Re: [Fis] list discussions: Steven to Joe on Logic

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear List, Joseph and John,

I'm not sure John's comments actually went out to the list, but they  
were obviously intended to do so. I'm responding here to both as my  
first post of the new week.

I do not disagree with Joseph's observations about predicate logic  
with reference to describing the orderliness of nature, but predicate  
logic was never intended to deal with the natural order, it was  
designed rather (as I see it) as a means to capture the methods of  
systematic and rigorous thought; which is not at all the same thing.

The limit of logic's ability to describe the orderliness of nature  
lies in the foundations of logic. Refinement and innovation is needed.  
This demands that logic be introspective and reconsider its core, it  
does not require that we abandon the program of logic.

BTW: I have no idea what this "logic in reality" is that Joseph refers  
to. There are plenty of process algebras about, which is what he  
appears to describe.

I simply disagree with the suggestion that logic is incompatible with  
consideration of dynamic systems. I think this question is one that  
reaches into the foundations of mathematics and of physical calculus  
and it is one that requires a deep reassessment of the nature of the  
world from within the three intimately related disciplines; logic,  
mathematics and physics.

This is not to say that the new disciplines of information and  
computation science have nothing to offer but I rather think that the  
contribution is secondary to the new data from genetics and molecular  
biophysics in general, which is forcing us to reassess these new  
disciplines as a whole.

I'm in accord to some large degree with John's bet on "semiotics via a  
sound informal pragmatics." I do think that is how we get there. But  
it is my expectation that it will ultimately be more formal than he  
suggests. It has to be if we want to engineer it. If there is a  
science and engineering here then that rises above all others it is  
the science and engineering of semeiotics in my view.

With respect,
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info



On May 25, 2008, at 10:02 AM, John Collier wrote:

> At 05:26 PM 25/05/2008, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>> Dear List Colleagues, Dear Steven,
>>
>> Much discussion has branched from Steven's first paragraph. This is  
>> my
>> answer to his second.
>>
>> If the "order we may discern in nature" refers to aspects of real
>> interactive and emergent processes, then in my view no truth- 
>> functional
>> propositional or predicate logic, even modal or paraconsistent forms
>> thereof, can describe that order. One needs an extension to  
>> something like
>> my logic in reality, where the terms refer to the actual  
>> alternating states
>> of the processes, about which inferences can be made.
>>
>> Standard bivalent logic is adequate to handling changes and  
>> "oppositions"
>> like changes in physical phase and the phases of the moon, not the  
>> dynamics
>> involved in a shift from unacceptable government to an acceptable  
>> one. Yet I
>> would like to see a certain order in this form of alternation also.
>>
>> The difference in complexity is crucial. Such non-repetition as  
>> exists
>> between "day and night and day" is trivial. In processes of real  
>> interest,
>> the concept of circularity, as sometimes
>> used is discussions of autopoesis, is misleading
>>
>> Comments?
>
> I agree with you, Joe, that the principles of logic alone are not  
> enough
> to describe sort of self-organizing and self-producing systems that
> autopoiesis was intended to explain (I think it is a defective for  
> this
> purpose, but I won't go there now -- it is a good start). My own  
> view is
> that we need dynamical systems theory as well, but not in its
> purely mathematical form, which is purely descriptive, and, ironically
> has no real dynamical component (forces and flows). The logic of
> distributed systems (flow of information in networks) is probably
> also useful, but in its current form (as in Barwise and Seligman,
> 1997), it can't work as it relies on regularities, which can be
> accidental. I have argued that it should be fixed with dynamical
> (in the strong sense) connections, so we are in for the whole
> strong sense of dynamics. Now dynamics is an empirical, not
> a logical study, so we need more than logic.
>
> I also think that things like control theory (cybernetics and
> second order cybernetics) is useful, since we need not
> only to describe the connections within the sort of systems
> that you are interested in, but also how they could connect
> under different varia. Control theory might be purely mathematical.
> I am not sure yet.
>
> For biological systems we need an account of functionality.
> My bet, with Kant, is that this is to be found in the sort
> of organization that gives rise to autonomy. My own
> account of autonomy has an indispen

Re: [Fis] list discussions: Steven to Joe on Logic

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear List Colleagues, Dear Steven,

Much discussion has branched from Steven's first paragraph. This is my
answer to his second.

If the "order we may discern in nature" refers to aspects of real
interactive and emergent processes, then in my view no truth-functional
propositional or predicate logic, even modal or paraconsistent forms
thereof, can describe that order. One needs an extension to something like
my logic in reality, where the terms refer to the actual alternating states
of the processes, about which inferences can be made.

Standard bivalent logic is adequate to handling changes and "oppositions"
like changes in physical phase and the phases of the moon, not the dynamics
involved in a shift from unacceptable government to an acceptable one. Yet I
would like to see a certain order in this form of alternation also.

The difference in complexity is crucial. Such non-repetition as exists
between "day and night and day" is trivial. In processes of real interest,
the concept of circularity, as sometimes
used is discussions of autopoesis, is misleading

Comments?

Best wishes,

Joe Brenner

- Original Message -
From: "Steven Ericsson-Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Foundations of Information Science" 
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions


Dear list,

I like this question "Is nature orderly?" and agree that it is worthy
of discussion. However, let me ask exactly how you would define an
orderly nature, how you would detect an orderly nature and what do you
think the implications are of it not being orderly?

Joe, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "any order we may
discern" and "logical in an expanded sense of logic"; surely any order
we discern is a priori logical in any expanded sense.

With respect,
Steven


On May 23, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> With due respect to Pedro, my first reaction to Stan's proposed
> question is  a positive "very useful". I believe that there are deep
> issues of randomness or spontaneity, determinism and computability
> that will emerge from its discussion. Another aspect is whether any
> order we may discern can be, as I suggest, logical in an expanded
> sense of logic. I would look forward to a discussion of this topic.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joe Brenner
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:56 PM
> Subject: [Fis] list discussions
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I
> have not been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob
> Logan's one, due to work reasons (changing to a new job months ago).
> It is not sure at all that in a few weeks there will be a new
> session arranged. However, several weeks ago, Stan suggested
> starting an open, informal discussion around a simple question:
>
> Is Nature Orderly?
>
> As a side comment (or response of sorts), I quote from P.M. Binder:
> "The field of complex systems currently appears as an unfinished
> mosaic. Many capable researchers are polishing and gluing the tiles
> that may turn it into the queen of all sciences, the science of
> synthesis and surprise. As we realize how much everything is
> connected, both cooperation [or emergence] and dynamical frustration
> can become important tools for our understanding of how the world
> works."  (2008, Nature, 320, pp. 320-21)..


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Loet Leydesdorff]

> Loet --  I would think that your statement 
> supports my contention that what is taken to be 
> naive confrontation with order in The World, 
> differs according to which naive observer we are 
> interrogating.  Perhaps I should mention that 
> view I take here goes back to Jacob von Uexküll, 
> who pointed out that different species experience 
> different 'Umwelten".  This is basic to 
> Biosemiotics.  Perhaps your contention rests on 
> the difference between observation and 
> understanding, but these cannot be neatly 
> separated since observation is THEORY LADEN.
> 
> STAN

In order not to annoy Pedro, this will be my last message of this week!

