Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .

2015-06-21 Thread Moisés André Nisenbaum
Hi, Howard.
Answering your question hb: i'm a newcomer to these discussions.  what is
the fourth great domain of science? Might be useful also for who came in
the FIS list  after 2015 IS4IS Summit.
The last discussion before the conference, was A Dialog on the
Informational as the 4th Great Domain of Science. A copy of the post is in
the end of this message.
Based on a Pedros's paper and Rosenbloom's book we propose that all
scientific disciplines could be a combination of 4 great scientific
domains. We are looking for a method to verify that the informational is
the 4th great domain. Maybe Loet's Maps of Science should be a good
approach.

Cheers

Moisés

-- 
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Maracanã
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br


*A Dialog on the Informational as the 4th Great Domain of Science*
*Moisés André Nisenbaum  Ken Herold*


*PART 1:  **Informational as the 4th Great Domain of Science*
(Moisés André Nisenbaum)

To classify is human (BOWKER  STAR 2000). The organization of scientific
knowledge is concern of scientists long ago. It started as a matter of
librarianship and has evolved over time using various tools like
enumerative classification, faceted classification, universal
classification, controlled vocabulary, thesaurus, ontologies, Semantic Web.
But how Information Science should organize scientific knowledge taking
into account the dynamic behavior of disciplines and multi, inter and
trans-disciplinary science of the twenty-first century (Information
Society)?

Rosenbloom (2012) proposed a model in which four great Scientific Domains -
Physical (P) Life (L), social (S) and Computing (C) - can becombined to
form any discipline
http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/rosembloom-figure-2.1-domains-composing-disciplines.jpg.
The first three (P, L and S) are well known domains and he proposes that
the 4th is Computing. The small number of domains (compared with 10 of DDC
and UDC) is offset by dynamic
http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-figure-2.9-relationships.jpg
 relationships
http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-figure-2.2-domains-simple-relations.jpg
between
domains that can be written by Metascience Expression Language
http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-table-2.1-ME-Language.jpg.
Although the prerequisites of a Great Scientific Domain has been well
developed, Rosenbloom does not explain why they are in number of four or
why these specific four domains.

NAVARRO, MORAL and Marijuan (2013) propose that the 4th Great Scientific
Domain is the Informational (I) instead of Computing. However, the biggest
proposal is that the Information Science needs to be rethought to support
theoretically and methodologically this 4th Great Scientific Domain. At the
end of the article, the authors propose the insertion of the four Great
Scientific Domains
http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Map-Pedro.jpg in
High-Resolution Map of Sciences (Bollen at all, 2009)
http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Map-Bollen.jpg

The problem is that all this is still in its philosophical field and miss
a more pragmatic approach. When I observed this map, I just thought about
how to measure these four domains and, even without even knowing exactly
how to do this, I asked Bollen the raw data of his research. My initial
idea was to identify every scientific discipline by a mathematical entity,
for example a digital 4x4 matrix representing quantitatively the four Great
Scientific Domain components and their relationships. The problem how to
establish the criteria (bibliometric) that would define the matrix
elements. Once created, we can check if the matrices really come together
as expected.

Best,
Moisés

*References:*

BOWKER, Geoffrey C.; STAR, Susan Leigh. Sorting things out: Classification
and its consequences. MIT press, 2000.
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=xHlP8WqzizYClpg=PR9ots=Mz3xtCt2nEdq=Sorting%20things%20out%3A%20Classification%20and%20its%20consequences.%20lrhl=pt-BRpg=PR9#v=onepageq=Sorting%20things%20out:%20Classification%20and%20its%20consequences.f=false

ROSENBLOOM, Paul S. On computing: the fourth great scientific domain. MIT
Press, 2012.
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=WGfxkn8OkwAClpg=PP1dq=On%20computing%3A%20the%20fourth%20great%20scientific%20domain.%20google%20bookshl=pt-BRpg=PP1#v=onepageq=On%20computing:%20the%20fourth%20great%20scientific%20domain.%20google%20booksf=false

NAVARRO, Jorge; MORAL, Raquel del; MARIJUÁN, Pedro C.. The uprising of
informational: towards a new way of thinking Information Science. Presented
at 1st International Conference in China on the Philosophy of Information,
Xi’an, China, 18 October 2013.
http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/articles/pedro-article.pdf

BOLLEN, Johan et al. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of
science. PLoS One, v. 4, n. 3, p. e4803, 2009.

Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .

2015-06-19 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear Howard and FIS colleagues,

Many thanks for your exciting comments; dealing first with Koichiro's 
intriguing point on action and probabilities, I think it links with the 
Quantum Bayesianism we discused last year in the list (von Baeyer's FIS 
New Year Lecture), and also with Karl Frinston's distributions / 
representations of probabilities in cerebral areas within an overarching 
entropy-minimization principle (it is not a physical entropy, and 
reminding Loet's comment, I think he was quite right with his 
contentious message of 15 June!). Action is but the forgotten other side 
the epistemic coin. Not to forget that a motor-centered epistemology has 
been recently discussed too.


Responding to Howard's below, rather than making further interleaving, I 
will continue with a unitary text.
In my view, the new informational thinking is slowly taking shape in a 
variety of fields, and the reference to Witzany's work on the viruses' 
social dynamics, is an excellent exponent on how carefully following the 
very dynamics of life, we may arrive at similar conceptual scenarios. My 
point is that biological communication (as well as human) does not occur 
in a vacuum where whatever combinatory game may be played. The life 
cycle of the entity is the big watcher of communication, not just 
passively waiting for some stimulus passing by, but actively deploying a 
series of molecular or supramolecular actions that for instance conduce 
to receive the appropriate information/communication or to engage in 
locomotor exploration. In general, action stemming out from the cycle  
--or propensity to action-- comes first, regarding the possible 
information gathered and the responses to be observed later on. Each 
life cycle has capability to deploy autonomously a very vast repertoire 
of adaptive actions / behaviors / communications that overall should 
conduce to its own advancement. So, the reliance on stimulus-response 
becomes a dubious way of lumping together the animate and the inanimate 
(a mere electromagnetic relay would also provide S-R behavior), leaving 
aside the most precious stuff of life: its informational organization in 
an autonomous, self-propelled life-cycle. It is a life-cycle that 
besides, has to take place in a highly complex and challenging 
ecological niche and within a tricky social environment. To reiterate 
the main point: the living is not S-R mechanistic, is informational.


And what is information? I agree with Howard's relative approach to 
information. I think that, together with Marcin, we must organize a 
future discussion-session in the list to analyze this most integrative 
stance. I think that this view now is mature enough to be publicly 
discussed (and has already appeared in the literature occasionally). My 
personal contention is that a similar relative conceptualization may be 
extended to other informational entities (viruses, cells, organisms, 
brains, social groups and institutions, societies at large...) that also 
communicate in order to advance their self-production processes. 
Precisely in economy, we may understand that prices emerge as the 
information which connects and integrates the ACTIONS of producers and 
consumers allowing the self-organization of the whole. Obviously, the 
market information is exchanged in order to improve the condition of the 
individuals, and in aggregate to advance their own life cycles. 
Similarly, in physiological markets between cells, molecular signals 
--really an information flow-- would also be exchanged to coordinate the 
actions emerging from the ongoing life-cycles.


