*5.4. Information in Presence-Absence Dualism*

The basic philosophical position of Logic in Reality requires a dynamic interaction between opposites at and in respect to all levels of metaphysics. We have seen above the dialectics and logic of

the relation between the degree of actuality and potentiality of opposing process elements, as well as the new entities which can emerge from them (included middle or third term states—'T-states'). A key pair of metaphysical opposites to which we ascribe a physical dialectical meaning are presence and absence. We have noted that LIR ascribes value, in ways that are more explicitly scientific as well as logical, to concepts generally considered negative—contradiction, inconsistency and vagueness. This approach is echoed by the work of the biologist Terrence Deacon of a metaphysics of incompleteness [85]. Deacon defined what is missing from theories of information in a paper with that title [86] and that this absence is an essential part of its content. For us, also, information refers to something that is not totally present now, or is not present yet.

We will not repeat here in detail Deacon's key concept that information is a relational property of systems that emerges from constraints of signal probability, discussed by Shannon, signal generation, by Boltzmann and those required for an apparently teleological dynamics, essentially those of Darwin in regard to evolution. We refer the reader to Deacon's major work, *Incomplete Nature* [48]. The three properties reflect three levels of entropy reduction that is an informational 'architecture' of recursivity. There is a rough parallel here to the notions of syntax, semantics and pragmatics, here, the pragmatics of Darwinian survival. The hierarchy of levels is that of data, content and significance, but the principles of LIR permit an interaction between them rather than the absence of interaction as between quantum and non-quantum levels.

At the cognitive level, according to Lupasco Principle of Dynamic Opposition, presence and absence correspond to consciousness and unconsciousness and actuality and potentiality in a non-intuitive contradictorial manner. Forgetting as also an active process, and in the complex dynamics of mind, a 'fact' or concept that was present and then relegated to the unconscious is an actuality with a potential for being recalled into consciousness.

#### *5.5. Information and the Laws of Thermodynamics*

In a general way, the discussion of complex real processes still su ffers from the lack of an appropriate language which takes into account both intrinsic and relational properties of a system at the same time. Deacon defines constraints as relational properties, but LIR amplifies this by the rules for their evolution of the potential as well as actual aspects. Ulanowicz [87] has made an extension of the Deacon approach by connecting concepts of entropy to the Third as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in order to define entropy in a relation to a degree of system constraint (actuality) and its conjugate state of residual freedom interpretation of the Third Law, deliver meaning. In a picture of entropy and information whose terms are always relative implies that like those of quantum physics, they do not commute [88].

In several papers, Igamberdiev further develops the idea that the Third Law of Thermodynamics is more important for understanding life than the Second Law which is considered the basis of Prigogine's dissipative structures. The Third Law establishes the reference state with the lowest entropy in relation to which the order (described as information) can be referred [89]. This state, according to the Third Law, is achieved at the temperature of absolute zero. However, living systems operate at temperatures near 300◦K, in fact far from this reference state. It has been suggested that they maintain a long-lived cold decoherence-free internal state (called the internal quantum state), within macromolecular structures which is achieved by applying error-correction commands to the internal state and by screening it from thermal fluctuations [90,91]. Iosif Rapoport was the first who suggested to describe the stability of genetic structures by introduction of special thermodynamic principles explaining the maintenance of low entropy in living systems [92]. Mental processes could be associated with such long-lived internal states maintained within the nervous system [93]. This could be su fficient for Lupascian T-states, and a corresponding non-Boolean logic, as a possible physical precondition.

In our picture, the di fference between these domains and those in which classical (Boolean) logic and the law of the excluded third operate is determined by the degree of interactivity and sinusoidal movement between them (primarily actual to primarily potential and vice versa, alternately and reciprocally), involving communication between actual and potential states on a macroscopic level. Stated in this way, the Principle of Dynamic Opposition (cf. Section 3) goes beyond thermodynamic principles. It requires implications in addition to mathematics for description of its operation in complex processes, given their non-Boolean evolution. The operation of the PDO thus functionally replaces the notion of a 'temperature' in metabolic cycles. According to Nicolescu [94], the Principle of Dynamic Opposition is not and should not be described as a thermodynamic principle. The thermodynamics of energy underlies all phenomena in opposition, but it does not characterize all of them. Ontolons, as described above in our picture, are constituted by predominantly actual states, but these are not independent of potential states. Together they lead to the emergence of new entities (T-states). Further complexification of ontolons at the interpersonal level generates perpetually evolving socially organized structures [75,95]. In the next Sections 5.6 and 5.7 we will summarize the approach to the science and philosophy of information coming from the philosophical side, which we immediately wish to characterize as part of natural philosophy.

