Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan
information) is 
the 'function' of the union of the syntactic information and the 
pragmatic information. This can be understood as the definition of the 
meaning/semantic information and the relation among them. In othr 
words, "meaning (semantic information)" cannot be understood arbitrarily.


Comments are welcome.

--

Prof. Y. X. Zhong (钟义信)

Center for Intelligence Science Research

University of Posts & Telecommunications

Beijing 100876, China





- 回复邮件 -
*发信人:*Lars-Göran Johansson<lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se>
*收信人:*foundationsofinformationscienceinformationscience 
<fis@listas.unizar.es>

*时间:*2017年10月05日 16时45分39秒
*主题:*Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic


Dear all
It seems to me that the heat in the debate about the definition of
the concept of Information is fuelled by deep metaphysical
feelings: different people have different views about what is
REALLY Information. Metaphysical debates can never be resolved.
May I suggest that we agree on this: there are several different
concepts, such as Shannon Information, Semantic Information, etc..
Each Information concept has its own distinct definition and each
one may use whichever he/she finds useful.

Whether any of these concepts refers to any real thing,
INFORMATION, cannot be determined by any empirical research. The
reason is that empirical research can sometimes decide the truth
of a sentence, but never whether the predicate in that sentence
refers to anything.
Suppose we have found, empirically, that a sentence of the form ’
X is information’ where ’information’ has a clear definition.
(Chose anyone you like.) The truth of this sentence entails that
the object referred to by ’X’ must exist; this is a truth
condition for any declarative sentence. But it does not follow
that the predicate ’Information' refers to something. It suffice
that the object X belongs to the extension of the predicate. This
is the nominalist position.
Since 1000 years the core debate in metaphysics has been whether
there are universals, i.e., properties and relations. The debate
about/Information/ is a debate about the existence of a property.
I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one
should not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that
Information is a property, an entithy, is not necessary. We can
proceed with scientific research, using any information concept we
think useful, without assuming it refers to anything. Metaphysical
issues can safely be put to rest.

Lars-Göran Johansson



--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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


Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread 钟义信
Dear friends,The debate on the definition of information is of significance because the definition of information is the real foundation of information science. It is noticed that many contravercies in information science either in the past or at present time are more or less related to the different understandings of the concept of information.It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information, related and also different to each other. The first one is the information presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the subject from the former.The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the pattern with which the state varyies". No meaning and no utility at the stage.The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from the object information. So, it should have the form component of the object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage, the "meaning" comes out.What is new, we discovered that the meaning (semantic information) is the 'function' of the union of the syntactic information and the pragmatic information. This can be understood as the definition of the meaning/semantic information and the relation among them. In othr words, "meaning (semantic information)" cannot be understood arbitrarily.Comments are welcome.--Prof. Y. X. Zhong (钟义信)Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China

- 回复邮件 -发信人:Lars-Göran Johansson收信人:foundationsofinformationscienceinformationscience 时间:2017年10月05日 16时45分39秒主题:Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]:  HereticDear allIt seems to me that the heat in the debate about the definition of the concept of Information is fuelled by deep metaphysical feelings: different people have different views about what is REALLY Information. Metaphysical debates can never be resolved. May I suggest that we agree on this: there are several different concepts, such as Shannon Information, Semantic Information, etc.. Each Information concept has its own distinct definition and each one may use whichever he/she finds useful.Whether any of these concepts refers to any real thing, INFORMATION, cannot be determined by any empirical research. The reason is that empirical research can sometimes decide the truth of a sentence, but never whether the predicate in that sentence refers to anything.Suppose we have found, empirically, that a sentence of the form ’ X is information’ where ’information’ has a clear definition. (Chose anyone you like.) The truth of this sentence entails that the object referred to by ’X’ must exist; this is a truth condition for any declarative sentence. But it does not follow that the predicate ’Information' refers to something. It suffice that the object X belongs to the extension of the predicate. This is the nominalist position.Since 1000 years the core debate in metaphysics has been whether there are universals, i.e., properties and relations. The debate aboutInformation is a debate about the existence of a property.I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is a property, an entithy, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific research, using any information concept we think useful, without assuming it refers to anything. Metaphysical issues can safely be put to rest.Lars-Göran Johansson4 okt. 2017 kl. 19:49 skrev tozziart...@libero.it: Messaggio inoltrato  Da:tozziart...@libero.itA: Alex Hankeyalexhan...@gmail.comData: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] HereticDear Prof. Hankey,I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.--Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidmercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankeyalexhan...@gmail.com:Dear Professor Tozzi,Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,as you evidently do not wish to participate in whatthe rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of 'information',and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally differentmathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.With all good wishes,Alex HankeyOn 4 October 2017 at 02:30,wrote:Dear FISers,After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term "information", one conclusion is 

