Dear Andrei,
Let me answer to your questiona:
> If I follow your argument, I should again come
> to picture of OBJECTIVE REALITY and human beings creating models of this
> reality
A system of counting does not reflect "objective reality" in a strict sense.
It may be useful to predict the movements of the Moon, of salmons or of
hurricanes. The proposal is that a counting system enriched by units that
measure dissimilarity as matter-of-fact, routinely as similarity, can be
even more useful to predict the movements of the Moon, of salmon and of
hurricanes. Using two eyes instead of one does neither enhance the
objectivity, the truth or the reality of the picture, it merely helps. Using
two counting systems instead of one does nothing towards making it more
real, objective or mighty. It may turn out to be more useful.
> if you speak about similarities, then these are similarities of
> what? only our thoughts? or something more?
As to what is the similarity between two things that you perceive as "the
same just bigger" or "the same just elsewhere" or "the same just at another
time" or "the same just more of it" consist of will depend on what the two
things are that you compare and find that they are the same, just ...
> Neanderthals-people were not able to observe similarity in
> events of coming salmon each year at the same time (this is the real
> fact), but our preceders were able to do this. So it is in common
> agreement with your theory. But it was objective reality of salmons? or
> it was a question of our consencus?
As to Neanderthal and us: what has changed is that we recognise that salmons
keep returning every year; this they did not grasp. What has remained the
same: they and the most of us do not use the dissimilarity property of
members of assemblies. The Neanderthals have chosen to observe the
similarities between and among mammuts to evolve the conceptual unit of a
mammut. Likewise they have chosen to observe the similarities between and
among trees to evolve the conceptual unit of a tree, and likewise they have
chosen to observe the similarities between and among fingers to evolve the
conceptual unit of a finger. Then they have observed the similarities
between and among the conceptual units describing a unit of mammut, a unit
of tree and a unit of finger, and have introduced the concept of a unit of a
unit. This has stayed up to today the basic of our concept of a unit, based
in similarity.
What they have not done, is to observe the inner dissimilarities within a
group of mammuts, a group of trees and a group of fingers and to abstract
this unit of difference into a unit.
We stay with the Neanderthal tradition. In this point, there is much of
similarity between us and the Neanderthals.
We would break with the Neanderthal way of counting if we started using the
units of difference alongside the units of similarity, regardless whether we
count mammuts, trees or fingers, or units as such.
A counting system has nothing to do with reality or salmons or mammuts. A
counting system has to do with units. The freedom to choose lies in the
alternative which properties of the mammuts (trees, fingers, units) we
utilise: how they resemble one another or how they differ to each other.
The proposal is to use a tandem-like counting system and observe with an
increased exactitude the objects. The technique would be like using stereo
in sight or radar or hearing.
Information lies in the deviation between the results of the counting in the
two systems. This is what FIS looks into. The consensus is that we have
found what we were looking for (what is information and how can we master
its use), and that it lies in the slight difference between diversity-based
and similarity-based counting systems.
Hope you can join the consensus.
Karl
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Sep 20 11:50:12 2006