If we consider that biological communication, and in general the 
communication of informational entities is tied to the maintenance and 
advancement of their self-production processes, the discussion of 
meaning follows quite naturally. Meaning becomes the impact of the 
information received upon the self-production process itself. In 
bio-molecular terms, meaning may be exactly enacted through a vastly 
used procedure, microarray experiments. By knocking down a particular 
receptor,or continuously keeping it on, we see the meaning effects 
that the specific signaling condition has on gene expression, on the 
whole cellular self-production. Meaningful communication begets relevant 
self-production changes. Then, lets generalize that informational 
entities are those that systematically intertwine the information 
(communication) flows and the energy (self-production) flows. The 
information derived from communication widely circulates and gets mixed 
with the inner self-production processes, adaptively changing the 
ongoing operations that constitute the metabolic life of the entity. 
That's the existential fate of all informational entities: they are 
adaptive, structurally always in the making, and in the dismantling.


And the dismantling connects very nicely with the conditions that 
Howard establishes for the functioning of a collective learning 

Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .

2015-06-18 Thread Steven Ericsson-Zenith

Fantasies about Quantum Mechanics aside, Probability and Information are 
distinct. Both are ways of speaking about the world. You may speak of 
alternatives probabilistically, but you cannot say that “information is 
probabilistic. 

Any truth based system is necessarily flawed (Godel) and dualist. The great 
disadvantage of mathematics grounded upon first-order logic is also exactly 
what you say because it can lead to over-confidence. This is not to say that 
logical proof systems are not useful for checking syntactic and semantic 
reasoning, they are. But they cannot provide the certainty desired. 

Mathematical proofs are not logical proofs.

Reasoning about motion and degrees of freedom in dynamic structure, be it 
falling bodies or social graces, is not greatly helped by first-order logic.  
FOL is only concerned with certain types of thinking. 

Arbitrary axioms are no basis for rigor.   In my view, at least, only the 
general covariance of premises can provide a basis of scientific argument.  
Constructive methods are flawed if they do not consider the action of premises 
together.  Arbitrary axioms only represent the abductions that may lead us to 
this. 

Existence is before essence, remember the prime principle of existentialism.

Regards,
Steven



 On Jun 17, 2015, at 6:04 PM, Koichiro Matsuno cxq02...@nifty.com wrote:
 
 At 9:36 PM 06/17/2015, Pedro wrote:
 
 ... What if information belongs to action,
 
 [KM] This is a good remark suggesting that information may go beyond the 
 standard stipulation of first-order logic. A great advantage of mathematics 
 grounded upon first-order logic is to enjoy the provability or computability 
 of an inductive judgement with use of the few axiomatic primitives. This 
 scheme, however, does not work for information at large, though notably 
 except for Shannon's information bits. If one faces a statement like 
 information is probabilistic, it would go beyond first-order logic when the 
 predicate to be probabilistic admits its quantification as revealed in the 
 context-dependent probabilities in QM. Once we enter the higher stage of 
 second-order logic, it could be possible to form an opinion of course while 
 its provability may be out of reach in most cases. Nonetheless, if one wants 
 to save something good with saying information is probabilistic, a likely 
 makeshift might be to relate information to action, for instance, as 
 appealing to conditiona!
 l probabilities which are quite at home with the action of setting and 
 detecting such conditions. 
 
   Koichiro
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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] Krassimir's Notes . . .

2015-06-17 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
At 9:36 PM 06/17/2015, Pedro wrote:

... What if information belongs to action,

[KM] This is a good remark suggesting that information may go beyond the 
standard stipulation of first-order logic. A great advantage of mathematics 
grounded upon first-order logic is to enjoy the provability or computability of 
an inductive judgement with use of the few axiomatic primitives. This scheme, 
however, does not work for information at large, though notably except for 
Shannon's information bits. If one faces a statement like information is 
probabilistic, it would go beyond first-order logic when the predicate to be 
probabilistic admits its quantification as revealed in the context-dependent 
probabilities in QM. Once we enter the higher stage of second-order logic, it 
could be possible to form an opinion of course while its provability may be out 
of reach in most cases. Nonetheless, if one wants to save something good with 
saying information is probabilistic, a likely makeshift might be to relate 
information to action, for instance, as appealing to conditiona!
 l probabilities which are quite at home with the action of setting and 
detecting such conditions. 

   Koichiro





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