Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:51:47 -0200 Message-Id: <ïwB39> To: bogus From: francolv@usp.br (Franco Levi) Subject: Re: ENTROPY: Open Problems in Entropy and Information Studies In-Reply-To: <ENTROPY: Open Problems in Entropy and Information Studies>
From: "Franco Levi" <francolv@usp.br>
To: <entropy@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: ENTROPY: Open Problems in Entropy and Information Studies
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:51:47 -0200
I would like to disagree with Pentcho. I think that Shu-Kun has again
started
a special something that can be quite useful and interesting.
Problem-solvings in science can arise again and again. As the same problem
or modified.Something may be right
in a place or context and wrong in another. The same goes for an epoch's
beliefs subsequent to
another epoch.
When we want to compare and integrate articles produced for sudents of
chemistry, to whom the Lab is a paradigm, then reproductibility is the
referential. Only now and then an experiment gets out of control. Or is it
not?
On the other hand, an organic chemist knows about how many by-products can
once in a while crowd his experiments.
A fortiori a biochemist often uses model molecules in vitro instead of more
complex molecules in vivo. He can get either similar or quite different
results, improving a natural product/situation or not. Variety, diversity
and unpredictability gradually increase if we get farther and farther from
the "exact sciences". Psychological situations vary according to what is
circulating in our brains, so tell us psychochemists, and animal
experiments in general (including great apes and humans).
To mathematize chemistry seems a very difficult but not impossible task.
But deep below our entropy- information issues are also linguistic.
Maybe I'll tell you why in a future e-mail. For the time being let me say
that there is an object laguage and an objective science. And also many
other languages and contexts operating always at the same time. In the case
of chemistry consensus is almost unanimous. But we mix formulas, equations
and environmental conditions almost as a mandate in almost all of our work.
But on the other hand to speak about it, we use scientific english where
consensus is lower, and so on.
Till we get to colloquial english, which is what I am using now, and the
real scenario for right and wrong, for instance for positive or negative
entropy or positive or negative information. We are not aware of mixing
these languages and we must unmix these "entropies" if we wish a healthy
dialogue. That's why Shu-Kun's suggestion is ( I think) great. Besides
right and wrong, there is always a maybe and many if.... thens... (and
meta-languages).
To start getting deeper in the subject let me get back to a chemical example
in order to try to define and use our common grounds and languages.
After Thomas Kuhn, now paradigms are known to be eventually volatile in the
long run!
When we write a chemical equation we are already mixing two hierarchical
levels in a dialogic discourse. The symbols in a formula represent a basic
level of certainty. The equation, in turn, involves
a second rank. This is because, among other reasons, it can represent a
reaction constant that varies according to the use of multiples or fractions
of the indexes (like one water mole made by adding a hydrogen plus half an
oxygen mole or two water molecules from twice two hydrogens and one oxygen
molecule. Is it the same equation or are multiples another instance?).
Uncertainties also can arise for other reasons if many reactions are
ocurring at the same time, if living systems
are present (aren't we always near by?) or if artifacts are involved, and so
on.
When we speak, write or chat we use different languages. How can we be
authoritative, academic and consensus-seeking all at once? Environmental
issues, like geochemical issues, require specific inventive qualities of
speach and writing such as those that are being born in entropy@mmu.ac.uk .
So why should we restrict ourselves to Mathematical Physics or Physical
Chemistry, Labs, industries and so on?
Every reseach is biological, because it is done by living systems. It is
also human, because it is done human beings. And isn't it now cybernetic,
since we are and I am typing in a PC acting as NC?
(to be continued)
Franco Levi ( ô¿ô ) =^..^= ( ; >) )
francolv@usp.br FAX: (55) ((011) 818-4207
Universidade de São Paulo IGc (55) (011) 818-4243
Cidade Universitária Armando Salles de Oliveira, CEP 01498-970
HOME: (55) (011) 211-7030
----- Original Message -----
From: Pentcho Valev <pvalev@bas.bg>
To: <entropy@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: quinta-feira, 23 de dezembro de 1999 06:42
Subject: Re: ENTROPY: Open Problems in Entropy and Information Studies
> Dear Shu-Kun,
> I appreciate your activity but at the same time feel rather frustrated
> by the contradiction between the declared purpose (to discuss open
> problems isn't it) and the actual purpose of people to avoid any open
> problem. There are countless examples the last one being the discussion
> started by Frank Lambert.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 06 2000 - 16:53:30 GMT