Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
logic of Gödel-Löb-Solovay, accessible to the > machine itself provided a very small amount of inductive abilities, > provides the way to handle them with the needed caution. > > On the propositions which are semi-computable truth and proof meets and > join: p <-> []p, but only at the truth level: G* proves []p -> p, but G > does not even for p restricted at sigma_1 (semi-computable). Note that G, > for p restricted to sigma_1 proves p -> []p, which is what makes the > machines Löbian. It directly implies a form of self-referential awareness > ([]p is itself sigma_1 so this implies []p -> [][]p). > > A nice recreative introduction to the key tool here, the modal G, is given > by Smullyan’s book “Forever Undecided”. It makes it look like a fairy tale, > because the K4 reasoner needs to visit a very special Knight-Knaves Island, > but that is the case for all self-referential relatively finite entities by > Gödel Diagonal Lemma (or by Kleene’s second recursion theorem). > > With the number there are two sort of information: the usual gossip (Did > you know that all odd square are sum of 1 with 8 triangular numbers! Oh!), > and the hard kick back of the infinitely many universal computations which > makes them sharing stable and long stories/dreams, which most of the time > are beyond words. They are captured by the “variants à-la Theaetetus” of > Gödel’s provability/believability predicate of the (arithmetically sound > and universal) machine. > > God observes, maybe, silently. We still have to do the work, if and when > we return in the Village ... > > Hope this helps. I feel like people miss the universal person, which is > the one making sense of (any possible) truth, behind the universal (Turing) > machine. Not an answer, but an incredible unknown getting quickly many > names and rising some mess already in Pythagorus Heaven! > > A universal number transforms a number into an history, but below our > substitution level, they are *all* participating in some sort of > competitions, not so different from Feynman-Everett formulation of Quantum > Mechanics, as it should and should be continued to be scrutinised. > Mechanism in philosophy of mind is incompatible with mechanism in > philosophy of matter, or for consciousness, and still less about truth/god. > Mechanism is a vaccine against reductionism, as its shows the machine’s > first person ([]p & p) can defeat all the third person theories attempting > to identify them. The soul of the machine knows that she is not a machine! > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > best, > > Plamen > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> > wrote: > >> Dear Pedro, Koichiro, and colleagues, >> >> At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the >> change of focus (although this is empirical and not necessarily the case). >> The communication, however, as a system different from the communicators >> may contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it possible to >> redirect. >> >> Best, >> Loet >> >> -- >> >> Loet Leydesdorff >> >> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam >> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) >> >> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >> Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of >> Sussex; >> >> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, >> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, >> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; >> >> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; >> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en >> >> >> -- Original Message -- >> From: "Koichiro Matsuno" <cxq02...@nifty.com> >> To: fis@listas.unizar.es >> Sent: 3/2/2018 6:41:12 AM >> Subject: Re: [Fis] Meta-observer? >> >> On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote: >> >> A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the >> focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. >> >>Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of >> observers for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the >> concrete participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing >> what would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are >> observing. At
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
by Kleene’s second recursion theorem). With the number there are two sort of information: the usual gossip (Did you know that all odd square are sum of 1 with 8 triangular numbers! Oh!), and the hard kick back of the infinitely many universal computations which makes them sharing stable and long stories/dreams, which most of the time are beyond words. They are captured by the “variants à-la Theaetetus” of Gödel’s provability/believability predicate of the (arithmetically sound and universal) machine. God observes, maybe, silently. We still have to do the work, if and when we return in the Village ... Hope this helps. I feel like people miss the universal person, which is the one making sense of (any possible) truth, behind the universal (Turing) machine. Not an answer, but an incredible unknown getting quickly many names and rising some mess already in Pythagorus Heaven! A universal number transforms a number into an history, but below our substitution level, they are *all* participating in some sort of competitions, not so different from Feynman-Everett formulation of Quantum Mechanics, as it should and should be continued to be scrutinised. Mechanism in philosophy of mind is incompatible with mechanism in philosophy of matter, or for consciousness, and still less about truth/god. Mechanism is a vaccine against reductionism, as its shows the machine’s first person ([]p & p) can defeat all the third person theories attempting to identify them. The soul of the machine knows that she is not a machine! Bruno > > best, > > Plamen > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net > <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>> wrote: > Dear Pedro, Koichiro, and colleagues, > > At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the change > of focus (although this is empirical and not necessarily the case). The > communication, however, as a system different from the communicators may > contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it possible to redirect. > > Best, > Loet > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; > http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> > Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; > Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; > > Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; > > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en > <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en> > > > -- Original Message -- > From: "Koichiro Matsuno" <cxq02...@nifty.com <mailto:cxq02...@nifty.com>> > To: fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> > Sent: 3/2/2018 6:41:12 AM > Subject: Re: [Fis] Meta-observer? > >> On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote: >> >> A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the >> focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. >> >>Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of observers >> for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the concrete >> participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing what >> would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are observing. >> At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command could happen >> to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to >> its emergence would be the well-being of each participant taken care of >> locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of >> life. The impending agenda is on something general universal as an object, >> and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness resides within >> the concreteness down to the bottom. >> >> >> >>Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from >> computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. >> Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now points >> is not available to the local participants because of the lack of the >> physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among >> themselves. >> >> >> >>Koichiro Matsuno >> >>
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
Loet wrote:
At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the
change of focus (although this is empirical and not necessarily the case).