#### *5.6. Wu Kun and the Metaphilosophy of Information*

The 35+ years of pioneering work of the Chinese information scientist and philosopher Wu Kun has inspired the following discussion. Wu's innovation in philosophy is that information is not immediately given as matter or energy, even though always requiring them, implies an emerging crisis in philosophy. Information is required as an additional philosophical category, and Wu redefined the philosophy of information as a *metaphilosophy* [96]. The implications of this change are only beginning to be realized.

Through papers in English by Wu and jointly by Wu and Brenner, including some in this journal, many of Wu's conceptions are now broadly available. A key aspect of this approach is that it *defines* a *stance*, the Informational Stance. Wu and Brenner consider that the "opposites" in information are not captured by the classical concept of a classical, static "unity of opposites", but by the dialectical interaction of opposites, classified by Wu based on his general philosophy of natural ontological levels that captures the essence of the properties of information. The resulting doctrine of objective information, subjective information and human information in society constitutes Wu's information theory and establishes it as a unified philosophical foundation for information science.

The Informational Stance, is a philosophical position and attitude that is most appropriate for, and above all not separated nor isolated from, the emerging science and philosophy of information itself. The Informational Stance is a more 'active' formulation of Wu's concept of Informational Thinking, which offers an alternative to standard 'Systems Thinking' in which most standard views of logic are retained. The Informational Stance is an attitude that requires attention to the informational aspects of complex processes as a methodological necessity, starting from the level of an existence theory for information and a methodology for its investigation. Especially, the Informational Stance supports and generalizes the recent work of leaders in the area of information ethics, including Floridi, Capurro and Wu himself, grounding the attribution of ethical value to all existence in informational terms. Wu's Philosophy of Information combined with LIR yields a *philosophical* structure of information that is compatible with its dynamic physical and logical structure and has no obvious direct precursor, either in or outside of the field of information.

#### *5.7. Meaning and the Convergence of the Science and Philosophy of Information*

Wu's definition of the role of information in philosophy is the critical *first step* in the characterization of the complex phenomenon of information and information processes. Further, Wu's classification provides a basis for an understanding of a key current development, the convergence of Information Science and the Philosophy of Information as the precursor of en emergen<sup>t</sup> Unified Science of Information [97]. This convergence is obviously not intended to imply an 'end' to philosophy or its conflation with science. Philosophy will continue to explore issues that arise, in particular, in relation to language and knowledge in their aspects as unique cognitive products of the human condition, with a substantial abstract content. But the question of the relation of that condition to the rest of the world logically requires retaining the scientific properties of that world to insure the validity of the comparison.

There is thus a set of new and unique relationships that are developing between the classical disciplines of science and philosophy as a consequence of new understandings of the science and philosophy of information. The overall movement is that of a philosophization of science and a scientification of philosophy leading to their convergence. However, in this paper and elsewhere, we use the term Unified Science of Information. This is not strictly accurate, as our convergen<sup>t</sup> theory includes the Philosophy of Information as a proper part, without conflation. Wu and Brenner therefore propose, despite its awkwardness, the term Unified Science-Philosophy of Information (USPI) as the best possible description of the field of endeavor. We thus believe we are witnessing the emergence of a new system of science, a metascience in a complex, dynamic reciprocity with philosophy that amounts to a paradigmatic revolution in thought.

In a paper in *Information* [98], Wu describes the current situation as follows. We cite this passage *in extenso* as it is a textbook example of the kind of new paradigm we referred to at the objective of this paper. "As a result of establishing the fundamental role of information in the existential domain, the Philosophy of Information provides a kind of dual-existential and dual-evolutionary theory of matter and information which describes information as a general phenomenon existing in everything in the cosmos. This leads to the acknowledgement of the dual dimension of matter and information in all forms of research. Because the lack of an informational dimension in traditional philosophy and science, it is necessary to transform them completely to take into account the new scientific paradigm provided by the current Science and Philosophy of Information. By means of that transformation, all scientific and philosophical domains become involved in an integrating, developing trend of paradigm transformation, which Wu and Brenner has called the "informational scientification of science" [99].