When a predator observes its prey, it is using a routine and not a theory
(except perhaps if if it is a human hunter). Observations are theory-laden
only when they are theory-laden, but not necessarily and not across species.
Theories enable us (humans) to specify expectations. Observations can update
our expectations. Other species can also entertain expectations, but are not
able to develop discursive theories. 

The whole emphasis on "bio" is the problem. Predators observe, but are not
able to develop discursive knowledge for improving their specification of
expectations. This is typically human and thus the subject of the sociology
and philosophy of science. 

By stating that "observation is theory-laden", the problem seems erroneously
defined away. However, the statement remains erroneous. Expectations are
theory-laden; observations can then inform the expectations. 

Best wishes and till next week (tomorrow :-)),  


Loet


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Stanley Salthe]

Loet --  I would think that your statement 
supports my contention that what is taken to be 
naive confrontation with order in The World, 
differs according to which naive observer we are 
interrogating.  Perhaps I should mention that 
view I take here goes back to Jacob von Uexküll, 
who pointed out that different species experience 
different 'Umwelten".  This is basic to 
Biosemiotics.  Perhaps your contention rests on 
the difference between observation and 
understanding, but these cannot be neatly 
separated since observation is THEORY LADEN.

STAN

>Dear Stan,
>
>If you would not go yourself to the moon, but send Ptolemy, he would not
>"observe" what you can see about day and night on earth. Not the
>observation, but the understanding is crucial.
>
>Thus, you statement: "I feel  forced to maintain my stance that order is a
>creation of observation." is erroneous.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>Loet
>
>
>
>Loet Leydesdorff
>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
>Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>
>
>
>>  -Original Message-
>>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
>>  Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:44 PM
>>  To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>>  Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
>>
>>  Loet - the point of my moon example was only that, when seen from the
>>  moon the regular day / night transitional order that we observe
>>  spontaneously disappears.  This means that even naively encountered
>>  order in the world cannot be taken to be independent of the
>>  observational platform.
>>
>>  STAN
>>
>>
>>  >Dear Stan,
>>  >
>>  >"Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for
>>  the emergence of
>>  >order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order
>>  emerges; only the
>>  >routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges
>>  only if our
>>  >observational reports can be brought and interact in a
>>  discourse. Discursive
>>  >knowledge constructs its own order.
>>  >
>>  >Best wishes,
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Loet
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Loet Leydesdorff
>>  >Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
>>  >Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
>>  >Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
>>  >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  -Original Message-
>>  >>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  >>  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
>>  >>  Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM
>>  >>  To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>>  >>  Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
>>  >>
>>  >>  Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is
>>  >>  that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of
>>  >>  observations made using machines (embodied logic)
>>  constructed by us
>>  >>  for the purpose.  Laws are highly corroborated regularities so
>>  >>  discerned.  Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined
>>  >>  observation.  Their relation to 'primitive nature' is
>>  necessarily a
>>  >>  philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high
>  > >>  corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which
>>  confronts us
>>  >>  naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats.  Here we are
>>  >>  confronted by predictable sequences.  The relation of
>>  such as these
>>  >>  to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could
>>  >>  correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the
>>  >>  beats.  Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical
>>  >>  procedures!  Counting is a discipline of observation that
>>  can mediate
>>  >>  regularity (= order).  Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and
>>  >>  the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in
>>  >>  'primitive nature'.  We might however, note that we know this
>>  >>  sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which,
>>  >>  say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate.
>  >  Then too,
>>  >>  when 'we' looked at th

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear Guy,

What is the "limited lens of perception" if it is not in fact the  
window of empiricism?

That we perceive order at all simply testifies to the uniformity of  
natural law, and by that measure I will argue that Nature is orderly.

But it should be clear that though I perceive patterns in this order,  
the patterns are merely the product of apprehension and are only  
indicative of the uniformity in Nature law. The patterns themselves  
have no ontological status beyond their apprehension. They are merely  
co-incident.

Our ability to extend the reach of our apprehension by technology  
alters none of this.

Stan appears to have forgotten FIS protocol. This is my third and last  
post this week.

With respect,
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info



On May 23, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:

> Hi Steven,
>
> I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural order and  
> process
> order.  At least I think this is another way of describing your  
> distinction.
> I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred.  With this
> restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted
> answering the question "what is order?".
>
> If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology of
> structural order.  I think structural order (e.g., patterns,  
> gradients) is
> objectively detectable (measurable), and that this is the foundation  
> of
> empirical science.  The limited lens of perception (i.e., limited by
> modalities of sensation) tends to be biased and distorting to some  
> degree.
> Technology has greatly extended our (human) perceptive range,  
> accuracy and
> precision.  Science has improved our ability to interpret the  
> perceived
> data.  All of this leaves us far from perfection, but I think we are  
> also
> far better at characterizing natural order than you seem to  
> believe.  You
> seem to be arguing that anything we think we have learned beyond the  
> raw
> data (0's and 1's) is just fantasy.  Is that a fair approximation?
>
> I do think that structural order is ultimately a consequence of  
> universal
> natural laws, so maybe our views are not as opposed as they seem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy
>
>
> on 5/23/08 10:32 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith at [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear Guy,
>>
>> Let us get the first question out of the way. What, exactly, do you
>> mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is
>> manifest order and that changes to become another manifest order.  
>> This
>> is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address.
>>
>> Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological status of an
>> ordered state? Is order merely the product of apprehension  
>> (perception)?
>>
>> For me, it is the case that perceived order is the product of
>> apprehension alone; by which I mean things like ordinal and cardinal
>> numbers have no ontological status beyond their apprehension (0 and 1
>> being the only numbers with an ontological status beyond  
>> apprehension).
>>
>> However, the above does not answer the question "Is nature orderly?"
>> This question asks that we look beyond apprehension. Is the perceived
>> order the product of an intrinsic order? Here I look for an ontology
>> from primitive nature. In my case I will argue that natural laws are
>> universal and that these address the question at hand. Nature is
>> orderly if and only if natural laws are universal and derive as a
>> consequence of primitive nature.
>>
>> The implication of there being no orderliness, by this definition, is
>> that natural laws are not universal and there is no primitive nature
>> from which to derive them.
>>
>> With respect,
>> Steven
>>
>> On May 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings all,
>>>
>>> I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I recommend
>>> slight modifications of the question.  Frankly, I think it is
>>> undeniable that there is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of
>>> disorder, in Nature.  I also think we would all agree that Nature
>>> constantly constructs new order, even as it actively deconstructs
>>> other instances of orderliness.  The timely questions in my mind
>>> include:
>>>
>>> To what degree is Nature orderly and how does this degree change
>>> over time?
>>>
>>> How can we best describe the dynamical turnover of order/disorder
>>> within Nature at large?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Guy Hoelzer
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> fis mailing list
>> fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Stan, 

If you would not go yourself to the moon, but send Ptolemy, he would not
"observe" what you can see about day and night on earth. Not the
observation, but the understanding is crucial. 

