Problems of science

Dear FISers,

I am replying to some past messages:

(from Ted)

>Here we have the most basic characterization of the FIS problem from my
>perspective. I firmly believe, with Pedro, that the problem is that the
>world is not at all logical. I presume, but am not sure he would go as far
>as me in believing that logic is an imperfect human invention. I wonder
>what the FIS agenda is thought to be by anyone who assumes logic is
>somehow embedded in the mechanics of the universe.
>
>Our old, flawed notion of information is conflated with notions of "truth"
>and "facts." Our new notion (who knows?) may best be characterized by
>notions of effect (and cause, leading to issues of time). I thought that's
>what we were struggling with.

Yes, Ted, I get along on that issue with you. And also with the limitations
of the FIS enterprise just to level 4 that you mention in the next message.
Perhaps I would not qualify the human logics as 'imperfect' but
as 'prosthetic'. I tend to consider them as neurologically grounded
strategies which have been superimposed onto the sequentially organized
language system (symbolic realm) so as to make it coherent with the
unending closure of the 'action'/'perception' cycle that permeates the
functioning of the vertebrate nervous system. Other species have peculiar
logicizations, and rudimentary symbol management too. I much coincide with
a paragraph of Jerry about this:

(now, my whimsical Eudora does not let me paste as in Ted's...)

"The deep intertwining, interweaving and interlacing of the logic
structures of science and the logic structures of mathematics are mutually
re-enforcing toward one another. New observations in science stimulate new
observations in mathematics and vice versa. The cumulative success of these
relationships is among the foundational pillars of the informational
sciences such as FIS. From the perspective of the concepts of "Organic
Communication", I note the deep similarity between the conceptual dynamics
of organic communication in living systems and the corresponding conceptual
dynamics of generating logical communications."

My contention is that those similarities are somehow grouped into family
resemblances, depending on the problems and problem-solving resources
existing in each living-related realm (eg, the tetrad: molecules, cells,
individuals, firms). Putting clarity and order into such empirical and
abstract commonalities emerging on a vertical dimension of organization is
at the very center of the fis enterprise... so the much needed
communication among the different explorations by the variety of scientific
communities involved in the goal. Helas, a central problem that also
impinges in my previous comments (above) on logics is the lack of a central
theory of the neurosciences, really making sense of the dynamics of our
cognition. It is a very strategic void, and a fantastic source of
interdisciplinary confusion.

Finally, there are two paragraphs, below, from Edwina's, where she
reiterates the all-embracing reach of her theorizations.

"I'm saying that all reality, which includes the physico-chemical,
biological and socioconceptual realms, operates within logic, by
which I mean long term pragmatic patterns of relations. All realms
operate by establishing normative patterns of relations. Those are
what I mean by logic...
My theories - I wouldn't call them 'religious decisions', for that
would suggest that my theories are arrrived at only by revelation,
and are not testable by either rational or empirical means. I hope
that my theories are testable by both".

I have just read in Nature an interesting paper on a new field:
sonoluminisce. After long years of intense work, the authors have achieved
that a sound wave in liquid water finally collapses into a brief
luminiscence glow. En passant, they mention the fantastic experimental and
theoretical complexity of their emerging field--up to 11 different
scientific and engineering disciplines are involved! How can one put
harmoniously and efficienty all those bodies of knowledge together?
Practising scientists will understand me very well when I was referring to
'complexity' and 'elegance' vs. endless logical statements in my message
days ago. The point I now take home (related to the 'relevance problem' I
also mentioned about the relationship between multiple disciplines at work)
is that hard work and not intellectual overconfidence is what keeps the
common enterprise of science running. Sincerely, I do not consider that the
above type of unbounded 'theorizations' fall under the umbrella of natural
science at all. But I desire its author very good luck in her enterprise.

best wishes

Pedro

=========================================
Pedro C. Mariju�n
Fundaci�n CIRCE
CPS, Univ. Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
TEL. (34) 976 762036-761863, FAX (34) 976 732078
email: marijuan@posta.unizar.es
=========================================
Received on Tue Sep 10 15:21:03 2002