[topicmaps-comment] on Cross-scale Collapse and Information ChannelCapacity

[psp <beadmaster@ontologystream.com>]

Again, please excuse the long post, and the cross posting.

***

Reply to

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eventChemistry or one of the forums, only; not
the cc list.

*** Summary <<<

Comments on incident management follows some thoughts on the differences
between
Penrose/Hameroff's orchestrated objective reduction

http://www.phys.ualberta.ca/~biophys/banff1997/abstracts/hameroff.html

as applied to understanding both physics and perception; and environmental
decoherence in the quantum mechanical collapse

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eventChemistry/message/104

The attempt is to establish the bases for "cross scale" assembly of formal
tokens to produce a stratified framework for informational transparency into
the events that occur at the (1) bit stream level, (2) as reported by
intrusion detection systems or other data mining systems (of Intellectual
Property mining - for example), or natural language parsing used for concept
routing and retrieval.

This attempt follows the work of Russian semiotician as interpreted by
myself,

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/book.htm

The application of this work to the notion of formative topic maps is
suggested at:

http://www.ontologystream.com/aSLIP/files/verbMaps.htm

and in a recent note to topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org


*** end Summary <<<

****

Dear colleagues,

I have read twice Dick Ballard's note,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eventChemistry/message/134

and will address a subset of the spectrum of my thought (set of conceptual
affordance as I am experiencing these).  This is to make linear something
that is not, and is to say things that I am not completely sure of. (Perhaps
this is ok?)

There is a complexity to the note, regarding the notion of being simple.  (A
fractal-like play in concepts. In fact formally(?) interesting as a
communication that might be modeled using fractal processes to find the
themes and separate them.  Cameron?)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eventChemistry/message/118


I prefer that I and others feel comfortable asking simple questions that go
to the heart of issues where there is some (perhaps) misalignment between
our formal understanding and the natural world itself.

Regarding your (Dick Ballard's) initial description of the Bohr
interpretation of the collapse phenomenon, perhaps what you have said here
is almost all that can be said without a required deconstruction of the
terms and meanings given by our (the community's) models of collapse; indeed
of the non-measured states that we conjecture but can not observe directly.

In the interpretative process, there is a semantic shift that is imparted by
the READER and sometimes this shift is a bit of an intended, or un-intended,
distortion.  (I assume that this might be considered a proper general
systems type statement regarding the sharing of knowledge in a human
community?)

Perhaps the semantic shift of most interest is in the use of the phrase
"environmental decoherence".  In any case Penrose and Hameroff have spoken
for themselves, as has others in this great dialog.

***

Now here is where I will be very careful so that my thoughts are understood
to be about the same as I mean them to be.  For I feel that the general use
of the phrase "environmental decoherence" is one where a certain type of
assumption has been made prior to the immediate use of this phrase.  This
assumption may have the nature of a return of reductionism (a ghost of
reductionism?), even if this is a more careful reductionism than we find in
classical (Newtonian) physics.

The key to my interpretation is in your words:

"As always my thrust as a scientist is to find
something more concrete, quantifiable, and testable."

All three of these words, "concrete", "quantifiable", and "testable"; are
not verifiable to experimental work on physical collapse.  They may be
reifiable to one of the several formalisms that allows concrete,
quantifiable, and testable criterion in the context of A FORMALISM and the
rules by which formalism is used.  So we test to see if a mathematical
expression can be derived from another mathematical expression, and think of
this is testing the validity of the mathematical expression.  But it is
ONLY, ultimately, manipulating symbols.  Issues in senseMaking and
undecidability arguments (from the foundation of logic and mathematics) are
IN PLAY.

In particular ANY assumption of a mathematical continuum is subject to
question based on Zenkin's work (foundations of logic and mathematics)

http://www.ontologystream.com/IRRTest/Evaluation/ARLReport.htm


and on other work derivative to Robert Rosen's work (on foundations of
category theory and theoretical biology), or in fact from discussions in
theoretical linguistics regarding non-translatability.  The discussion I
tried to have on the nature of mathematical induction in the KMCI e-forum
was intended to get to this point of why the notion of a mathematical
continuum needs to be deconstructed, along with the deconstruction of an
absolute dependency on so called "rational argument".

It is not so easy to be heard correctly on this points, so I can only warn
the reader to look carefully at what I have said and what I have NOT said.
It is a gentle warning, that my meaning can be changed easily if one is not
careful or it one is wishing that I am saying something other than what I am
saying.

{ I have claimed, in the year long debate in the KMCI forum, that many
intellectuals (philosophers) will change the meaning of the concepts as I
have just presented them, and then act as if the meaning, so changed, is
what I have said. This claim is supported in my various arguments about
paradigmatic blocking - which I have no space to go into fully at this time
(again). I ask only that one be very careful in using inference rules and
underlying assumptions. What may seem normative for one person, may be
considered to be false by another. In this case, there can be no productive
discussion if there is a characteristic shifting of the meaning by one side,
and the resulting distortion, as has been my claim regarding the KMCI
debate. }

***

So what I have to offer in place of, as if a substitute for, "equally
straight forward or familiar terms" is the notions of complexity as extended
from Robert Rosen's work by Peter Kugler.  In the core concept, a "thing" is
capable of being more than one "thing" at the same time.  Example: I am both
in the role of father and husband.  Linguistic ambiguity is built, perhaps,
to address these points of complexity.

One must say, that not everything is complex in the same way.  The notions
of complexity leads one to a theory of types that is specific to classes of
natural systems.  The construction and use of is the core of the Russian
approach to applied semiotics, I claim.  The use of theories of type are
"stratified" in this little known work, as seen in the quasi axiomatic
theory of Victor Finn (and reviewed in my book).  Descriptive enumeration is
derived from the theory of types, and provides an alternative to "rational
argumentation" and knowledge representations based on declarative and/or
procedural theories.

http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/pprueitt/private/KM_files/frame.htm

**Stratified complexity** is a new paradigm that we are developing today
(2002), to extend the Complex Adaptive Systems theory from what is
essentially a two level stratified view to a relative tri-level view.

***

*** Note on a defensive system for cyber war <<<<<

Regarding computer based virtual distributed incident perception derived
from my new work:

http://www.ontologystream.com/SLIP/index1.htm

the incident is not reducible to intrusion reports for the following
reasons:

1) incomplete information on the component intrusions
2) false positives from the Intrusion Detection System (IDS) audit files
(see papers about this at the link above)
3) the intentions of the hacker is encapsulated in the mind of one or more
humans and the theory for intentional expression (action-perception cycles
as discussed by Shaw and Gibson) is not available (as yet)
4) there is no top down expectancy in use, at the level of incident
management, except as non-formally expressed by human tacit knowledge.  (And
in current CERT systems, there is no re-usable machine storage of this tacit
knowledge - thus there is no "predictive element", except as made by a human
mind.)

*** End note on a defensive system for cyber war <<<<<

***

comments to

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eventChemistry

Please forward as appropriate.

Paul Prueitt
Founder, (1997) BCNGroup.org