The communication, however, as a system different from the communicators
may contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it possible to
redirect.
Koichiro wrote:
At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command could happen
to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to
its emergence would be the well-being of each participant taken care of
locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of
life. The impending agenda is on something general universal as an object,
and yet concrete particular enough in process.
A comment here: there are two hierarchies possible in these phenomena: one
is the compositional hierarchy: [higher level [focus of actions [lower
level]]], or [context [action in focus [possibilities]]]. Three levels must
always be in consideration, giving: [permissive ecosystem [participant
actions [enchainment process]]].
The other is the subsumptive hierarchy: {possibilities -> {choice ->
{refinement}}}. Here a chain might keep going into further modifications,
and the chain branches as well. The context is represented here in the
possibilities.
STAN
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:41 AM, Koichiro Matsuno
wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote:
>
> A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the
> focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command.
>
>Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of
> observers for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the
> concrete participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing
> what would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are
> observing. At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command
> could happen to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning.
> Prerequisite to its emergence would be the well-being of each participant
> taken care of locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of
> the origins of life. The impending agenda is on something general universal
> as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness
> resides within the concreteness down to the bottom.
>
>
>
>Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from
> computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter.
> Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now
> points is not available to the local participants because of the lack of
> the physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among
> themselves.
>
>
>
>Koichiro Matsuno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
Dear FISers, What if we take the observer not as an entity of whatever kind (a unity or identity), but as a distinction (a difference) that when being laid to the foreground becomes a difference that makes a difference (that is, it becomes informative -but this information is locally or spatially, timely, and contextually (1) limited; I mean: it cannot be information everywhere, anytime and for every point of view). Distinguishing distinctions would be the role of a meta-observer -or as H. von Foerster called it: second order observation. In this meta-observer role, asking for the unity of the distinction gives rise to the problem of who the observer is. But this path leads to a sort of mystification, being not able to see what the observer is not able to see: its own distinction. Accordingly, the real question would not be who the observer is, but how to deal with the self-reference implied in every operation of observation. I wonder, are unitary mystifications such as the Mind, the Subject, the Conscious, or even the System, the only way to deal with the paradoxes so dear to observation? The other poignat question would be: when and under which conditions a distinction can take the role of "distinction directrice" -or the distinction or reference of a meta-observer, if I get Pedro right? That would be the quest for an information science. Which is the distinction directrice of this transdisciplinary field that binds together physics, biology, chemestry, social sciences, and so on? Some have proposed, for example, the distinction between information and meaning. I can also see that underlying many of the discussions of the list, there is the distinction between materiality and mentality -that is, some affirm that information has a physical container, and even that information itself is -or involves- a physical exchange of signals, while some others suggest that information is mental, cognitive, inmaterial in itself. This looks indeed like the vortex around which many information theories set up. Best, Javier Note: These are not entirely my own ideas, I am following G. Bateson, H. von Foerster, G. Spencer Brown, N. Luhmann, and D. Baecker. Indeed, I got a socio-systemic bias. (1) By context I mean a point in space-time characterized by the relation between factual (or actual) and inmediately potential distinctions being put forth by the autopoietic communication process. 2018-02-28 11:34 GMT-02:00 PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>: > head> > > Dear FISers, > > > > Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think that expostulating one's > general framework is going to facilitate the discussions. Perhaps oposite, > as it will introduce a trend towards generalization that fortifies the > perspectival differences and makes the rhetorics less adjusted to the > concrete. The problem basically resides in the persistent immaturity of the > "information synthesis" so to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a > different "observer", charged in each case with their favorite > conceptualizations. Taking into account the apparent multitude of > dimensions of information, and its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" > of those observers has to be in place. And an agile switching among the > observers has to be established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and > furious displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or > an observer-in-command. > > But what sort of reference may such a metaobserver arbitrate? There is no > conceivable book of rules about the switching between heterogeneous > disciplinary bodies. > > I see only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the > metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It was > Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live better." In > each level of organization it is the life cycle of the concerned entities > and the aggregates built upon them what matters. > > Information is not only about logic-formal aspects. It is the bread and > butter of complexity, that which allows contemporary social life. > > So, in the coming session about "dataism" we can also explore these themes. > > > > Best--Pedro > > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
Dear Pedro and All, If I go back to Pedro's original note, I see a further aspect which might be worked into its discussion. There are no ideal meta-observers; we are all, to a certain extent, both meta-observers of the discussion and participants in it. This is not a simple vertical hierarchy. We move between these two roles, switching from actualizing one to the other. Recognition of both should help accomplish what I have tried to propose, namely, that we force ourselves to emphasize someone else's work in our proposals, rather than our own. Best regards, Joseph Message d'origine De : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Date : 28/02/2018 - 05:34 (PST) À : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : [Fis] Meta-observer? head> Dear FISers, Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think that expostulating one's general framework is going to facilitate the discussions. Perhaps opposite, as it will introduce a trend towards generalization that fortifies the perspectival differences and makes the rhetorics less adjusted to the concrete. The problem basically resides in the persistent immaturity of the "information synthesis" so to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a different "observer", charged in each case with their favorite conceptualizations. Taking into account the apparent multitude of dimensions of information, and its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those observers has to be in place. And an agile switching among the observers has to be established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. But what sort of reference may such a metaobserver arbitrate? There is no conceivable book of rules about the switching between heterogeneous disciplinary bodies. I see only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It was Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live better." In each level of organization it is the life cycle of the concerned entities and the aggregates built upon them what matters. Information is not only about logic-formal aspects. It is the bread and butter of complexity, that which allows contemporary social life. So, in the coming session about "dataism" we can also explore these themes. Best--Pedro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