Thus, you statement: "I feel  forced to maintain my stance that order is a
creation of observation." is erroneous. 

Best wishes, 


Loet



Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:44 PM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
> 
> Loet - the point of my moon example was only that, when seen from the 
> moon the regular day / night transitional order that we observe 
> spontaneously disappears.  This means that even naively encountered 
> order in the world cannot be taken to be independent of the 
> observational platform.
> 
> STAN
> 
> 
> >Dear Stan,
> >
> >"Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for 
> the emergence of
> >order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order 
> emerges; only the
> >routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges 
> only if our
> >observational reports can be brought and interact in a 
> discourse. Discursive
> >knowledge constructs its own order.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >
> >Loet
> >
> >
> >
> >Loet Leydesdorff
> >Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
> >Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
> >Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >>  -Original Message-
> >>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
> >>  Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM
> >>  To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> >>  Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
> >>
> >>  Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is
> >>  that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of
> >>  observations made using machines (embodied logic) 
> constructed by us
> >>  for the purpose.  Laws are highly corroborated regularities so
> >>  discerned.  Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined
> >>  observation.  Their relation to 'primitive nature' is 
> necessarily a
> >>  philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high
> >>  corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which 
> confronts us
> >>  naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats.  Here we are
> >>  confronted by predictable sequences.  The relation of 
> such as these
> >>  to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could
> >>  correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the
> >>  beats.  Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical
> >>  procedures!  Counting is a discipline of observation that 
> can mediate
> >>  regularity (= order).  Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and
> >>  the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in
> >>  'primitive nature'.  We might however, note that we know this
> >>  sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which,
> >>  say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate. 
>  Then too,
> >>  when 'we' looked at the earth from the moon, and became 
> convinced of
> >>  its spinning roundness in relation to the sun, the stark 
> impression
> >>  of the order of day / night became somewhat attenuated.  I feel
> >>  forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of 
> observation.
> >>  This is where the issue of order contacts the question of 
> information.
> >>
> >>  STAN
> >>
> >>
> >>  >Hi Steven,
> >>  >
> >>  >I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural
> >  > order and process
> >>  >order.  At least I think this is another way of describing
> >>  your distinction.
> >>  >I had structural order in mind, as you correctly 
> inferred.  With this
> >>  >restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan 
> subsequently posted
> >>  >answering the question "what is order?".
> >>  >
>

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Stanley Salthe]

Commenting on Igor's, I interleave:


>Dear FIS-listers,
>
>It has been a long time since I participated in discussions here. Just a few
>remarks:
>1. What is the definition of the term "order"? Unless we are able to define
>it properly,

  S: Good idea!

>  we are entangled in a theological paradigm, like the medieval
>"is nature moral?" or "what is the purpose of natural phenomena" ones.
>2. I would suggest to try to define order first, and in my humble opinion,
>two lines of though are possible:
> a) the Colmogorov complexity definition. If there is order, then the
>system allows compressed description

  S: This order clearly exists in human logical constructs.  Yes, 
we would expect order to exist in ALL human logical constructs (but 
see below!).

> b) the evolution paradigm. If there is order then the evolution is
>predictable.

  S: Most researchers take evolution to be non-predictable.  As a 
reflection of this I (1993 book) have defined evolution as 'the 
irreversible accumulation of historically acquired information'. 
There are, however some curious facts in biological evolution that 
are referred to as 'convergent evolution', where very similar forms 
and lifestyles have been evolved independently by distantly related 
lineages.   This topic is generally avoided today because existing 
evolutionary theory is unable to handle it.

> c) order simply as a possibility of finite description by logical
>symbols.

   S: Anything logical is almost by definition orderly!

>On the other hand we should always remember, that when we discuss Nature we,
>in fact, deal not with nature but with its reflection (encoding) in our
>conscious.

  S: This is what in my initial posting on this topic I called 
'Nature', as opposed to 'The World', which we spontaneously inhabit.

>  Nature does know what is F, m and a, neither it knows Newton's
>F=ma. F=ma belongs to our reflection of Nature,

  S: Which IS Nature!

>  and experiments show that
>with F=ma we indeed reach a certain level of predictability, i.e. order. Not
>more. Any attempt to absolutize our reflection of Nature and to substitute
>it for Nature proper will immediately lead us away from the subject deep
>into the realm of theology and teleology.
>I think the proper questions here may be instead:
>1) Do we reflect Nature adequately in our conscious? (and here we go to
>Robert Rosen's modeling paradigm)

   S: Yes, good question;  To what degree does Nature, our 
construct, reflect The World that we inhabit?

>2) Does this reflection have order? The answer is yes and no. Yes meaning
>that we may construct logical systems "over" this reflection. No meaning due
>to Goedel's theorem our logical systems will be either incomplete or
>contradictive

  S: This latter is somewhat like Heisenberg's uncertainty 
Principle.  So there can be aspects of Nature that seem not to be 
orderly.

STAN

>3) How to measure order in our reflection -- see the above a) b)  and c)
>points.
>
>Yours, Igor Rojdestvenski
>
>
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Steven Ericsson-Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Foundations of Information Science" 
>Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 7:05 PM
>Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
>
>
>Dear list,
>
>I like this question "Is nature orderly?" and agree that it is worthy
>of discussion. However, let me ask exactly how you would define an
>orderly nature, how you would detect an orderly nature and what do you
>think the implications are of it not being orderly?
>
>Joe, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "any order we may
>discern" and "logical in an expanded sense of logic"; surely any order
>we discern is a priori logical in any expanded sense.
>
>With respect,
>Steven
>
>
>On May 23, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>
>>  Dear FIS Colleagues,
>>
>>  With due respect to Pedro, my first reaction to Stan's proposed
>>  question is  a positive "very useful". I believe that there are deep
>>  issues of randomness or spontaneity, determinism and computability
>  > that will emerge from its discussion. Another aspect is whether any
>>  order we may discern can be, as I suggest, logical in an expanded
>>  sense of logic. I would look forward to a discussion of this topic.
>>
>>  Best wishes,
>>
>>  Joe Brenner
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  - Original Message -
>>  From: Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
>>  To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>>  Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:56 PM
>>  Subject: [Fis] list discussi

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Stanley Salthe]

Reflecting on Rafael's posting, it seems to tend in the direction of 
taking repetition and predictability to be a basic kind of order, or, 
a requirement for any concept of order.

