Аннотация: The subject of this research is the real pragmatics, in other words, purposeful activity of social subjects (individuals, human associations). Real pragmatics overall, in unity and cohesion of the natural and human realms is the subject of pragmatic theories. In practical terms, the actual tasks for analysis and management of large systems and their systemic analysis in unity of natural scientific and socio-humanitarian component is the real need. The article determines the requirements to information base and architectonics of the pragmatic theory, essential for building a trustworthy scientific theory of real pragmatics. The comparative analysis with the construct of “theoretical knowledge” proposed by V. S. Stepin is conducted. The general laws and requirements to architectonics of veritable and substantive components of pragmatic theories are formulated. The conducted comparative analysis demonstrates that the pattern of structuring the fundamental and conclusive pragmatic theories is fully compatible with the construct of (post-nonclassical) “theoretical knowledge” of V. S. Stepin. The author also notes that the proposed by V. S. Stepin pattern of theoretical knowledge is based not only the comprehensively studied physical theories, but also the mathematical theories.

Аннотация: The subject of this research is the real pragmatics, i.e. targeted activity of the members of society (individuals, human associations). Real pragmatics, in general, in unity and interaction of the natural and humanitarian worlds is the subject of pragmatic theories. In practical aspect, the actual tasks of the analysis and large system management alongside their systemic analysis in unity of the natural scientific and socio-humanitarian components – is a pressing need. The article reveals the requirements to information background and architectonics of the pragmatic theory essential for establishing a reliable scientific theory of the real pragmatics. A comparative analysis with the construct of “theoretical knowledge” proposed by V. S. Stepin is carried out. The author formulates the general laws and requirements to the architectonics of components of the reliable and substantive pragmatic theories. The detailed comparative analysis demonstrates that the scheme of structuring the fundamental and argumentative pragmatic theory is fully compatible with the construct of (post-nonclassical) “theoretical knowledge” of V. S. Stepin. It is underlined that the scheme of theoretical knowledge proposed by V. S. Stepin leans not only on the meticulously examined by the scholar physical theories, but the mathematical theories as well.

Аннотация: The subject of this research is the real pragmatics; in other words, the purposeful activity of social subjects (individuals, human associations). Real pragmatics as overall, in unity and interaction of the natural and human realms is the subject of pragmatic theories. From the practical perspective, the actual tasks of the analysis and large systems management, as well as their systemic analysis in cohesion with the natural scientific and socio-humanitarian components – is the actual necessity. The article determines the requirements to information base and architectonics of pragmatic theory essential for structuring the trustworthy scientific theory of real pragmatics. The author conducts a comparative analysis with the construct of “theoretical knowledge” proposed by V. S. Stepin; applies the interdisciplinary systemic approach: methods of theory of information, mathematical logic, systemic analysis, concept interpretation of conclusions and adequacy analysis. The author formulates the general laws and requirements to the architectonics of the components of accurate and substantial pragmatic theories. As a result, the article is first to demonstrate that the pattern of structuring the fundamental and argumentative pragmatic theory is fully compatible with the construct of (post-nonclassical) "theoretical knowledge” of V. S. Stepin. The necessary clarifications and inclusion are provided. It is illustrated that the pattern of theoretical knowledge proposed by V. S. Stepin leans not only on the physical theories that were meticulously examined by the scholar, but also the mathematical theories.

Аннотация: The subject of this research is the real pragmatics, i.e. the goal-oriented activity of social subjects (individuals, human associations). The real pragmatics overall, in unity and interaction of the natural and humanitarian worlds, is an object of pragmatic theories. In the practical aspect, the actual goals of the analysis and management of complex systems and their systemic analysis in the combined natural science and socio-humanitarian component are in high demand. The article determines the requirements for the information base and architectonics of the pragmatic theory necessary for structuring a trustworthy scientific theory of real pragmatics. A comparative analysis with construction of “theoretic knowledge” offered by V. S. Stepin is conducted. The author formulates the general laws and requirements for the architectonics of the components of authentic and informative pragmatic theories. As a result of a careful comparative analysis, the author is first to demonstrate that the scheme of structuring substantial and provable pragmatic theories is fully compatible with the construct of the (post-nonclassical) “theoretical knowledge” of V. S. Stepin. The author also underlines that the proposed by V. S. Steping scheme of theoretical knowledge derives from not only the meticulously examined physical theories, but also the mathematical theories.   

