Dear FIS Colleagues,
Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments.
Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I
wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest
becomes the most difficult. I will try here.
There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow
physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input according
to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and parameters
that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome may be
probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.
There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as
the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary
conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of
the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the
self-production/self-propagation of the entity.
In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made
meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.
Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from its
intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything goes...
and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, stones, cells,
etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the mechanistic way of thinking.
best regards--Pedro
Koichiro Matsuno escribió:
At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:
In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language
must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction
among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.
The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks,
including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with use
of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is
methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the
things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast,
the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of
cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing
chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something
referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended.
Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting in
the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, so
far.
Koichiro
*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry
LR Chandler
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
*To:* fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
*Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks
Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:
Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of
human communication. Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the immediate
issue.
But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.
The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning. Nor, communication between
the general community and, say, the music (operatic and ballad)
communities.
Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining
terms as “metaphor”in another discipline.
Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly
known and understood in the symbolic logic and chemical communities.
In the chemical community, the understanding is at the level of
intuition because ordinary usage within the discipline requires an
intuitive understanding of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in
different disciplines.
(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic,
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta,
Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)
The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings
and definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES. For example,
ordinary public language is necessary for expression of meaning of
mathematical symbolic logic. But, from the basic mathematical
language, once it grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of
symbols and new meanings for relations among mathematical symbols.
Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of terms that are
have different meanings in its technical language.
The meaning of mathematical terms is developed from an associative
logic that is foreign to ordinary language. From these antecedents,
the consequences are abundantly clear. The communication between the
meta-languages fail. The mathematicians have added vast symbolic
logical structures to their symbolic communication with symbols. In
other words, the ordinary historian and scientist are not able to
grasp the distinctive meanings of mathematical information.
Physical information is restricted to physical units of measure and
hence constrained to borrowing mathematical symbols and relating to
the ordinary language as its meta-language.
The perplexity of chemical information theory is such that it is not
understandable in any one meta-language or any pair of meta-languages.
In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language
must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction
among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.
The early metalanguage of chemistry was merely terms within ordinary
language, such as the names of elements. Or, the common names for oils
from various sources. Around the turn of the 19 th Century, the
metalanguage of chemistry started it century-long journey to become a
meta-language of mathematics with the development of the concepts of
atomic weights for each singular elements and molecular weight, and
molecular formula for each different molecule.
The critical distinction that separates the meta-language of chemistry
from other metalanguages is the absolute requirement for specification
of the name of any object on the basis of it’s distinction from other
signs or collections of signs.
Thus, chemical information theory, in terms of metalanguages, requires
the exact usage of the meta-languages of both physics and mathematics
in order to define the origin of its symbolic logic, as well as the
natural metalanguage of ordinary human communication.
Biological information theory is grounded on chemical information
theory, using a particular encoding of meaning within dynamical
systems, to communicate among the 5 essential metalanguages necessary
for the practice of the medical arts. And, I might add, for human
history.
The failure of luke-warm physics to serve as a foundation for a
generalized information theory is the lack of terminology that can be
used to communicate among the symbolic logics used in more advanced
modes of human communication.
In summary, in the 21 st Century, the foundation of human symbolic
communication requires multiple metalanguages and symbol systems,
that is, a generalized information theory. Such a generalized theory
of information must necessarily include the symbolic logic of
chemistry, which is essential to span the symbolic gaps between the
disciplines.
(For those of you who are familiar with my background, this email
illuminates some of the reasoning behind the development of the
perplex number system and perplex systems theory within the
associative symbolic logic of graph theory.)
Cheers
Jerry
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *"Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
*Subject: Re: [Fis] Cho 2016 The social life of quarks*
*Date: *January 18, 2016 at 5:50:40 AM CST
*To: *'fis' <fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Dear Howard and colleagues,
OK, you can say that quarks communicate, but immediately we need
to create another term for "real" communication. I mean, there are
quarks (fermions) and bosons (particle forces) everywhere:
planets, stars, galaxies, etc. Their multiple interactions
constitute most of the contents of physics. If you want to term
"communication" to some basic categories of physical interactions
based on force exchange --of some of the 4 fundamental forces,
whatever-- we run into difficulties to characterize the
communication that entails signals, agents and meanings, and
responses. That's the "real" communication we find after the
origins of that singular organization we call life --essential
then for the later emergence of superorganisms, peaking order,
memes, etc. You have oceans of interacting fermions and bosons
around, but the new communicating phenomenology is only found in
our minuscule planet.
As an explanatory metaphor, it is not a good idea, almost wrong I
dare say. But as a free-wheeling, literary metaphor it belongs to
the author's choice. The problem is that both realms of
information, so to speak, have relatively overlapping components,
depending on the explanatory framework used (see the ongoing
exchanges by Stan, John, Terry, etc.) And that kind of apparent
homogenization blurs the effort to establish the distinctions and
advance in a unifying perspective (I think!!). In any case, it
deserves more discussion. In your Jan. 14th message you ad more
elements--I will think twice!.
All the best--Pedro
PS. Clarifying the two messages per week rule (responding to
offline quests): the two messages should be counted along the
"international business week": starting on Monday until the end of
Sunday, Greenwich Time. Thanks to all for respecting this
"boundary condition"!
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