The current interaction and convergence of the Science and Philosophy of Information represents a fundamental and basic path for the development of scientific and philosophical knowledge. This "philosophization of science" and "scientification of philosophy", anticipated in the progression from ancient philosophy to modern science and philosophy, now represents a completely new way of thinking that is that distinct from that in the contemporary Western philosophy of consciousness. It resists an absolute separation between science and philosophy and establishes interactive, mutually defining feedback loops between science and philosophy which emphasizes their interrelation.

Given the properties of information outlined above, we claim that the relationship between its science and its philosophy is one of non-separability, leading to the convergence described. We assume that the Philosophy of Science is not identical to the Science of Philosophy, which remains to be defined. However, if as Wu and we sugges<sup>t</sup> science and philosophy are converging, under the impact of the science and philosophy of information, the two cannot be considered as totally independent, separated or separable. The emergence of a revolution in philosophy, as suggested in [100] implies a revolution in the philosophical perception of science. In this paper, we have defined the parameters of and paradigm applicable of the Revolution in Philosophy and its implications for the Philosophy of Science. We see the two as a pair of doctrines in opposition in the sense of Lupasco. One may talk about a "New Kind of Philosophy" by analogy with the "New Kind of Science" proposed by Wolfram [100].

#### *5.8. Logic in Reality, Meaning and Information*

We have shown above that meaning and information are not identical but also not separable at the cognitive level which is the one of interest here. They follow the logic of real processes that is the thread running throughout this entire current paper. It is thus an integral part of Philosophy in Reality and of our proposed synthesis with the Philosophy of Information of Wu Kun. In the changes in stance or perspective, dialectical movement **is** both epistemological and ontological. Knowing not is not totally separate from the Known, what we know. It is true that the "map is not the not territory", but stated in this simplistic way, the relation restored or recovered by LIR is obscured.

The hierarchy for existence and essence established by Heidegger and by Capurro [101] and its formalism (\_*is*\_, \_*as*\_) can be placed into correspondence with a logical-physical theory of real processes, that of Lupasco and Brenner. The two 'languages' are linked by a concept of a dynamic relation between potentiality and actuality in both the physical and philosophical senses. The first consequence of this approach for semiotics is that one can clearly di fferentiate between the description of language as 1)) becoming, being-in-the-process of becoming meaning, involving real potentialities and actualities and their mutual conversion into one another and 2) as being - a static, binary phenomenon, in which philosophical potentiality inheres. McLuhan's apodictic statement that "The medium is the message" is only meaningful if the '\_is\_' is at the same time an '\_as\_', whose ontological sense is that of real processes of generating, sending, receiving and understanding messages as in the Angeletics of Capurro (see next Section). The current usage of media as a singular noun is incorrect from the standpoint of Latin grammar in referring to several kinds of medium—press, TV, cinema, etc. Oddly, it is more correct if 'media' is taken to refer to the complex dynamic properties of the messaging process, "the media is the message". The process and the process\_as\_meaning then have the proper ontological relation and value. A good example of our current approach is in its reading of the 'liar paradox', which was referred to and analyzed in Section 4.2. In the usual linguistic perspective applied, it is an epistemological dead end, oscillating between ideal limits of one or the other of two idealized alternatives. In the original perspective of one of us (AUI), the system subdivides into levels, with two actors. In the epistemological mode, Epimenides and the Cretans are separated by non-existence: Epimenides is a signifier, and the Cretans are the signified. The standard logical contradiction, which appears when we realize this one-level formalization of this system, is to be expected in this mode.

From our newer ontological perspective, the actors are the same but the relation is logical and contradictorial in the sense of Logic in Reality. The following consequences can be deduced from this consideration. Epimenides as an individual can be regarded as an element of the set which signifies this set, having *discovered* it in the sense of Capurro. The set (the society of Cretans) acquires its own dynamics having acquired the property of being 'liars' in conflict (antagonism) with, but not totally separate from, Epimenides. Di fferent possibilities for the dynamic behavior of a system arise from this. What is important to note is that the 'dynamic behavior' with which we are concerned is that of real persons, individuals and groups, and their relations, dependent on their deep psychology.

On this basis we go to the next level of complexity which is that of meaning and information in human communication, outlined in Section 5.9 below. At this level, we will pay close attention to the concept, also due to Capurro, of "angeletics" or messaging theory as an extension of information theory as such.