STAN

>Folks,
>
>when thinking about order we should not forget that historical 
>changes with regard to this concept for instance the code 
>"kosmos/chaos" in Greek cosmology and philosophy (and religion). 
>Giving the primacy to the modern paradigm (natural laws etc) might 
>restrict inadequately the range of possibilities addressed by 
>different human experiences. We should also differentiate the 
>concept of order at different levels of reality. The concept of 
>reality at the social level is not identical for instance to the 
>concept of natural laws. We speak of "law and order" in politics and 
>address different kind of structures (positive law, endurement of 
>"order" by force or domination etc.). There is probably a folks 
>concept based on the "perpetual repetition of the same" that might 
>be related to (natural) laws but leaves aside the possibility of 
>changing these "repetitions" (think about the concept of 
>"re-volution" in cosmology (Copernicus) and politics...). In other 
>words, what we when we observe order (I use the word observe in the 
>context of systems theory or second-order cybernetics, i.e., as 
>giving for granted that there is no "outside observer") is to 
>observe the difference order/chaos (or order/disorder) each time 
>from a specific perspective as the one we are discussing now taking 
>natural repetions as the leading framework.
>kind regards
>Rafael
>
>>Dear Stan,
>>"Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for the emergence of
>>order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order emerges; only the
>>routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges only if our
>>observational reports can be brought and interact in a discourse. Discursive
>>knowledge constructs its own order.
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Loet
>>
>>
>>
>>Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research 
>>(ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 
>>6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; 
>>http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>>
>>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
>>>Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM
>>>To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
>>>
>>>Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is 
>>>that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of 
>>>observations made using machines (embodied logic) constructed by 
>>>us for the purpose.  Laws are highly corroborated regularities so 
>>>discerned.  Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined 
>>>observation.  Their relation to 'primitive nature' is necessarily 
>>>a philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high 
>>>corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which confronts 
>>>us naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats.  Here we are 
>>>confronted by predictable sequences.  The relation of such as 
>>>these to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I 
>>>could correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting 
>>>the beats.  Talk about constructing regularity using 
>>>logico-technical procedures!  Counting is a discipline of 
>>>observation that can mediate regularity (= order).  Perhaps 
>>>heartbeats are too close to us, and the day / night alternation 
>>>might be a better example of order in 'primitive nature'.  We 
>>>might however, note that we know this sequence only because we 
>>>live long enough to experience it, which, say, an ephemeral insect 
>>>would not be able to appreciate.  Then too, when 'we' looked at 
>>>the earth from the moon, and became convinced of its spinning 
>>>roundness in relation to the sun, the stark impression of the 
>>>order of day / night became somewhat attenuated.  I feel forced to 
>>>maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation. This 
>>>is where the issue of order contacts the question of information.
>>>
>>>STAN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Steven,
>>>>
>>>>I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural
>>>order and process
>>>
>>>>order. 

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Stanley Salthe]

So, on Bob's account below, order is stability via repetition.  Yes, 
I would say that that is ONE KIND of order.

STAN

>On Thu, 22 May 2008, Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez wrote:
>
>>  It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I have
>>  not been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob Logan's
>>  one, due to work reasons (changing to a new job months ago). It is not
>>  sure at all that in a few weeks there will be a new session arranged.
>>  However, several weeks ago, Stan suggested starting an open, informal
>>  discussion around a simple question:
>>
>>  Is Nature Orderly?
>
>Those of you old enough may remember the Monty Python skit that gave an
>answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" The answer was,
>"46". :)
>
>Only half-facetiously I would like to tender an answer to Pedro's
>question, "Is nature orderly?" with the assertion that it is 39% orderly
>and 61% disorderly.
>
>Cryptic as that response may sound, there are good (I think) reasons and
>some data to back it up. (Clue: 39% is an approximation for the exact
>figure, which is 1/e. Recall that e is the idempotent element for
>differentiation. That is, the operation of differentiation on e^x yields
>e^x. Action on stasis yields stasis. So e helps to define the point at
>which action and stasis come into balance.)
>
>The full development of this result will appear in a few months in the
>journal "Ecological Complexity". Copyright restrictions prevent me from
>sharing the manuscript on this public forum, but anyone interested in
>seeing an electronic copy is invited to drop me an email.
>
>Best wishes to all,
>Bob
>
>-
>Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: (410) 326-7266
>Chesapeake Biological Laboratory   |  FAX: (410) 326-7378
>P.O. Box 38|  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>1 Williams Street  |  Web 
>Solomons, MD 20688-0038|
>--
>
>___
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Stanley Salthe]

Loet - the point of my moon example was only that, when seen from the 
moon the regular day / night transitional order that we observe 
spontaneously disappears.  This means that even naively encountered 
order in the world cannot be taken to be independent of the 
observational platform.

STAN


>Dear Stan,
>
>"Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for the emergence of
>order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order emerges; only the
>routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges only if our
>observational reports can be brought and interact in a discourse. Discursive
>knowledge constructs its own order.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>Loet
>
>
>
>Loet Leydesdorff
>Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
>Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
>Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>
>
>
>>  -Original Message-
>>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
>>  Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM
>>  To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>>  Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
>>
>>  Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is
>>  that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of
>>  observations made using machines (embodied logic) constructed by us
>>  for the purpose.  Laws are highly corroborated regularities so
>>  discerned.  Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined
>>  observation.  Their relation to 'primitive nature' is necessarily a
>>  philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high
>>  corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which confronts us
>>  naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats.  Here we are
>>  confronted by predictable sequences.  The relation of such as these
>>  to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could
>>  correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the
>>  beats.  Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical
>>  procedures!  Counting is a discipline of observation that can mediate
>>  regularity (= order).  Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and
>>  the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in
>>  'primitive nature'.  We might however, note that we know this
>>  sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which,
>>  say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate.  Then too,
>>  when 'we' looked at the earth from the moon, and became convinced of
>>  its spinning roundness in relation to the sun, the stark impression
>>  of the order of day / night became somewhat attenuated.  I feel
>>  forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation.
>>  This is where the issue of order contacts the question of information.
>>
>>  STAN
>>
>>
>>  >Hi Steven,
>>  >
>>  >I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural
>  > order and process
>>  >order.  At least I think this is another way of describing
>>  your distinction.
>>  >I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred.  With this
>>  >restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted
>>  >answering the question "what is order?".
>>  >
>>  >If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology of
>>  >structural order.  I think structural order (e.g., patterns,
>>  gradients) is
>>  >objectively detectable (measurable), and that this is the
>>  foundation of
>>  >empirical science.  The limited lens of perception (i.e., limited by
>>  >modalities of sensation) tends to be biased and distorting
>>  to some degree.
>>  >Technology has greatly extended our (human) perceptive
>>  range, accuracy and
>>  >precision.  Science has improved our ability to interpret
>>  the perceived
>>  >data.  All of this leaves us far from perfection, but I
>>  think we are also
>>  >far better at characterizing natural order than you seem to
>>  believe.  You
>>  >seem to be arguing that anything we think we have learned
>>  beyond the raw
>>  >data (0's and 1's) is just fantasy.  Is that a fair approximation?
>  > >
>>  >I do think that structural order is ultimately a consequence
>>  of universal
>>  >natural laws, so maybe our views are not as opposed as they seem.
>>  >
>>  >Regards,
>>  >
>>  >Guy
>>  >
>>  &

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Robert Ulanowicz]

On Thu, 22 May 2008, Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez wrote:

> It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I have 
> not been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob Logan's 
> one, due to work reasons (changing to a new job months ago). It is not 
> sure at all that in a few weeks there will be a new session arranged. 
> However, several weeks ago, Stan suggested starting an open, informal 
> discussion around a simple question:
> 
> Is Nature Orderly?

