the motion of material origin for the sake of
> the conservation of
> energy, rather than on the conservation already guaranteed. The Fluctuon
> model of Michael Conrad is
> one attempt for appreciating the motion for the sake of meeting the
> conservation laws from within
> like thermodynamics does.
>
>   Best,
>   Koichiro
>
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Koichiro Matsuno]

Folks,

   Joseph wrote:

>my and Kevin K.'s basic question of whether /new evidence exists of any 
>interaction between the
world modeled by fluctuons and the thermodynamic world/ has in my opinion not 
been answered.

   Evidence is very old.  

   In a nutshell, mechanics is about the equality of quantities of the same 
quality, e.g., three
laws of motion in Newtonian mechanics. The quality of motion remains invariable 
in mechanics. In
contrast, thermodynamics is about the equality of quantities of the different 
qualities, as revealed
in the first law of thermodynamics presiding over the conservation of energy 
while allowing for the
transformation of its quality. What is unique to thermodynamics is the 
participation of an internal
agency being capable of identifying and processing the difference of qualities. 

   The apparatus James Prescott Joule reported in 1843 demonstrated that the 
gravitational potential
energy lost by the weight attached to a string causing a paddle immersed in 
water to rotate was
equal to the heat energy gained by the water by friction with the paddle. It 
was not the physicist
(or former brewer) Joule himself, but was the internal agency of material 
origin that was
responsible for keeping the relationship between heat, the current, which 
generates it, and the
conductor through which it passes. Somewhere right in the middle of the energy 
transformation
changing its quality from the potential to the heat energy, some ambivalent 
situation would
inevitably arise such that a residual amount of energy is not clear whether it 
may belong to the
potential or to the heat energy, or to neither. Nonetheless, the conservation 
of energy must be
observed in the finished record. Thermodynamics leaves conservation laws as 
being consequential upon
the more fundamental motion of material origin, though such a feat is totally 
inconceivable in
mechanics. 

   It was regrettable to see that the subsequent takeover of thermodynamics by 
atomic physics which
duly and triumphantly dismissed any chances for an agency of material origin 
other than the
physicists themselves. However, a mere dismissal by a decree is not all that 
powerful. A touchstone
is to see any likelihood of the motion of material origin for the sake of the 
conservation of
energy, rather than on the conservation already guaranteed. The Fluctuon model 
of Michael Conrad is
one attempt for appreciating the motion for the sake of meeting the 
conservation laws from within
like thermodynamics does. 

   Best,
   Koichiro


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

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

The following "impressionist" recap is intended not as a critique, but 
simply to perhaps help organize the continuation of this fascinating 
discussion.

For me, almost all the notes have illuminated aspects of the "Foundations of 
Information Science", where participants have re-presented their theories 
developed over many years. Some of the new interactions, such as those 
between Robert U., Loet and Koichiro, deserve development in their own 
right.

However, my and Kevin K.'s basic question of whether /new evidence exists of 
any interaction between the world modeled by fluctuons and the thermodynamic 
world/ has in my opinion not been answered. If none of us has this 
knowledge, then we must somehow "send a mission" to those who might have it 
that could report back to us. I do not consider myself as competent enough 
in physics to simply rephrase Conrad's statements from the papers available.

In relation to this, it is helpful when participants indicate their basic 
positions about Conrad's /kind/ of theory. Steven did. There is also the 
idea of a "physics-neutral" theory. Perhaps a total picture of information 
can be built up without /any/ reference to the structure (or lack of it) of 
the sub-quantum world?

I disagree, of course: microphysical laws will, I believe, define the 
information about information "in reality" that Pedro refers to. This 
thread, that includes Karl's approach to physics and logic, needs to be 
explored further. It is possible, (by now I guess it is reasonable to assume 
most of you know my view on this), that information cannot be defined 
completely by reference to a sentential logic such as that proposed by Karl. 
Further, I am very curious, and would welcome comments on in relation to 
information, about progress in the theory of dissipative systems that has 
been made /since/ Prigogine, such as the catastrophe theory of Thom and 
Petitot (itself rather outdated).

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message - 
From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 1:37 PM
Subject: [Fis] Recapping the discussion?


Dear FIS colleagues,

A usual practice in past chaired discussions is that after the first
round of debates, after three weeks or so like in the current session,
the chairs recap the discussion by refocusing it on the most salient or
relevant aspects, or just by pointing to some unnoticed connections.
Could it be OK in this case? In the interim, while Kevin and Joseph try
to find their time to follow this tradition, I would point to some of
the many threads that have surfaced during the exchanges.

First, some parties, not very close to physics, have off-line asked me
for more understandable info on the fluctuon model itself. What was
published in the kickoff text was a little brief and too synthesized.
Could this point be responded by some of the physicists in the list, or
maybe by Kevin himself in his recapping?

