Re: Some questions about the nature of informational theories

Dear Jerry and colleagues,

Thanks a lot for the stimulating postings.

>Were the questions I poised not relevant to a theory of information? If
>they are not relevant, then what would be relevant?

I think they were quite relevant for that purpose but perhaps we are not
capable of providing clear responses yet. The info 'thread' needs to be
woven into finer strands in order to provide those clear responses --and in
spite of this conference advancements we keep the info thread largely into
the state of 'bundle' yet.

>One possibility is that the strength of beliefs in entropy as the source
>of material information is so strong that it blocks thinking about generic
>philosophical issues related to science.
>
>If this is the case, can someone "make the case" for entropy - that is,
>systematically list the basic reasons that support the concept that
>entropy can be generalized to cover all possible forms of communication /
>information?

I think that entropy is one of these strategic regions where we should stop
and have focused discussions (a nice outcome of this conference is that,
yes, we have had acceptably focused discussions!). My suggestion in a
previous message was to link entropy-symmetry-similarity-recognition,
although not thinking on communication terms, rather on structures and
processes, a la Leyton. And then we could jump to cellular matters of
abductions, constraints, act. But before thinking on new focused sessions
maybe some 'vacation' or a period of relaxed, unfocussed discussions would
be convenient.

>The absence of responses to the questions concerning abstraction suggest
>that the role of abstraction in science, philosophy and mathematics should
>be publicly examined by this group. The nature of abstraction is
>fundamental to trans disciplinary discussions. Does anyone have a better
>suggestion on how to open the possibility of moving from eisegesis to
>exegesis and theory construction?

I strongly agree in the emphasis on the 'abstraction' matter and the
trans-disciplinar. It is for me a germane way of considering the
interdisciplinary problem (or perspectivism, or doctrine of limitation).
Our abstractions in science advance throughout 'disciplinary avenues': it
is a historic fact that we seldom discuss. And what happens when a
conceptual problem impinges into different avenues of thought? A long
turmoil of misunderstandings, conflicting corporative hierarchies, and
specialism myopic attitudes follow (remember Ortega y Gasset's celebrated
essay on "the barbarianism of specialization"). This seems to be the case
with the info problem in our times... The willingness to tolerate
heterogeneous ways of thought is a precondition for advancement. We have to
keep pounding, hammering down each other's conceptual abstractions with the
patience and good humor of the puzzle-solver... I do not advocate a
permanent 'anything goes' as I suspect that the interdisciplinary nature
inherent to basic info problems (relevant in most of your previous message
questions) also demands a rigorous methodology, although different from the
usual ways of discip. thought. Reflecting on the inter-or trans-
methodology becomes a pressing need for us.

>One area that philosophers could potentially contribute to is coding
>theory. What is the common meaning of encoding and decoding and how are
>systems distinguished by their encoding capacities? What are the sources
>of motion that generate encodings? What are the path dependencies that
>support encoding operations? Explication is needed, not merely explanation.
>
>The narratives of process philosophers (such as Whitehead) are often
>illuminating when applied to biological dynamics. Could process
>philosophy become a base for theory building covering the component of
>transmission of information?

Let me turn to the cellular discussion in order to emphasize that there are
different 'infos': structural, generative, communicational. The gist would
not reside in anyone alone, but in the whole new dynamics of 'evanescent
permanence' that together they are capable of implementing.

The above looks too general, am affraid. So I will be happy to invest the
remaining 50% of my weekly discussion capital to attempt some more concrete
responses.

best wishes

Pedro
Received on Mon Jan 13 14:54:30 2003