Аннотация: В данной статье обсуждаются различные взгляды философии и теории информации на определение и структуру информации, средства ее получения и проверки; рассматриваются различные подходы к количественному описанию информации. Анализируется подход к определению информации, предложенный Л. Флориди. Выделяются основные типы формализации понятия «информация», виды информации и виды информационного взаимодействия. Обсуждается специфика информации в естественнонаучных и гуманитарных знаниях, ее полнота и достоверность. Анализируется, корректно ли понятие «ложный факт». В процессе исследований применяется междициплинарный подход: методы теории информации, логики и системного анализа, предметная интерпретация и анализ адекватности. В статье определены, классифицированы и исследованы различные виды информации и информационного взаимодействия. Проведен сравнительный анализ подходов теории информации и философии к определению информации. Даны определения прагматической информации и прагматического знания. Разделены информация и знание. Проанализирован подход теории информации к формированию и структурированию информации и определению ее адекватности.

Abstract: This article discusses the various views of philosophy and information theory upon the definition and structure of information, means of its acquisition and verification, different approaches towards the quantitative description of information, as well as L. Floridi’s approach to definition of information. The work highlights the basic types of formalizing the term “information”, types of information and information interaction, as well as the specificity of information in natural and humanitarian sciences, its completeness and validity. The author analyzes the appropriateness of the notion of “false fact”. The article defines, classifies, and examines different types of information and information interaction. The author conducts a comparative analysis of approaches of information theory and philosophy towards definition of information, provides definitions to the pragmatic information and pragmatic knowledge, and separates the information from knowledge. The article also analyzed the approach towards the information theory to establishment and structuring of information and its adequacy.

Аннотация: Статья посвящена проблемам, поставленных Кантом в «математических антиномиях». Анализ ведется в оригинальной постановке в терминах самого Канта и в контексте его собственной аргументации. Эти проблемы рассмат-риваются также безотносительно философских построений Канта. Основательность и доказательность, делающие возможным выстраивание анализа в форме строгой теории в понимании современной математики, позволяют категорично утверждать, что Кантовская квалификация безосновательна, а его рассуждения в «математических антиномиях» нельзя считать доказательством. Напротив, и тезисы, и антитезисы неопровержимы. Существо проблем не в неизбежных противоречиях разума или процесса познания трансцендентального мира в ходе кантианского спора разума с самим собой, а в неединственности концептуальных представлений. Что же касается пределов, положенных познающему разуму, то заключаются они, прежде всего, в законах, определяющих архитектонику истинных теорий

Аннотация: Статья посвящена проблемам, поставленных Кантом в «математических антиномиях». Анализ ведется в оригинальной постановке в терминах самого Канта и в контексте его собственной аргументации. Эти проблемы рассматриваются также безотносительно философских построений Канта: структура пространства и времени – физическая проблема даже в большей степени, чем философская. Уровень современных физических знаний таков, что мы можем не только задавать вопросы о структуре пространственно-временного континуума, но и давать ответы, не оставаясь в границах общих рассуждений. Рассматриваемые современные релятивистские модели не содержат никаких противоречий.
Основательность и доказательность, делающие возможным выстраивание анализа в форме строгой теории в понимании современной математики, позволяют категорично утверждать, что Кантовская квалификация безосновательна, а его рассуждения в «математических антиномиях» нельзя считать доказательством. Напротив, и тезисы, и антитезисы неопровержимы. Существо проблем не в неизбежных противоречиях разума или процесса познания трансцендентального мира в ходе кантианского спора разума с самим собой, а в неединственности концептуальных представлений. Что же касается пределов, положенных познающему разуму, то заключаются они, прежде всего, в законах, определяющих архитектонику истинных теорий.

Abstract: The article is devoted to the problems raised by Kat in his ‘mathematical antinomies’. Analysis is carried out in original formulation of Kant’s own terms and as a part of his own philosophical argumentation. The same problems are also viewed disregarding Kant’s philosophy. Validity and evidence which make it possible to structure analysis in a form of rigorous theory as it is seen by modern mathematics, allow to categorically state that Kant’s classification lacks grounds and his reasoning regarding ‘mathematical antinomies’ can’t be considered to be a proof. On the contrary both his theses and antitheses are irrefutable. The essence of problems is not in unavoidable contradictions of mind or process of cognition of transcendental world in the course of Kantian debates of mind with itself but in non-uniqueness of conceptual representations. As for the limits prescribed to the perceptive mind, they involve, first of all, the laws that determine the architectonics of veritable theories.