The ratio that Bob Ulanowicz has pointed out in the self-organization
processes of ecosystems looks very important. Is it an "informational
signature" that we can find in other fields (eg, competing companies,
financial flows, neurodynamic sel-organization) accompanying problem
solving operations performed in a populational way? Does a similar ratio
appears in microphysical realms? Maybe Bob will be willing to expand on
the emergence of that complexity indicator. I should also point to the
strong regularities and ratios, and power laws, that
unidimensional/multidimensional partitions show (Karl has uncovered some
of them).

The problem of hierarchy / heterarchy is a very tough one. I will
reserve some arguments for a future posting as I think that comments
from Stan, Guy, Xueshan and others deserve further discussion. Lee Jacob
has raised a point very close to Koichiro reflections --my own bold
question about that: if microphysical laws of nature are, so to speak,
"information about information" shouldn't they be situated in
space-time, rather than in the disembodied idealistic framework we take
for granted. Could the "materiality" of the laws themselves be involved
in the "perpetual disequilibrium" Koichiro mentions?

best wishes

Pedro

PS. I am very pleased to announce that the next discussion session will
deal with "Intelligence and Information", chaired by Professor Yi-Xin
Zhong (Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications).


-- 

-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Bob, 

Perhaps, you can explain a bit and provide examples of apophatic
considerations which can be relevant in explaining ecosystems. 

I find it not difficult at all to find sociological examples. For example,
the communication of meaning (unlike the communication of information)
cannot directly be observed, but entertaining this hypothesis enriches our
understanding of the phenomena. In sociology, Giddens, for example, has
called this a focus on "instantiations". Social structures remain latent,
and accordingly operate in a virtual reality. In other words (Husserl) one
can consider these orders of expectations res cogitans as different from res
extensa. 

Is there something similar in biology? I assume that Maturana would deny it
because the focus in the theory of autopoiesis is very much on the
observables and observed information as different from expected information.
I always thought that this was a biologistic a priori, but you seem to say
that in biology there is also room for assuming that unobservables are
important for the explanation. I can easily see that this may cross the
borderline of becoming obscure. How does one prevent that?

It would be most helpful if you can provide examples. 

Best wishes, 
Loet



Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 


-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Robert Ulanowicz
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 7:30 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion?

Quoting "Pedro C. Marijuan" :

> The ratio that Bob Ulanowicz has pointed out in the self-organization 
> processes of ecosystems looks very important. Is it an "informational 
> signature" that we can find in other fields (eg, competing companies, 
> financial flows, neurodynamic sel-organization) accompanying problem 
> solving operations performed in a populational way? Does a similar 
> ratio appears in microphysical realms? Maybe Bob will be willing to 
> expand on the emergence of that complexity indicator. I should also 
> point to the strong regularities and ratios, and power laws, that

Dear Pedro,

It's most gratifying to me that you feel the ratio between constraint and
flexibility is an important topic. I, too, believe it is of extreme
importance! Of course, I didn't think up this balance. I actually resisted
for a long while what my data on ecosystem networks were telling me. But
there was no denying that the ratio between constraint and flexibility
hovered around the ratio 1/e (about 38%).

First there are the philosophical implications. Science for the most part is
an apodictic enterprise. Laws and mechanisms prevail everywhere. Information
theory (at least the Shannon type) begins, however, with the apophatic - the
very lack of constraint. Constraint is calculated indirectly by difference
(the "entropy" minus the conditional entropy).

What the data on ecosystem networks are saying is that the apophatic is more
prevalent than the apodictic - flexibility is more important to persistent
systems than their internal organizational constraints.  
This is a major departure from science-as-usual. It says we have been
looking at nature (at least in its complex manifestations) with one eye
closed. It is necessary to address the apophatic before we can gain a full
picture of how they endure over time.

Fortunately, information theory allows us to quantify the apophatic.  
(I realize that many dismiss the Shannon approach to information, but that's
usually because they are dissatisfied with how it quantifies [or doesn't
adequately quantify] the apodictic nature of information.  
Such may be the case. The strength of the Shannon approach, however, is that
it quantifies *both* the apodictic and the apophatic in the same
mathematical terminology. That is no small accomplishment, especially if
more than half the story lies beyond the purview of apodictic science.)

Being able to quantify that which is missing allows us, in almost oxymoronic
fashion, to remediate some problems with systems. For example, in a ms to be
published on network methods in marine systems I demonstrate how eutrophic
estuarine systems are lacking in flexibility and how variational techniques
can reveal ways to move the system back towards a more sustainable balance
between constraint and flexibility. In fact, the entire effort to preserve
biodiversity rests, not on apodictic premises, but rather on apophatic
considerations (which is why, until now, theoretical justification for the
effort has remained wanting).

As for domains outside of ecology, Koichiro has already told us that the
ratio of meaning to ambiguity in all natural languages th

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion?