I know him: his name is God, the meta-observer + meta-actor at the same time. Correct, Bruno? ;-) best, Plamen On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> wrote: > Dear Pedro, Koichiro, and colleagues, > > At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the > change of focus (although this is empirical and not necessarily the case). > The communication, however, as a system different from the communicators > may contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it possible to > redirect. > > Best, > Loet > > -- > > Loet Leydesdorff > > Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam > Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) > > l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ > Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of > Sussex; > > Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, > Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, > <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; > > Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; > http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en > > > -- Original Message ------ > From: "Koichiro Matsuno" <cxq02...@nifty.com> > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Sent: 3/2/2018 6:41:12 AM > Subject: Re: [Fis] Meta-observer? > > On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote: > > A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the > focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. > >Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of > observers for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the > concrete participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing > what would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are > observing. At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command > could happen to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. > Prerequisite to its emergence would be the well-being of each participant > taken care of locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of > the origins of life. The impending agenda is on something general universal > as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness > resides within the concreteness down to the bottom. > > > >Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from > computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. > Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now > points is not available to the local participants because of the lack of > the physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among > themselves. > > > >Koichiro Matsuno > > > > > > > > > ___ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
Dear Pedro, Koichiro, and colleagues, At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the change of focus (although this is empirical and not necessarily the case). The communication, however, as a system different from the communicators may contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it possible to redirect. Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en -- Original Message -- From: "Koichiro Matsuno" <cxq02...@nifty.com> To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: 3/2/2018 6:41:12 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Meta-observer? On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote: A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of observers for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the concrete participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing what would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are observing. At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command could happen to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to its emergence would be the well-being of each participant taken care of locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of life. The impending agenda is on something general universal as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness resides within the concreteness down to the bottom. Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now points is not available to the local participants because of the lack of the physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among themselves. Koichiro Matsuno ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote: A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of observers for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the concrete participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing what would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are observing. At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command could happen to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to its emergence would be the well-being of each participant taken care of locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of life. The impending agenda is on something general universal as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness resides within the concreteness down to the bottom. Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now points is not available to the local participants because of the lack of the physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among themselves. Koichiro Matsuno ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Meta-observer?
Dear FISers, Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think that expostulating one's general framework is going to facilitate the discussions. Perhaps oposite, as it will introduce a trend towards generalization that fortifies the perspectival differences and makes the rhetorics less adjusted to the concrete. The problem basically resides in the persistent immaturity of the "information synthesis" so to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a different "observer", charged in each case with their favorite conceptualizations. Taking into account the apparent multitude of dimensions of information, and its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those observers has to be in place. And an agile switching among the observers has to be established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. But what sort of reference may such a metaobserver arbitrate? There is no conceivable book of rules about the switching between heterogeneous disciplinary bodies. I see only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It was Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live better." In each level of organization it is the life cycle of the concerned entities and the aggregates built upon them what matters. Information is not only about logic-formal aspects. It is the bread and butter of complexity, that which allows contemporary social life. So, in the coming session about "dataism" we can also explore these themes. Best--Pedro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
