Dear All,
some posts ago, Pedro was accused of comparing "levels" of descriptions (in sociology,
economics, physics, etc.) to partitions of a set, which he rightly bounced off as I was that person
doing the reduction and simpification and abstraction. I should have reacted sooner correcting the
misperception.
Now Pedro states that he has found results not agreeing with my calculations, and this of course
severly discredits the argumentation I keep putting forward, namely, that what we talk about here in
plain text (the levels of appearances and their relations among each other) can very well be modeled
by using natural numbers as linguistic units and observe the levels they build.
I will not go into mathematical details here, but would look forward discussing the nuts and bolts
of calculations relating to multidimensional partitions. What appears important to state to the FIS
list, that insofar we understand each other, that part of it that we together understand can be
translated into mathematics.
Let me see Pedro's comments:
>" An additional problem concerning Karl's
> partitional approach is that he has not developed
> a consistent methodology yet---and the attempts
> made by me and Morris a few years ago, produced
> contradictory results with him. So I friendly depart
> from his views when he heuristically establishes
> the number of multidimensional partitions."
as an invitation to raise and make known, that
a) yes, I have evolved a consistent methodolgy, and
b) the attempts of a few years ago may be useful as a basis from which to restart the
investigations.
If the calculations re-made by Morris and Pedro would now show that the numbers fit well, would that
transfer an importance, relevance, usefulness to the idea that intellectual concepts can be
standardised, abstracted, reduced, structuralised and thus depicted by numbers?
If the re-calculations would bring forth, that the flip-flop between object and logical relations
does not happen between 32 and 97 but, say, between 12 and 65 - or at 137 -, would that prove the
concept wrong?
The term "information" is itself an abstraction rather near to the abstraction level used
in mathematics. The concept of information is definitely within the topics of Logic, and of course
in technics of messages transmissions, which does have a close relation to mathematics.
I cannot help but restate that information is the pointing out of an alternative among several. The
collection of all alternatives among several is the set of partitions of a natural number.
As to the numerical differences found by Pedro and Morris, I shall be pleased to go thru them -
maybe my communicational and didactical skills have improved the last few years.
Yes, I stubbornly insist that the key point is the shift of perspective between top-down and bottom
up, groups vs. individuals, commutative or sequential enumerations of objects. It simply does not
add up. There are number theoretical tricks which make the collection inherently instable (or
quasistable), wanting, in a fashion, to degenerate into an entropic state (in optimising a
mathematical optimalisation function), but, on the other hand, being forced by the counteracting
mathematical arrangement to re-translate relation into object and object into relation, theerby
creating and annihilating. The numbers show this, at least to me.
If I re-told the same story, clothed into self-regulation on the level of the experiences of a
shring (how to dissolve tension, how to loosen up, how to remove objects from the center of the
attention, etc.), would the concept then be understandable and interesting?
Thanks for your open-minden attitude.
Karl
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue May 31 13:31:37 2005