[Robert Ulanowicz]

Quoting "Pedro C. Marijuan" :

> The ratio that Bob Ulanowicz has pointed out in the self-organization
> processes of ecosystems looks very important. Is it an "informational
> signature" that we can find in other fields (eg, competing companies,
> financial flows, neurodynamic sel-organization) accompanying problem
> solving operations performed in a populational way? Does a similar ratio
> appears in microphysical realms? Maybe Bob will be willing to expand on
> the emergence of that complexity indicator. I should also point to the
> strong regularities and ratios, and power laws, that

Dear Pedro,

It’s most gratifying to me that you feel the ratio between constraint  
and flexibility is an important topic. I, too, believe it is of  
extreme importance! Of course, I didn’t think up this balance. I  
actually resisted for a long while what my data on ecosystem networks  
were telling me. But there was no denying that the ratio between  
constraint and flexibility hovered around the ratio 1/e (about 38%).

First there are the philosophical implications. Science for the most  
part is an apodictic enterprise. Laws and mechanisms prevail  
everywhere. Information theory (at least the Shannon type) begins,  
however, with the apophatic – the very lack of constraint. Constraint  
is calculated indirectly by difference (the “entropy” minus the  
conditional entropy).

What the data on ecosystem networks are saying is that the apophatic  
is more prevalent than the apodictic – flexibility is more important  
to persistent systems than their internal organizational constraints.  
This is a major departure from science-as-usual. It says we have been  
looking at nature (at least in its complex manifestations) with one  
eye closed. It is necessary to address the apophatic before we can  
gain a full picture of how they endure over time.

Fortunately, information theory allows us to quantify the apophatic.  
(I realize that many dismiss the Shannon approach to information, but  
that’s usually because they are dissatisfied with how it quantifies  
[or doesn’t adequately quantify] the apodictic nature of information.  
Such may be the case. The strength of the Shannon approach, however,  
is that it quantifies *both* the apodictic and the apophatic in the  
same mathematical terminology. That is no small accomplishment,  
especially if more than half the story lies beyond the purview of  
apodictic science.)

Being able to quantify that which is missing allows us, in almost  
oxymoronic fashion, to remediate some problems with systems. For  
example, in a ms to be published on network methods in marine systems  
I demonstrate how eutrophic estuarine systems are lacking in  
flexibility and how variational techniques can reveal ways to move the  
system back towards a more sustainable balance between constraint and  
flexibility. In fact, the entire effort to preserve biodiversity  
rests, not on apodictic premises, but rather on apophatic  
considerations (which is why, until now, theoretical justification for  
the effort has remained wanting).

As for domains outside of ecology, Koichiro has already told us that  
the ratio of meaning to ambiguity in all natural languages that have  
been studied converges rather tightly upon 1/e. In economics it  
appears that overemphasis upon apodictic market efficiency might be  
destabilizing to our economy (Ecological Economics 69:76–81 [209]),  
but further data upon economic networks are necessary.

It was the intuition of Gregory Bateson that the apodictic approach to  
problem solving could get us into trouble – leading sometimes to very,  
very bad ends. And so we are indebted to another thinker, Michael  
Conrad, for his intuition that, when focusing upon information, we  
might discover that the larger *necessary* role in system dynamics may  
actually belong to its complement – indeterminacy!

Peace to all!
Bob

-
Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: +1-352-378-7355
Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory  |  FAX: +1-352-392-3704
Department of Biology  |  Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab
Bartram Hall 110   |  University of Maryland
University of Florida  |  Email 
Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA |  Web 
--


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

[Fis] Recapping the discussion?

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS colleagues,

A usual practice in past chaired discussions is that after the first 
round of debates, after three weeks or so like in the current session, 
the chairs recap the discussion by refocusing it on the most salient or 
relevant aspects, or just by pointing to some unnoticed connections. 
Could it be OK in this case? In the interim, while Kevin and Joseph try 
to find their time to follow this tradition, I would point to some of 
the many threads that have surfaced during the exchanges.

First, some parties, not very close to physics, have off-line asked me 
for more understandable info on the fluctuon model itself. What was 
published in the kickoff text was a little brief and too synthesized. 
Could this point be responded by some of the physicists in the list, or 
maybe by Kevin himself in his recapping?

The ratio that Bob Ulanowicz has pointed out in the self-organization 
processes of ecosystems looks very important. Is it an "informational 
signature" that we can find in other fields (eg, competing companies, 
financial flows, neurodynamic sel-organization) accompanying problem 
solving operations performed in a populational way? Does a similar ratio 
appears in microphysical realms? Maybe Bob will be willing to expand on 
the emergence of that complexity indicator. I should also point to the 
strong regularities and ratios, and power laws, that 
unidimensional/multidimensional partitions show (Karl has uncovered some 
of them).

The problem of hierarchy / heterarchy is a very tough one. I will 
reserve some arguments for a future posting as I think that comments 
from Stan, Guy, Xueshan and others deserve further discussion. Lee Jacob 
has raised a point very close to Koichiro reflections --my own bold 
question about that: if microphysical laws of nature are, so to speak, 
"information about information" shouldn't they be situated in 
space-time, rather than in the disembodied idealistic framework we take 
for granted. Could the "materiality" of the laws themselves be involved 
in the "perpetual disequilibrium" Koichiro mentions?

best wishes

Pedro

PS. I am very pleased to announce that the next discussion session will 
deal with "Intelligence and Information", chaired by Professor Yi-Xin 
Zhong (Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications).


-- 

-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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