Those of you old enough may remember the Monty Python skit that gave an 
answer to the question, "What is the meaning of life?" The answer was, 
"46". :)

Only half-facetiously I would like to tender an answer to Pedro's 
question, "Is nature orderly?" with the assertion that it is 39% orderly 
and 61% disorderly.

Cryptic as that response may sound, there are good (I think) reasons and 
some data to back it up. (Clue: 39% is an approximation for the exact 
figure, which is 1/e. Recall that e is the idempotent element for 
differentiation. That is, the operation of differentiation on e^x yields 
e^x. Action on stasis yields stasis. So e helps to define the point at 
which action and stasis come into balance.)

The full development of this result will appear in a few months in the 
journal "Ecological Complexity". Copyright restrictions prevent me from 
sharing the manuscript on this public forum, but anyone interested in 
seeing an electronic copy is invited to drop me an email.

Best wishes to all,
Bob

-
Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: (410) 326-7266
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory   |  FAX: (410) 326-7378
P.O. Box 38|  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1 Williams Street  |  Web 
Solomons, MD 20688-0038|
--

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Rafael Capurro]

Folks,

when thinking about order we should not forget that historical changes 
with regard to this concept for instance the code "kosmos/chaos" in 
Greek cosmology and philosophy (and religion). Giving the primacy to the 
modern paradigm (natural laws etc) might restrict inadequately the range 
of possibilities addressed by different human experiences. We should 
also differentiate the concept of order at different levels of reality. 
The concept of reality at the social level is not identical for instance 
to the concept of natural laws. We speak of "law and order" in politics 
and address different kind of structures (positive law, endurement of 
"order" by force or domination etc.). There is probably a folks concept 
based on the "perpetual repetition of the same" that might be related to 
(natural) laws but leaves aside the possibility of changing these 
"repetitions" (think about the concept of "re-volution" in cosmology 
(Copernicus) and politics...). In other words, what we when we observe 
order (I use the word observe in the context of systems theory or 
second-order cybernetics, i.e., as giving for granted that there is no 
"outside observer") is to observe the difference order/chaos (or 
order/disorder) each time from a specific perspective as the one we are 
discussing now taking natural repetions as the leading framework.
kind regards
Rafael


> Dear Stan, 
>
> "Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for the emergence of
> order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order emerges; only the
> routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges only if our
> observational reports can be brought and interact in a discourse. Discursive
> knowledge constructs its own order. 
>
> Best wishes, 
>
>
> Loet
>
> 
>
> Loet Leydesdorff 
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
>
>  
>
>   
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
>> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM
>> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
>>
>> Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is 
>> that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of 
>> observations made using machines (embodied logic) constructed by us 
>> for the purpose.  Laws are highly corroborated regularities so 
>> discerned.  Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined 
>> observation.  Their relation to 'primitive nature' is necessarily a 
>> philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high 
>> corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which confronts us 
>> naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats.  Here we are 
>> confronted by predictable sequences.  The relation of such as these 
>> to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could 
>> correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the 
>> beats.  Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical 
>> procedures!  Counting is a discipline of observation that can mediate 
>> regularity (= order).  Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and 
>> the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in 
>> 'primitive nature'.  We might however, note that we know this 
>> sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which, 
>> say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate.  Then too, 
>> when 'we' looked at the earth from the moon, and became convinced of 
>> its spinning roundness in relation to the sun, the stark impression 
>> of the order of day / night became somewhat attenuated.  I feel 
>> forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation. 
>> This is where the issue of order contacts the question of information.
>>
>> STAN
>>
>>
>> 
>>> Hi Steven,
>>>
>>> I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural 
>>>   
>> order and process
>> 
>>> order.  At least I think this is another way of describing 
>>>   
>> your distinction.
>> 
>>> I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred.  With this
>>> restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted
>>> answering the question "what is order?".
>>>
>>> If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology o

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Stan, 

"Us" looking at the moon, is not a sufficient condition for the emergence of
order. Woolfs may also look at the moon, but no order emerges; only the
routine of howling can be expected to emerge. Order emerges only if our
observational reports can be brought and interact in a discourse. Discursive
knowledge constructs its own order. 

Best wishes, 


Loet



Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stanley Salthe
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 4:33 AM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions
> 
> Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is 
> that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of 
> observations made using machines (embodied logic) constructed by us 
> for the purpose.  Laws are highly corroborated regularities so 
> discerned.  Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined 
> observation.  Their relation to 'primitive nature' is necessarily a 
> philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high 
> corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which confronts us 
> naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats.  Here we are 
> confronted by predictable sequences.  The relation of such as these 
> to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could 
> correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the 
> beats.  Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical 
> procedures!  Counting is a discipline of observation that can mediate 
> regularity (= order).  Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and 
> the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in 
> 'primitive nature'.  We might however, note that we know this 
> sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which, 
> say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate.  Then too, 
> when 'we' looked at the earth from the moon, and became convinced of 
> its spinning roundness in relation to the sun, the stark impression 
> of the order of day / night became somewhat attenuated.  I feel 
> forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation. 
> This is where the issue of order contacts the question of information.
> 
> STAN
> 
> 
> >Hi Steven,
> >
> >I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural 
> order and process
> >order.  At least I think this is another way of describing 
> your distinction.
> >I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred.  With this
> >restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted
> >answering the question "what is order?".
> >
> >If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology of
> >structural order.  I think structural order (e.g., patterns, 
> gradients) is
> >objectively detectable (measurable), and that this is the 
> foundation of
> >empirical science.  The limited lens of perception (i.e., limited by
> >modalities of sensation) tends to be biased and distorting 
> to some degree.
> >Technology has greatly extended our (human) perceptive 
> range, accuracy and
> >precision.  Science has improved our ability to interpret 
> the perceived
> >data.  All of this leaves us far from perfection, but I 
> think we are also
> >far better at characterizing natural order than you seem to 
> believe.  You
> >seem to be arguing that anything we think we have learned 
> beyond the raw
> >data (0's and 1's) is just fantasy.  Is that a fair approximation?
> >
> >I do think that structural order is ultimately a consequence 
> of universal
> >natural laws, so maybe our views are not as opposed as they seem.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Guy
> >
> >
> >on 5/23/08 10:32 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith at 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>  Dear Guy,
> >>
> >>  Let us get the first question out of the way. What, 
> exactly, do you
> >>  mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is
> >>  manifest order and that changes to become another 
> manifest order. This
> >>  is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address.
> >>
> >>  Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological 
> status of an
> >>  ordered state? Is order merely the product of 
> apprehension (perception)?
> >

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Igor Rojdestvenski-in Umea]

Dear FIS-listers,

It has been a long time since I participated in discussions here. Just a few 
remarks:
1. What is the definition of the term "order"? Unless we are able to define 
it properly, we are entangled in a theological paradigm, like the medieval 
"is nature moral?" or "what is the purpose of natural phenomena" ones.
2. I would suggest to try to define order first, and in my humble opinion, 
two lines of though are possible:
a) the Colmogorov complexity definition. If there is order, then the 
system allows compressed description
b) the evolution paradigm. If there is order then the evolution is 
predictable.
c) order simply as a possibility of finite description by logical 
symbols.
On the other hand we should always remember, that when we discuss Nature we, 
in fact, deal not with nature but with its reflection (encoding) in our 
conscious. Nature does know what is F, m and a, neither it knows Newton's 
F=ma. F=ma belongs to our reflection of Nature, and experiments show that 
with F=ma we indeed reach a certain level of predictability, i.e. order. Not 
more. Any attempt to absolutize our reflection of Nature and to substitute 
it for Nature proper will immediately lead us away from the subject deep 
into the realm of theology and teleology.
I think the proper questions here may be instead:
1) Do we reflect Nature adequately in our conscious? (and here we go to 
Robert Rosen's modeling paradigm)
2) Does this reflection have order? The answer is yes and no. Yes meaning 
that we may construct logical systems "over" this reflection. No meaning due 
to Goedel's theorem our logical systems will be either incomplete or 
contradictive
3) How to measure order in our reflection -- see the above a) b)  and c) 
points.