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Lars-Göran Johansson
Dear all
It seems to me that the heat in the debate about the definition of the concept 
of Information is fuelled by deep metaphysical feelings: different people have 
different views about what is REALLY Information. Metaphysical debates can 
never be resolved. May I suggest that we agree on this: there are several 
different concepts, such as Shannon Information, Semantic Information, etc.. 
Each Information concept has its own distinct definition and each one may use 
whichever he/she finds useful.

Whether any of these concepts refers to any real thing, INFORMATION, cannot be 
determined by any empirical research. The reason is that empirical research can 
sometimes decide the truth of a sentence, but never whether the predicate in 
that sentence refers to anything.
 Suppose we have found, empirically, that a sentence of the form ’ X is 
information’ where ’information’ has  a clear definition. (Chose anyone you 
like.) The truth of this sentence entails that the object referred to by ’X’ 
must exist; this is a truth condition for any declarative sentence. But it does 
not follow that the predicate ’Information' refers to something. It suffice 
that the object X belongs to the extension of the predicate. This is the 
nominalist position.
Since 1000 years the core debate in metaphysics has been whether there are 
universals, i.e., properties and relations. The debate about Information is a 
debate about the existence of a property.
I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should not 
assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is a 
property, an entithy, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific 
research, using any information  concept we think useful, without assuming it 
refers to anything.  Metaphysical issues can safely be put to rest.

Lars-Göran Johansson



4 okt. 2017 kl. 19:49 skrev tozziart...@libero.it:

 Messaggio inoltrato  Da: 
tozziart...@libero.it A: Alex Hankey 
alexhan...@gmail.com Data: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 
2017, 07:37PM +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] Heretic


Dear Prof. Hankey,
I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in 
particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.
The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.


--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankey 
alexhan...@gmail.com:

Dear Professor Tozzi,

Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,
as you evidently do not wish to participate in what
the rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.

As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of 
'information',
and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally different
mathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.

With all good wishes,

Alex Hankey


On 4 October 2017 at 02:30,  
> wrote:

Dear FISers,
After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term 
"information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique 
definition of information.

Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) 
empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".
For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense.

Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.  Therefore, 
my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that is so 
vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is 
information, if nobody knows what does it mean.

--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

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




--
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789


2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and 
Phenomenological 
Philosophy
___
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

Lars-Göran Johansson

Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic

2017-10-05 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari Tutti,
non v'ha niente a questo mondo che non abbia una FORMA che è il risultato
di un processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE secondo il quale ogni cosa data o
ogni data cosa prende FORMA in un dato tempo in cui si TRAS-IN-FORMA.
aumentando o diminuendo il livello o il grado o la qualità della FORMA.
Questo è l'unico modo per definire il concetto di INFORMAZIONE, la cui
misurazione dipende dal tipo di INFORMAZIONE (naturale o termodinamica,
genetica, matematica, semantica).
Dal valore della Forma o dalla Forma del valore dipende l'apprezzamento di
ogni bene o segno economico: questa è la teoria del valore della Nuova
Economia che credo, fino a prova contraria, di avere inventato o scoperto.
Chiedo scusa a Tutti per il mio messaggio espresso nella lingua italiana.
Con umiltà, Francesco Rizzo. Grazie.

2017-10-04 19:49 GMT+02:00 :

>  Messaggio inoltrato  Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: Alex
> Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com Data: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM
> +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] Heretic
>
> Dear Prof. Hankey,
> I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in
> particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.
> The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
> mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankey
> alexhan...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Dear Professor Tozzi,
>
> Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,
> as you evidently do not wish to participate in what
> the rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.
>
> As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of
> 'information',
> and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally different
> mathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.
>
> With all good wishes,
>
> Alex Hankey
>
>
> On 4 October 2017 at 02:30,  wrote:
>
> Dear FISers,
> After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the
> term "information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific,
> unique definition of information.
>
> Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just
> one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".
> For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
> Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian
> sense.
>
> Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.
> Therefore, my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your
> otherwise very valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
> It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that
> is so vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is
> information, if nobody knows what does it mean.
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 <+44%207710%20534195>
> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 <+91%2090080%2008789>
> 
>
> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
> 
> ___
> 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
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis