Re: kickoff

At 12:48 2002.05.08. +0200, you wrote:
>At 11:24 AM 08/05/02, you wrote:
>>(message from javorszky@EUnet.at)
>>
>>Dear FISers,
>>
>>First of all, let me thank you all for having organized this really
>>exciting conference!
>>
>>Koichiro, in his discussion 'primer', has worked out the common and the
>>different in the approaches of John, Andrei and Pedro towards the idea of
>>information. Koichiro sums up the main ideas as I understand as follows:
>>
>>John talks about the actualised (present moment) fact and opposes the
>>potential to this knowledge; Pedro remarks the predictability of the
>>actualised, and visualises the actualised (or to-be-actualised) as embedded
>>in the middle of the potential
>>(knowing Pedro, one will know that he muses about symmetry); Andrei points
>>out that the realised does have different properties to the potential.
>>
>>Let me propose that information is the pointing out of a specific
>>realisation among many
>>possible realisations. In terms of numbers: one specific arrangement of
>>relations among numbers among many possible arrangements of relations among
>>numbers. If we can accept this translation into number theory, then we may
>>integrate the concepts outlined above into one consolidated model of
>>information theory --interrelating those 'arch' principles that Pedro was
>>mentioning...
>
>I agree with this. Part of my reason for distinguishing between potential and
>expressed information is to allow for a number of alternate possibilities.
>However,
>the possibilities are grounded in some actuality, preventing them from being
>'mere' possibilities, which in themselves have no dynamical consequences.
>Assuming that dynamics can be translated into number theory (I don't think
>this
>is impossible; I translated it into abstract information theory, which is
>not so
>far away). The reverse translation, I think, does not work. Numbers are
>not dynamical
>entities.
>
>John
>
>
>----------
>Dr John Collier john.collier@kla.univie.ac.at
>Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research
>Adolf Lorenz Gasse 2 +432-242-32390-19
>A-3422 Altenberg Austria Fax: 242-32390-4
>http://www.kli.ac.at/research.html?personal/collier
>
>

Dear John, (and the others)

Introducing "dynamical consequences" may lead us to dangerous domains; far
from our original goal at this e-conference.
The word "dynamic" is used in different terms.
In some cases it means like "temporal" or "affected by time".
In other cases it is used when physical (machanical) forces are concerned.
Moverover, some use this term in certain third - at least for me -
infdefinite meaning.
Taking an example from my narrower realms:
Can you tell us, what is the common in the dynamic symmetry concept
introduced by the mathematician Hambidge, and the dynamic symmetry concept
by the physicist Wigner?

I do not want to orient the discussion in this direction, only warn to the
difficulties, if we involve 'dynamics'.

Anyway, I support the rest of the idea,

Gyuri
___________________________________________________________________
Gyorgy Darvas darvasg@helka.iif.hu; h492dar@ella.hu
                        http://www.mtakszi.iif.hu/darvas.htm
S Y M M E T R I O N http://us.geocities.com/isis_symmetry/ [email protected]
Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary
Mailing address: P.O. Box 994, Budapest, H-1245 Hungary
Fax: 36 (1) 331-3161 Phone: 36 (1) 312-3022; 36 (1)
331-3975
___________________________________________________________________
Received on Wed May 8 14:20:14 2002