Yours, Igor Rojdestvenski




- Original Message - 
From: "Steven Ericsson-Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Foundations of Information Science" 
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] list discussions


Dear list,

I like this question "Is nature orderly?" and agree that it is worthy
of discussion. However, let me ask exactly how you would define an
orderly nature, how you would detect an orderly nature and what do you
think the implications are of it not being orderly?

Joe, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "any order we may
discern" and "logical in an expanded sense of logic"; surely any order
we discern is a priori logical in any expanded sense.

With respect,
Steven


On May 23, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> With due respect to Pedro, my first reaction to Stan's proposed
> question is  a positive "very useful". I believe that there are deep
> issues of randomness or spontaneity, determinism and computability
> that will emerge from its discussion. Another aspect is whether any
> order we may discern can be, as I suggest, logical in an expanded
> sense of logic. I would look forward to a discussion of this topic.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joe Brenner
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:56 PM
> Subject: [Fis] list discussions
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I
> have not been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob
> Logan's one, due to work reasons (changing to a new job months ago).
> It is not sure at all that in a few weeks there will be a new
> session arranged. However, several weeks ago, Stan suggested
> starting an open, informal discussion around a simple question:
>
> Is Nature Orderly?
>
> As a side comment (or response of sorts), I quote from P.M. Binder:
> "The field of complex systems currently appears as an unfinished
> mosaic. Many capable researchers are polishing and gluing the tiles
> that may turn it into the queen of all sciences, the science of
> synthesis and surprise. As we realize how much everything is
> connected, both cooperation [or emergence] and dynamical frustration
> can become important tools for our understanding of how the world
> works."  (2008, Nature, 320, pp. 320-21)..


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1455 - Release Date: 19.05.2008 
17:04


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Stanley Salthe]

Reacting to the exchange below between Steven and Guy, my view is 
that universal natural laws are known by us as a result of 
observations made using machines (embodied logic) constructed by us 
for the purpose.  Laws are highly corroborated regularities so 
discerned.  Thus, they are orderly products of disciplined 
observation.  Their relation to 'primitive nature' is necessarily a 
philosophical issue, that might be prefigured by noting the high 
corroboration of the regular sequence day / night, which confronts us 
naively, as well as, e.g., our own heartbeats.  Here we are 
confronted by predictable sequences.  The relation of such as these 
to logical procedures confronted me when I learned that I could 
correct an occasional irregular heartbeat merely by counting the 
beats.  Talk about constructing regularity using logico-technical 
procedures!  Counting is a discipline of observation that can mediate 
regularity (= order).  Perhaps heartbeats are too close to us, and 
the day / night alternation might be a better example of order in 
'primitive nature'.  We might however, note that we know this 
sequence only because we live long enough to experience it, which, 
say, an ephemeral insect would not be able to appreciate.  Then too, 
when 'we' looked at the earth from the moon, and became convinced of 
its spinning roundness in relation to the sun, the stark impression 
of the order of day / night became somewhat attenuated.  I feel 
forced to maintain my stance that order is a creation of observation. 
This is where the issue of order contacts the question of information.

STAN


>Hi Steven,
>
>I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural order and process
>order.  At least I think this is another way of describing your distinction.
>I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred.  With this
>restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted
>answering the question "what is order?".
>
>If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology of
>structural order.  I think structural order (e.g., patterns, gradients) is
>objectively detectable (measurable), and that this is the foundation of
>empirical science.  The limited lens of perception (i.e., limited by
>modalities of sensation) tends to be biased and distorting to some degree.
>Technology has greatly extended our (human) perceptive range, accuracy and
>precision.  Science has improved our ability to interpret the perceived
>data.  All of this leaves us far from perfection, but I think we are also
>far better at characterizing natural order than you seem to believe.  You
>seem to be arguing that anything we think we have learned beyond the raw
>data (0's and 1's) is just fantasy.  Is that a fair approximation?
>
>I do think that structural order is ultimately a consequence of universal
>natural laws, so maybe our views are not as opposed as they seem.
>
>Regards,
>
>Guy
>
>
>on 5/23/08 10:32 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>>  Dear Guy,
>>
>>  Let us get the first question out of the way. What, exactly, do you
>>  mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is
>>  manifest order and that changes to become another manifest order. This
>>  is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address.
>>
>>  Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological status of an
>>  ordered state? Is order merely the product of apprehension (perception)?
>>
>>  For me, it is the case that perceived order is the product of
>>  apprehension alone; by which I mean things like ordinal and cardinal
>>  numbers have no ontological status beyond their apprehension (0 and 1
>>  being the only numbers with an ontological status beyond apprehension).
>>
>>  However, the above does not answer the question "Is nature orderly?"
>>  This question asks that we look beyond apprehension. Is the perceived
>>  order the product of an intrinsic order? Here I look for an ontology
>>  from primitive nature. In my case I will argue that natural laws are
>  > universal and that these address the question at hand. Nature is
>>  orderly if and only if natural laws are universal and derive as a
>>  consequence of primitive nature.
>>
>>  The implication of there being no orderliness, by this definition, is
>>  that natural laws are not universal and there is no primitive nature
>>  from which to derive them.
>>
>>  With respect,
>>  Steven
>>
>>  On May 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
>>
>>>  Greetings all,
>>>
>>>  I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I recommend
>>>  slight modifications of the question.  Frankly, I think it is
>>>  undeniable that there is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of
>>>  disorder, in Nature.  I also think we would all agree that Nature
>>>  constantly constructs new order, even as it actively deconstructs
>>>  other instances of orderliness.  The timely questions in my mind
>>>  include:
>>>
>>>  To what degree is N

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Guy A Hoelzer]

Hi Steven,

I appreciate the distinction you draw between structural order and process
order.  At least I think this is another way of describing your distinction.
I had structural order in mind, as you correctly inferred.  With this
restriction, I would embrace the paragraph Stan subsequently posted
answering the question "what is order?".

