Dear Pedro and Friends,
It is rather fascinating to observe - scientifically, without vested interest -
that an initiative such as this one, devoted to information, is continually
accompanied by its loss. Previously discussed subjects, such as the existence
of alternative logics that speak directly to issues of process structure,
identities and diversities, are often not given even a passing reference. In
the absence of any mechanism that might "automatically" call attention to this
fact, one is forced either to silence, which is also a loss of information, or
to repetition, which requires energy that might be better expended otherwise in
debate.
I know that Pedro has been and still is struggling with the archives and their
indexation. All I can suggest is that all of us make a particular effort, as we
make our comments, to search the archives to give some minimum recognition of
and to prior effort. The objective is not its acceptance, but to insure a
dialogue in which no theory or position is given, actually or by implication,
any unjustified exclusivity or universality.
Thank you,
Joseph
Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Datum: 10.02.2011 10:08
An:
Betreff: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Foundational Views of Shannon Information
Theory]--From Gavin Ritz
-->
Message from Gavin Ritz
This is a
very good post Jerry.
The problem
is the science has not got to
grips with most of logic,
Declarative logic yes,
(built on this)- True, false statements
Imperative logic: no,
Interrogative logic: no.
There are no
accepted calculus’ for imperative
logic the key to networks, linking identities, process-structures and
the key
to learning and education etc.
(Answer to a
previous post) I looked at Bekenstein’s
entropy of
Black Holes and the fundamental concept is actually interrogative logic
(yes or
no to questions), this is not really information rather a description
of logic.
(see JH Wheeler Journey into Spacetime)
Regards
Gavin
Message from JerryChandler
This
email responds to Soren, Stan, John, Bob, Loet, and JamesHannam:
Soren:
Thanks
for posting the book reference. Several excellent articles. I highly
recommend
several of them.
Stan:
The
issue of ostension remains high on my agenda. The individual sciences
progress
along individual paths, each asserting new knowledge, often confirmed
by new
applications to basic and applied research. Yet, between the sciences,
the
separation continue to grow. For example, see JohnCollier's recent
posts. Why is this separation so deep? My inclination is that the
source
of the miss-communciation is the failure to grasp the role of codes in
all
biological communications. It seems that historically, philosophy
operates only within the boundary of the linguistic modalities of a
tongue.
Even if a philosopher can operate in another modality, they do not as
it is not
permitted in their profession.
The
simple fact of life is that the chemical sciences, over the past two
centuries,
have created a new code for human communication that invokes a new
grammar, a
logic and an a very ancient way of looking at number with identity. The
rhetoric of this new code is used in the life sciences as the "lingua
franca". This code is not understandable in traditional physical
philosophy, so the physics community remains out of the loop, offering
nothing
new to the biological sciences, merely singing the song of entropy
off-key.
Of
course, as the new lingua franca of biology and medicine describes
networks of
relationships, much as your family tree describes an historical
network, and,
as such, is not reducible to the simplistic "yes/no" of a decision
for a symbol of a Shannon bit, the
physical sciences community ignores the nature of information of life.
A recent
paper by PaulDavies asserts
from Bits to Its.
In an
earlier message your wrote:
As well, I think that there is no objective
evidence that the world apart from us, is logical.
The
objective evidence of
the order of the atomic numbers, the order of the molecules of life and
the
reproduction of the same ordering relations in offsprings of parents
point toward a vast reservoir of natural order. But these are natural
codes not artificial codes of the real number system. Your faith in
entropy is
showing! :-)
Would
your understanding of the ostension of artificial codes support an
assertion from Bits to Its to Tits?
Bob:
Thanks
for the response and the article. The article is clear enough, well
done and
even a bit shocking to see you use a category!
From
your response:
Or,
must the constraints
be imposed through the action of continuous variables?
No, the constraints I deal with in
ecology are
usually expressed in discrete terms, although the probabilities
(frequencies)
derived from a large collection of such discrete
