You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 25 2020 at 18:11):So I see there's a stream #semiotics and semiosis and a topic "cybernetics." I have run into these words a bit in the past (I think in the context of philosophy), but am having a hard time making the connections between the rough ideas I have for these concepts, and what they might mean in a category theory adjacent context. Could anyone maybe give a rough introduction to what these things are supposed to mean here? Like, maybe some simple examples to keep in mind? I know that, outside the context of working in these fields it's probably kind of difficult to catch someone up that fast, but I do think this stuff is cool, and would like to understand the discourse around it a little bit more.
Burak Emir (Mar 25 2020 at 18:35):Do not worry, I created this stream and do not claim to know much more. It already had a good effect though, I came across some papers that I would not usually read.
Burak Emir (Mar 25 2020 at 18:38):At the time joined this party, @janet singer and @Matt Cuffaro (he/him) joined, and they both said they were interested in semiotics and semiosis. I have come across these words like you and am eager to learn more.
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 25 2020 at 18:38):I mean, the thing I end up thinking about is, like, Umberto Eco.
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 25 2020 at 18:39):But that seems kind of different than what's being talked about.
Burak Emir (Mar 25 2020 at 18:40):Why? Care to explain Umberto Eco's view?
Burak Emir (Mar 25 2020 at 18:41):I am genuinely curious, have not read.
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 25 2020 at 18:42):No I don't know much about it, and it's been a very long time. He's just, in my mind, the canonical "semiotician"
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 25 2020 at 18:42):But I'm reading that stream now, and it looks like things aren't as well pinned down as I thought they were anyway.
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 25 2020 at 18:42):And that in fact someone has already recommended some Eco.
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 25 2020 at 18:43):I remember, some time ago, reading a very difficult and somewhat confusing essay he wrote about the verb "to be."
Burak Emir (Mar 25 2020 at 19:32):We may merge the stream with toposophy. I do intend to read Eco some time. I find it interesting to make signs and "production of meaning" a topic of research. I consider much of my day job as consisting of communication and am looking for a way to express and recognize patterns. Nothing is pinned down, but I probably wouldn't want to read s.th. about "to be".
Jules Hedges (Mar 25 2020 at 19:46):@Jonathan Beardsley Cybernetics was a cross-disciplinary study of complex systems, optimisation and especially control theory, between computer science and economics and sometimes biology and some other fields. (I have no idea how it relates to semiotics or semiosis, or in fact what those words mean)
Burak Emir (Mar 25 2020 at 21:02):I'll try to go out on a limb and define semiotics as a science of signs, signifying processes. Peirce is regarded as its founder. Where linguists look to understand language, semiotics would include other forms of communication and perception, literally signs, inline LaTeX, commutative diagrams, emojis, non-verbal, visual. I think this here could be regarded as a fun intro, though it does not use the word semiotics, it talks about human communication as exchange of symbols: http://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html
janet singer (Mar 25 2020 at 21:07):Wiener’s 1948 book (coming out of the Macy Conferences) was titled Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine
Burak Emir (Mar 25 2020 at 21:07):This somwhat explains semiotics succinctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signified_and_signifier
janet singer (Mar 25 2020 at 21:08):Clearly there is no control and communication without signs and signifying processes, and no use for signs and signifying processes except in communication and control
Burak Emir (Mar 25 2020 at 21:10):I was just about to write something like this.
janet singer (Mar 25 2020 at 21:12):(deleted)
janet singer (Mar 25 2020 at 21:14):‘General systems theory’ is another field that is difficult to distinguish from the other two – and none of them are easily defined.
janet singer (Mar 25 2020 at 21:14):This may be of interest http://asc-cybernetics.org/definitions/
janet singer (Mar 25 2020 at 21:15):The Difficulty of Defining Cybernetics
A Joke Related by Stafford Beer, October 2001 (source: What is Cybernetics?):
“…it concerns three men who are about to be executed. The prison governor calls them to his office, and explains that each will be granted a last request. The first one confesses that he has led a sinful life, and would like to see a priest. The governor says he thinks he can arrange that. And the second man? The second man explains that he is a professor of cybernetics. His last request is to deliver a final and definitive answer to the question: what is cybernetics? The governor accedes to this request also. And the third man? Well, he is a doctoral student of the professor — his request is to be executed second.”
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 25 2020 at 23:39):Haha. Yeah I sort of thought it might be something like that.
Bryan Bischof (Mar 26 2020 at 01:37):I find the connection to semiotics confusing, but I'm certainly interested in ACT and Cybernetics intersection.
Jonathan Beardsley (Mar 26 2020 at 01:38):Yeah I think I'm still struggling to wrap my head around it. I guess "semiotics" is probably pretty broad.
Georgios Bakirtzis (Mar 26 2020 at 15:10):janet singer said:
‘General systems theory’ is another field that is difficult to distinguish from the other two – and none of them are easily defined.
Have you seen the definition Takahara and Mesarovic give for GST? Seems to be the most widely accepted.
Blake Pollard (Mar 26 2020 at 18:28):Giorgos Bakirtzis said:
janet singer said:
‘General systems theory’ is another field that is difficult to distinguish from the other two – and none of them are easily defined.
Have you seen the definition Takahara and Mesarovic give for GST? Seems to be the most widely accepted.
Woah. How have I never seen their work?
Georgios Bakirtzis (Mar 26 2020 at 18:44):Here is a thread with some papers I consider essential https://twitter.com/bakirtzisg/status/1199762344068485121
@_julesh_ Systems theory—my main area of research—has a lot of "hidden" category theory. This is precisely the reason why I want to marry the two for safety and security.
- Georgios Bakirtzis (@bakirtzisg) Matt Cuffaro (he/him) (Mar 26 2020 at 19:04):@Giorgos Bakirtzis have you read Allen and Starr's _Hierarchy_?
Matt Cuffaro (he/him) (Mar 26 2020 at 19:05):https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo26850242.html it got a second edition a few years back
Georgios Bakirtzis (Mar 26 2020 at 19:13):I know of Hierarchy Theory from Allen, which is not really formal in any sense.
Georgios Bakirtzis (Mar 26 2020 at 19:15):Is this different?
janet singer (Mar 27 2020 at 04:48):Mesarović’s work is one take on mathematical GST (or general cybernetics) – important, but not comprehensive. He is on this diagram as one of the blue (math) nodes closest to the central GST node, along with Rapoport, Wiener and Karl Pearson
https://uranos.ch/images/2019/09/23/systemic_evolution.jpg
janet singer (Mar 27 2020 at 14:35):This is good on Abstract Systems Theory from the Encyclopedia of Mathematics:
“In many sciences, e.g. sociology, biology, cybernetics, chemistry, politics, economics (see the Wikipedia article Systems theory), the notion of a system was defined independently from each other. Thus, problems were inavoidable as soon as topics were discussed at the interplay between them (e.g. cybernetic models of biological systems). A more fundamental definition of a system was required encompassing the different concepts.
These definitions have in common that a system consists of elements related to each other [S]. Accordingly, Hall and Fagen proposed a definition of a general system as 'a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes' [HF],[MP] in 1956. Their paper was published in the first volume of the Journal General Systems. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, one of the editors of the Journal, uses a similar definition in his famous book General Sytem Theory [vB] in 1968. The formalization of this view of a system as a relation between two or more sets was subject to others, however, as for example Mesarovic and Takahara [MT1],[MT2]. We will follow their approach here, but not without mentioning that a number of other definitions of an abstract system have been proposed (Klir [K1],[K2],[K3],[K4], Lin [L], Polderman and Willems [PW],[Wi], Rosen [R1],[R2], Wymore [W1],[W2], Wang [Wa]). Their basic ideas may correspond to the definition of Mesarovic and Takahara in essence, but their theories on the whole usually differ considerably. A standard definition accepted by the whole systems community seems to be still missing.”
https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Abstract_Systems_Theory
Georgios Bakirtzis (Mar 27 2020 at 15:55):janet singer said:
Mesarović’s work is one take on mathematical GST (or general cybernetics) – important, but not comprehensive. He is on this diagram as one of the blue (math) nodes closest to the central GST node, along with Rapoport, Wiener and Karl Pearson
https://uranos.ch/images/2019/09/23/systemic_evolution.jpg
Oh I really like this image? Is this part of an article or something.
janet singer (Mar 27 2020 at 17:06):Sorry, should have posted this link as well for context - great that they are keeping the effort going
https://uranos.ch/index.php/research-menu/cybernetcis
“In terms of systems thinking, an extensive map of related work and their influences is presented by the International Institute for General Systems Studies (IIGSS, 2001). This map was originated by E. Schwarz in 1996. It includes the influences of researchers in the domains of mathematics, physics, computer science, engineering, cybernetics, systemics, biology, ecology, sociology and philosophy fromancient times to the present.
With the permission of Jeffrey Yi-Lin Forrest (director of IIGSS), we update the map and add recent work in the field of cybernetics, systemics and coordination. Because the latest source files of that map are missing, we completely redraw it. We choose graphml, an open source format for graph design.”
https://uranos.ch/images/2019/09/23/systemic_evolution.jpg
Georgios Bakirtzis (Mar 27 2020 at 19:17): janet singer (Mar 28 2020 at 18:06):Good stuff