If I understand you correctly, we may disagree about the ontology of
structural order.  I think structural order (e.g., patterns, gradients) is
objectively detectable (measurable), and that this is the foundation of
empirical science.  The limited lens of perception (i.e., limited by
modalities of sensation) tends to be biased and distorting to some degree.
Technology has greatly extended our (human) perceptive range, accuracy and
precision.  Science has improved our ability to interpret the perceived
data.  All of this leaves us far from perfection, but I think we are also
far better at characterizing natural order than you seem to believe.  You
seem to be arguing that anything we think we have learned beyond the raw
data (0's and 1's) is just fantasy.  Is that a fair approximation?

I do think that structural order is ultimately a consequence of universal
natural laws, so maybe our views are not as opposed as they seem.

Regards,

Guy


on 5/23/08 10:32 AM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> 
> Dear Guy,
> 
> Let us get the first question out of the way. What, exactly, do you
> mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is
> manifest order and that changes to become another manifest order. This
> is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address.
> 
> Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological status of an
> ordered state? Is order merely the product of apprehension (perception)?
> 
> For me, it is the case that perceived order is the product of
> apprehension alone; by which I mean things like ordinal and cardinal
> numbers have no ontological status beyond their apprehension (0 and 1
> being the only numbers with an ontological status beyond apprehension).
> 
> However, the above does not answer the question "Is nature orderly?"
> This question asks that we look beyond apprehension. Is the perceived
> order the product of an intrinsic order? Here I look for an ontology
> from primitive nature. In my case I will argue that natural laws are
> universal and that these address the question at hand. Nature is
> orderly if and only if natural laws are universal and derive as a
> consequence of primitive nature.
> 
> The implication of there being no orderliness, by this definition, is
> that natural laws are not universal and there is no primitive nature
> from which to derive them.
> 
> With respect,
> Steven
> 
> On May 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
> 
>> Greetings all,
>> 
>> I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I recommend
>> slight modifications of the question.  Frankly, I think it is
>> undeniable that there is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of
>> disorder, in Nature.  I also think we would all agree that Nature
>> constantly constructs new order, even as it actively deconstructs
>> other instances of orderliness.  The timely questions in my mind
>> include:
>> 
>> To what degree is Nature orderly and how does this degree change
>> over time?
>> 
>> How can we best describe the dynamical turnover of order/disorder
>> within Nature at large?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Guy Hoelzer
>> 
> 
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Stanley Salthe]

Folks --  I must admit to be working on an article on this topic. 
Here I paste in the Introduction.  As you can see it does answer some 
of the questions you participants have raised.  As well, I am fully 
prepared to have my perspective rejected (if that is possible!).


STAN
--
Is Nature Orderly?  S.N. Salthe, May, 2008.

What is Nature?
 I will first state what I mean by 'Nature'.  Based on the 
distinction between 'real' and 'actual' (Roth and Schwegler, 1990), I 
make a distinction between Nature and The World.  While The World is 
that within which we manage for a while to keep our bearings, and 
which we can bump into, and where we experience headaches or 
satisfaction, and about which we can have intuitions, Nature is our 
representation of that realm.  Nature is embodied in texts, 
inscriptions, equations, models, films, recordings, etc.   Nature is 
all about 'knowing that' something is the case, while The World is 
where we can 'know how' to do something (Ryle, 1949).  A clear and 
present difference between these realms is that Nature is founded 
upon logic, while The World seems to be a concatenation of 'one thing 
after another', frequently surprising.  An attempt to grasp The World 
in disciplined fashion has begun under the label 'internalism' (e.g., 
Salthe, 2001, Matsuno and Salthe, 2002), but little can be said about 
this in the present context.  This paper will focus upon Nature, 
wherein the concept of order can have meaning. 


What is order?
 Order generally is Ordnung, regularity and expectation, and it 
affords predictability.  Structurally, order is found in rows and 
columns or other formats, and in symmetries.  Dynamically, order is 
regularity of return, as in solar and lunar activities as viewed from 
Earth, and in pistons, in walking, or in cycles of any kind.  It is 
very generally signified by the 'habits' of Charles Peirce (Google: 
Charles Peirce - Habit).  Thermodynamically, order is represented by 
any energy gradient, therefore by any thing that could potentially 
become dissipated into fragments, particles and gases. In the context 
of an expanding system, it would be measured as the difference 
between its maximum possible disorder (if that could be estimated) 
and its actual disorder (Landsberg, 1984) -- that is, it amounts to 
less disorder than there might be.  'Disorder' here refers to 
dispersion, while order would be congregation.  All of these kinds of 
order need to be considered, or subsumed under one concept.


---



Dear Guy,

Let us get the first question out of the way. What, exactly, do you 
mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is 
manifest order and that changes to become another manifest order. This 
is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address.


Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological status of an 
ordered state? Is order merely the product of apprehension (perception)?


For me, it is the case that perceived order is the product of 
apprehension alone; by which I mean things like ordinal and cardinal 
numbers have no ontological status beyond their apprehension (0 and 1 
being the only numbers with an ontological status beyond apprehension).


However, the above does not answer the question "Is nature orderly?" 
This question asks that we look beyond apprehension. Is the perceived 
order the product of an intrinsic order? Here I look for an ontology 
from primitive nature. In my case I will argue that natural laws are 
universal and that these address the question at hand. Nature is 
orderly if and only if natural laws are universal and derive as a 
consequence of primitive nature.


The implication of there being no orderliness, by this definition, is 
that natural laws are not universal and there is no primitive nature 
from which to derive them.


With respect,
Steven

On May 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:


 Greetings all,

 I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I recommend 
 > slight modifications of the question.  Frankly, I think it is 
 undeniable that there is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of 
 disorder, in Nature.  I also think we would all agree that Nature 
 constantly constructs new order, even as it actively deconstructs 
 other instances of orderliness.  The timely questions in my mind 
 include:


 To what degree is Nature orderly and how does this degree change 
 over time?


 How can we best describe the dynamical turnover of order/disorder 
 within Nature at large?


 Regards,

 Guy Hoelzer



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear Guy,

Let us get the first question out of the way. What, exactly, do you  
mean by orderly? As you use it here you appear to mean there is  
manifest order and that changes to become another manifest order. This  
is not what I take the question "Is nature orderly?" to address.

Is there order at all? What, exactly, is the ontological status of an  
ordered state? Is order merely the product of apprehension (perception)?

For me, it is the case that perceived order is the product of  
apprehension alone; by which I mean things like ordinal and cardinal  
numbers have no ontological status beyond their apprehension (0 and 1  
being the only numbers with an ontological status beyond apprehension).

However, the above does not answer the question "Is nature orderly?"  
This question asks that we look beyond apprehension. Is the perceived  
order the product of an intrinsic order? Here I look for an ontology  
from primitive nature. In my case I will argue that natural laws are  
universal and that these address the question at hand. Nature is  
orderly if and only if natural laws are universal and derive as a  
consequence of primitive nature.

The implication of there being no orderliness, by this definition, is  
that natural laws are not universal and there is no primitive nature  
from which to derive them.

