Abstract
As Luciano Floridi states in the Introduction to his Philosophy of Information (PI), Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have achieved the status of the characteristic technology of our time. The computer and its related devices constitute a “culturally defining technology”, and Information and Communications Systems (ICSs) and ICT applications are among the most strategic factors governing science, the life of society and its future directions of development. The concept of levels enters inevitably into the Philosophy of Information: one is concerned with their nature, content, and the relations between them, starting from the ‘lowest’ levels of information constituted by physical electronic data themselves. The question of levels of analysis also arises in the Philosophy of Technology, which has emerged as a separate field of study, not coextensive with PI. However, since other papers in this Volume will address the Philosophy of Technology specifically, mine will be limited to aspects of levels in PI. As a tool for analysis of informational issues, Floridi has made a critical construction of epistemological Levels of Abstraction (LoAs), defined as non-empty sets of observables, in his PI. In applying LoAs in various fields, Floridi correctly critiques other uses of ‘levels’ in philosophy (levelism), especially, the lack of a satisfactory concept of ontological levels. This paper approaches the problem of levels from a novel perspective, namely, that of an extension of logic to complex real processes, including those of information production and transfer. This non-propositional, non-truth-functional logic (Logic in Reality; LIR), is grounded in the fundamental dualism (dynamic opposition) inherent in energy and accordingly present in all real phenomena. I show that Floridi’s theory of Levels of Abstraction (LoAs), Gradients of Abstraction (GoAs) and Levels of Organization (LoOs) can be supported by the concept of ontological Levels of Reality (LoRs) based on LIR, defined in terms of the different but isomorphic laws applicable to them. Applications of LoAs can be made ‘jointly’ with LoRs to describe the informational component present in all phenomena. The Floridi concepts are compared to ontological, other epistemological and systems concepts of levels: Levels of Reality and Complexity in the categorical approach of Poli; the nested hierarchical levels of Salthe, which can be related to Floridi’s Gradients of Abstraction (GoAs); and the concept of Levels of Logical Openness of Minati and Licata, which are applied in a systems context. The utility of this new logical perspective on the generalization of applying LoAs and LoRs conjointly to on-going problems in the philosophy and metaphysics of information is suggested.
fiAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science; New York Academy of Sciences; Swiss Society for Logic and the Philosophy of Science; International Center for Transdisciplinary Research, Paris. Associate Director, International Center for the Philosophy of Information, Xi’An, Jiaotong University of Social Sciences, China.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In a later paper, Heil modified his identity theory to permit some interaction between his key notions of dispositions and qualities.
- 2.
Below and in Brenner (2008), I discuss the regulative aspects of the PDO.
- 3.
I use the term ‘mechanism’ here in an informal descriptive sense without implying that computable models exist for all the transitions between levels. Indeed, my position is that such models for living organisms cannot be constructed.
- 4.
Hartmann’s “fourth law” of categorical relationships states that “each individual category implies all the others in the same stratum, where ‘implication’ does not mean standard logical implication, but is an ontic relationship basic to that stratum.” This is close to the LIR view of implication as a real process.
- 5.
The concept of ‘gradient’ itself is suggestive. I feel that we are dealing with an epistemological ‘field’ that is something like a physical energy gradient. Albeit only metaphorically, the GoA points toward the non-separability I have proposed between the epistemology and the ontology of LIR.
- 6.
LIR is thus clearly an anti-representationalist theory.
- 7.
By Floridi’s definition, the level should be more abstract and involve less semantic information, but I would argue that this is offset by the increased functionality of the information (information-as-operator).
References
Brenner, J. 2008. Logic in reality. Dordrecht: Springer.
Brenner, J. 2010a. The logic of ethical information. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, Luciano Floridi’s Philosophy of Technology: Critical Reflections 23: 109–133, ed. H. Demir. Springer.
Brenner, J. 2010b. Information in reality. Paper for presentation at the fourth international conference on the foundations of information science, Beijing, August, 2010.
Capurro, R. 1996. Information technologies and technology of the self. Journal of Information Ethics 5(2): 19–28.
Floridi, L. 2004. Open problems in the philosophy of information. Metaphilosophy 35(4): 554–582.
Floridi, L. 2006. The logic of being informed. Logique et Analyse 49(196): 433–460.
Floridi, L. 2008a. A defence of informational structural realism. Synthese 161(2): 219–253.
Floridi, L. 2008b. Information ethics: Its nature and scope. In Moral philosophy and information technology, ed. J. van den Hoven and J. Weckert, 40–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Floridi, L. 2011. The philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Franssen, M., G.-J. Lokhorst, and I. van de Poel. 2010. The philosophy of technology. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring 2010 edn, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/technology/
Heil, J. 2005. Dispositions. Synthese 144: 343–356.
Hofkirchner, W. 2009. How to achieve a unified theory of Information. triple-C 7(2): 357–358. http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/viewFile/114/138/
Hofkirchner, Wolfgang. 2005. Does computing embrace self-organisation? In Information & computation, ed. G. Dodig-Crnkovic and M. Burgin. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/
Ladyman, J., and D. Ross. 2007. Every thing must go. Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Licata, I. 2008. La logica aperta della mente. Turin: Codice edizioni.
Lupasco, S. 1947. Logique et contradiction. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Lupasco, S. 1987. Le principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’énergie. Paris: Editions du Rocher. (Originally published in Paris: Éditions Hermann, 1951).
Magnani, L. 2002. Preface. In Model based reasoning: Science, technology, values, ed. L. Magnani and N. Nersessian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Marijuan, P. 2009. The advancement of information science: Is a new way of thinking necessary? triple-C 7(2): 369–375. http://www.triple-c.at
Minati, G. 2009. General theory of emergence. Beyond systemic generalization. In Processes of emergence of systems and systemic properties, 241–256. Singapore: World Scientific.
Minati, G., M.P. Penna, and E. Pessa. 1998. Thermodynamic and logical openness in general systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 15(3): 131–145.
Mindell, D., and S. Gerovitch. 2003. Cybernetics and information theory in the United States, France and the Soviet Union. In Science and ideology: A comparative history, ed. M. Walker, 66–95. London: Routledge.
Mortensen, C. 2008. Change. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2008 edn, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/change/
Nicolescu, B. 1998. Relativité et physique quantique. In Dictionnaire de l’ignorance, ed. Michel Cazenave, 118. Paris: Albin Michel.
Nicolescu, B. 2002. Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
O’Connor, Timothy, and Hong Yu Wong. 2002. Emergent properties. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring 2009 edn, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/properties-emergent/
Poli, R. 2001. The basic problems of the theory of levels of reality. Axiomathes 12(3–4): 261–283.
Poli, R. 2006. Levels of reality and the psychological stratum. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 2006(2): 163–180.
Poli, R. 2010. Two theories of levels of reality. In Dialogue with Basarab Nicolescu (in press).
Salthe, S.N. 2009. Summary of the principles of hierarchy theory. Pre-print for publication.
Seibt, J. 2009. Forms of emergent interaction in general process theory. Synthese 166: 479–512.
Van Benthem, J., and R. van Rooy. 2003. Connecting the different faces of information. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12(4): 375–379.
Werkmeister, W.H. 1990. Nicolai Hartmann’s new ontology. Tallahassee: Florida State University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brenner, J.E. (2012). Levels of Abstraction; Levels of Reality. In: Demir, H. (eds) Luciano Floridi’s Philosophy of Technology. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4292-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4292-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-4291-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-4292-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)