With respect,
Steven

On May 23, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
> I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I recommend  
> slight modifications of the question.  Frankly, I think it is  
> undeniable that there is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of  
> disorder, in Nature.  I also think we would all agree that Nature  
> constantly constructs new order, even as it actively deconstructs  
> other instances of orderliness.  The timely questions in my mind  
> include:
>
> To what degree is Nature orderly and how does this degree change  
> over time?
>
> How can we best describe the dynamical turnover of order/disorder  
> within Nature at large?
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy Hoelzer
>

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Guy A Hoelzer]

Greetings all,

I, too, like the seed of this new discussion; although I recommend slight
modifications of the question.  Frankly, I think it is undeniable that there
is a degree of orderliness, and a degree of disorder, in Nature.  I also
think we would all agree that Nature constantly constructs new order, even
as it actively deconstructs other instances of orderliness.  The timely
questions in my mind include:

To what degree is Nature orderly and how does this degree change over time?

How can we best describe the dynamical turnover of order/disorder within
Nature at large?

Regards,

Guy Hoelzer



on 5/22/08 8:56 AM, Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Dear FIS colleagues,
> 
> It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I have not been
> able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob Logan's one, due to work
> reasons (changing to a new job months ago). It is not sure at all that in a
> few weeks there will be a new session arranged. However, several weeks ago,
> Stan suggested starting an open, informal discussion around a simple question:
> 
> Is Nature Orderly?
> 
> As a side comment (or response of sorts), I quote from P.M. Binder: "The field
> of complex systems currently appears as an unfinished mosaic. Many capable
> researchers are polishing and gluing the tiles that may turn it into the queen
> of all sciences, the science of synthesis and surprise. As we realize how much
> everything is connected, both cooperation [or emergence] and dynamical
> frustration can become important tools for our understanding of how the world
> works." (2008, Nature, 320, pp. 320-21)... just substituting information
> science for complex systems, and another couple of terms (more subtle ones I
> do not see yet) for cooperation and dynamical frustration, it becomes my first
> reaction to Stan's.
> 
> By the way, small organization initiatives are in the way, e.g., financing for
> a FIS European meeting has been applied by Wolfgang and others  (around
> November there will be confirmation).  More will follow.
> 
> best wishes
> 
> Pedro
> 
> PS. Interested parties may take note of my new address:
> 
> 
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
> 50009 Zaragoza. Spain
> Phone: 34 976 71 6584 - Fax: 34 976 71 5554
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear list,

I like this question "Is nature orderly?" and agree that it is worthy  
of discussion. However, let me ask exactly how you would define an  
orderly nature, how you would detect an orderly nature and what do you  
think the implications are of it not being orderly?

Joe, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "any order we may  
discern" and "logical in an expanded sense of logic"; surely any order  
we discern is a priori logical in any expanded sense.

With respect,
Steven


On May 23, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> With due respect to Pedro, my first reaction to Stan's proposed  
> question is  a positive "very useful". I believe that there are deep  
> issues of randomness or spontaneity, determinism and computability  
> that will emerge from its discussion. Another aspect is whether any  
> order we may discern can be, as I suggest, logical in an expanded  
> sense of logic. I would look forward to a discussion of this topic.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joe Brenner
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:56 PM
> Subject: [Fis] list discussions
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I  
> have not been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob  
> Logan's one, due to work reasons (changing to a new job months ago).  
> It is not sure at all that in a few weeks there will be a new  
> session arranged. However, several weeks ago, Stan suggested  
> starting an open, informal discussion around a simple question:
>
> Is Nature Orderly?
>
> As a side comment (or response of sorts), I quote from P.M. Binder:  
> "The field of complex systems currently appears as an unfinished  
> mosaic. Many capable researchers are polishing and gluing the tiles  
> that may turn it into the queen of all sciences, the science of  
> synthesis and surprise. As we realize how much everything is  
> connected, both cooperation [or emergence] and dynamical frustration  
> can become important tools for our understanding of how the world  
> works."  (2008, Nature, 320, pp. 320-21)..


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] list discussions

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

With due respect to Pedro, my first reaction to Stan's proposed question is  a 
positive "very useful". I believe that there are deep issues of randomness or 
spontaneity, determinism and computability that will emerge from its 
discussion. Another aspect is whether any order we may discern can be, as I 
suggest, logical in an expanded sense of logic. I would look forward to a 
discussion of this topic.

Best wishes,

Joe Brenner




  - Original Message - 
  From: Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez 
  To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
  Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:56 PM
  Subject: [Fis] list discussions


  Dear FIS colleagues,

  It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I have not 
been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob Logan's one, due to 
work reasons (changing to a new job months ago). It is not sure at all that in 
a few weeks there will be a new session arranged. However, several weeks ago, 
Stan suggested starting an open, informal discussion around a simple question: 

  Is Nature Orderly? 

  As a side comment (or response of sorts), I quote from P.M. Binder: "The 
field of complex systems currently appears as an unfinished mosaic. Many 
capable researchers are polishing and gluing the tiles that may turn it into 
the queen of all sciences, the science of synthesis and surprise. As we realize 
how much everything is connected, both cooperation [or emergence] and dynamical 
frustration can become important tools for our understanding of how the world 
works."  (2008, Nature, 320, pp. 320-21)... just substituting information 
science for complex systems, and another couple of terms (more subtle ones I do 
not see yet) for cooperation and dynamical frustration, it becomes my first 
reaction to Stan's.

  By the way, small organization initiatives are in the way, e.g., financing 
for a FIS European meeting has been applied by Wolfgang and others  (around 
November there will be confirmation).  More will follow. 

  best wishes

  Pedro

  PS. Interested parties may take note of my new address:

  
  Pedro C. Marijuán
  Bioinformation Group
  Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
  Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
  50009 Zaragoza. Spain
  Phone: 34 976 71 6584 - Fax: 34 976 71 5554
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  




--


  ___
  fis mailing list
  fis@listas.unizar.es
  http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] list discussions

[Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez]

Dear FIS colleagues,

It is a long time that we do not have discussions in the list. I have
not been able to arrange any other "planned session" after Bob Logan's
one, due to work reasons (changing to a new job months ago). It is not
sure at all that in a few weeks there will be a new session arranged.
However, several weeks ago, Stan suggested starting an open, informal
discussion around a simple question: 

Is Nature Orderly? 

As a side comment (or response of sorts), I quote from P.M. Binder: "The
field of complex systems currently appears as an unfinished mosaic.
Many capable researchers are polishing and gluing the tiles that may
turn it into the queen of all sciences, the science of synthesis and
surprise. As we realize how much everything is connected, both
cooperation [or emergence] and dynamical frustration can become
important tools for our understanding of how the world works." 
(2008, Nature, 320, pp. 320-21)... just substituting information
science for complex systems, and another couple of terms (more subtle
ones I do not see yet) for cooperation and dynamical frustration, it
becomes my first reaction to Stan's.

By the way, small organization initiatives are in the way, e.g.,
financing for a FIS European meeting has been applied by Wolfgang and
others  (around November there will be confirmation).  More will
follow. 

best wishes

Pedro

PS. Interested parties may take note of my new address:


Pedro C.
Marijuán
Bioinformation Group
Instituto
Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza. Spain
Phone: 34 976 71 6584 - Fax: 34 976 71 5554
[EMAIL PROTECTED]




___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis