Dear All, Concerning the discussion of "black holes" vis-a-vis biological systems, the latter recycling while the former presumably not, the point is that all non-linear systems whatever their nature and the initial conditions develop in finite time vortical singularities through which the systems do recycle, and this is related to a transition from orientability to non-orientability of the one-point compactification of the complex plane (Riemann sphere), and to the structure of uncertainty . An instance of this is that of non-linear thermodynamical systems, for which entropy diverges followed by a transition through negative entropy by which the system recycles itself as a novel (re)organization. Allow me to remark that this is not exclusive to biological systems. A discussion of this, the relation to morphogenesis, semiotics and cognition is presented in
https://www.academia.edu/30485983/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_S elf-reference_Heterarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_ Evolution._Part_I_Morphomechanics_Space_and_Time_in_Biology_ and_Physics_Cognition_Non-Linearity_and_the_Structure_of_Uncertainty and further relations with chemistry, biology, metamathematics, cognition, genomics and evolution is elaborated in https://www.academia.edu/30546256/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_S elf-reference_Heterarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_and_ Evolution._Part_II_Non-orientability_Cognition_Chemical_Topo logy_and_Eversions_in_Nature https://www.academia.edu/30518156/Klein_Bottle_Logophysics_ Self-reference_Heterarchies_Genomic_Topologies_Harmonics_ and_Evolution._Part_III_The_Klein_Bottle_Logic_of_Genomics_and_its_Dynamics_ Quantum_Information_Complexity_and_Palindromic_Repeats_in_Evolution Thanking you for your kind attention. Best regards, Diego Rapoport Diego 2017-01-24 16:32 GMT-03:00 <fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es>: > Send Fis mailing list submissions to > fis@listas.unizar.es > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es > > You can reach the person managing the list at > fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fw: A Curious Story (Pedro C. Marijuan) > 2. Re: [FIS] A Curious Story (Jerry LR Chandler) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:31:31 +0100 > From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > To: <fis@listas.unizar.es> > Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story > Message-ID: <7c3ba6d6-92fe-bb49-09d9-aef27a728...@aragon.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" > > Dear Joseph, Bob, and Otto --and All, > > Thanks for the responses. First to Joseph and Bob: my interpretation of > Conrad's is not literal, at least at the time being, as I think that the > information themes are changing very fast in the quantum --recent > interpretations of entanglement and black holes by the group IT FROM > QUBIT say extremely interesting "generative" things about > space-time-info and cosmology. See Juan Maldacena (Sci. Am. Nov. 2016) > and Clara Moskowitz (Sci.Am. Jan. 2017). The way I take Conrad's is as a > call to a new way of thinking on physical information, biologically > inspired, rather than the common opposite direction. And also I extend > it to reconsider the nature of physical reality and of "laws of nature" > themselves--the distributed "genomes" of this cosmos. Our recurrent > discussions on what's info cannot consolidate until we adumbrate a good > portion of such new way of thinking--I am not criticizing them, but > asking for augmented doses of tolerance and patience. Let me be a little > provocative: none of us has walked yet the extra mile(s) needed. We have > to recognize that we are far from the new info paradigm and must keep > circling around Jericho walls... > > Unless until the little thing that Otto is warning knocks in our doors. > I cannot respond to the symmetry difference and to the probability > arguments--the main question to debate indeed. Sure that the previous > scientific generation would have entered nonchalantly to this debate. > But not the business-politics oriented figures of today (social networks > panic). Well, at least I can comment on the last paragraphs on the > framework surrounding the frustrated discussion. The global health and > adaptability of the scientific enterprise seem to be in jeopardy. > Coincidentally, we are lead to remind Conrad's tradeoff between > computation and adaptability/evolvability? As computing has enormously > increased its efficiency and social reach, the social adaptability via > new thought and new research is decreasing and surrounding itself in a > tunnel vision. See for instance what are the coming flagship programs in > the EUnion after the Human Brain Project: "Future of [digital] > Healthcare" and "Robot Companions for Citizens." Yeah, a lot of people > --elderly-- will be alone: let's make nice robots for them. Even they > will learn to smile and laugh, and we will create bonds with them as the > Szilamandee paper from Otto says--and also my own research on laughter > (see link below). Techno-pseudo-happiness for everybody... Yes, fresh > new views from social science and humanities would have plenty to say. > > Best wishes--Pedro > http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026 > > > El 21/01/2017 a las 9:32, Joseph Brenner escribi?: > > Dear Pedro and All, > > Thanks to Pedro again for this thought-provoking theme. We are all in > > states of greater or lesser ignorance regarding it! > > Here is just, again, a thought about your quote of Conrad: "/when we > > look at a biological system we/ are looking at the face of the > > underlying /physics of the universe/." > > I.M.H.O., this statement is true but only partially so. There are > > non-thermodynamic parts of the underlying physics of the universe that > > are not visible at the biological level of reality, and a coupling > > between them remains to be demonstrated. Quantum superposition and > > self-duality have analogies in macroscopic physics, but quantum > > non-locality and sub-quantum fluctuations do not. > > Of course, if you allow slightly altered laws of nature, many things > > may be possible as Smolin suggests. However, I suggest that the domain > > of interaction between actual and potential states in our everyday > > 'grown-up' world also has things to tell us, /e.g./, about > > information, that can be looked at more easily. > > Best wishes, > > Joseph > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Pedro C. Marijuan <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > > *To:* 'fis' <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> > > *Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2017 1:58 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story > > > > Dear Otto and colleagues, > > > > Thanks for the curious story and sorry that my absorption in low level > > administrative themes has knocked me down-down during these weeks. But > > not being a physicist, and even not a third rate aficionado, I can > > contribute very little to the exchanges. At least I will try to remark > > a couple of lateral aspects: > > > > First, when I heard about this story, I was amazed how hysterical the > > web records were. On the one side, the tabloid style comments and the > > malicious personal attacks, and on the other side the offended, > > irritated scientists. That your opinion deserved a "Charge of the > > Nobel Brigade" with all those big names hurried together to smitten > > any possible doubt, was sort of humorous. Wasn't from Horace that > > saying of "vociferant montes et parturient ridiculus mus"? My > > impression is that all those hyperactive new media have deteriorated > > the exchange and maturation of scientific opinion. The fate of your > > position on those hypothetic risks was irrationally discounted. > > > > And about the theme itself, I join one of the initial comments on the > > energy of singular cosmic rays, probabilistically having to cause such > > microscopic destructive black holes in The Moon and somewhere else. > > The wide swaths of the cosmos we watch today do not show sudden > > instances of planet or star disappearance. As many thousands and > > millions of those are well followed nowadays without reports of sudden > > destruction: can this "stable" cosmos be an extra argument in the > > discussion? Let me improvise some further views: Black holes relate > > "quite a bit" to information matters. The controversy between Hawking, > > Penrose, etc. about the fate of the quantum information engulfed > > seemingly emitted is not the end of the story I think. If everything > > should make functional sense in an integrated "organismic" cosmos, the > > functionality of black holes is really enigmatic. They just become a > > reservoir of dark matter for gravity? In this point our common friend > > Michael Conrad (1996) put"/when we look at a biological system we/ are > > looking at the face of the underlying /physics of the universe/." > > Thereupon, I have always thought about the similarity between cellular > > proteasomes (protein destructing machines) and the cosmic > > (destructive) black holes. But the former RECYCLE and emit single > > amino acid components for reuse, and then would the latter provide > > only residual gravity? Lee Smolin said something bold: they recycle > > too, and produce "baby universes" with slightly altered laws of > > nature. Our planet final blimps would have some more fun incorporated > > (with the big IF, of course)... > > > > Best wishes > > > > --Pedro > > > > > > > > lEl 11/01/2017 a las 11:33, Otto E. Rossler escribi?: > >> I like this response from Lou > > ------------------------------------------------- > Pedro C. Mariju?n > Grupo de Bioinformaci?n / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragon?s de Ciencias de la Salud > Centro de Investigaci?n Biom?dica de Arag?n (CIBA) > Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0 > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > ------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20170124/ > a660b1f7/attachment-0001.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:32:17 -0600 > From: Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > To: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>, "Otto E. Rossler" <oeros...@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Fis] [FIS] A Curious Story > Message-ID: <8c45e7a3-2369-48a0-a147-ac165f1b0...@me.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear Otto: > > > On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com > <mailto:oeros...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > > > > But as convincing as this may be, it is still not my main point. My main > and real point is: CERN refuses to update its official safety report LSAG > for exactly as long. > > > > But there is an even more disturbing point. IF an organization openly > refuses to contradict evidence of committing a crime (even the biggest of > history), it is very very strange in my own eyes at least that no one in > the world, from the media to the profession, from Europe to Africa to > America to Asia, is even able to spot this fact as deserving to be > alleviated or at least publicly discussed. > > > > Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for > this historically unique phenomenon? > > (Understanding is sometimes more important than surviving -- right? > Forgive me the pun.) > > > > I am very grateful for the discussion, > > take care, everyone, > > Otto > > I will offer some opinions that are related to the ?public? philosophy of > science policy. At the end, I will raise a question about the philosophy > of epistemic mathematics as it manifests itself in the epistemology of > physical ?models? of natural phenomenological events. > > My personal experience with the interface between ?doing? experimental > molecular biology and ?doing? legally-enforcable public health standards > lasted over a decade during my service in the US Public Health Service. > > The vast gaps between specific experimental evidence and the subsequent > emission of a public statements by senior government officials necessarily > require a shift from the study of nature to the projections of future > social behaviors. The simple example of what I speak is the biological > evidence for a physical-chemical structure to cause cancer in animals and > the removal of that particular physical-chemical structure from commerce. > Vinyl chloride is one of many such examples where the professional > communities preformed a ?Risk Analysis? that resulted in restricting Vinyl > Chloride usage. In the early 1980?s I was one of the founding members of > the Society for Risk Analysis which seeks to illuminate the murky areas > between scientific information and public policy. > > see: http://www.sra.org <http://www.sra.org/> > Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk > characterization, risk communication, risk management, and policy relating > to risk. Our interests include risks to human health and the environment, > both built and natural. We consider threats from physical, chemical, and > biological agents and from a variety of human activities as well as natural > events. We analyze risks of concern to individuals, to public- and > private-sector organizations, and to society at various geographic scales. > Our membership is multidisciplinary and international. > > Of course, the biological example is remote from the issues of risk > analysis for CERN experiments, but many parallels exist. The SRA journal > articles may provide you deeper insights into "what is going on" behind the > public facades. > > With regard to your specific concern > > Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for > this historically unique phenomenon? > > I suggest that at least three principle possibilities exist: > > 1. Senior CERN officials have evaluated you assertions and rejected them > as implausible. > > 2. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted the > mathematical truths but consider the risk to be so minuscule that this risk > (and your logic) can be ignored. > > 3. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted your > conclusions and have no plausible counter-arguments to the calculated > levels of risk. Therefore, silence. > > I would note that as public officials, senior CERN officials are keenly > aware of the potential of a detailed risk analysis of experiments could > endanger the continued public funding of CERN. > > The reason the situation is ?curious?, as you so adroitly express the > current stalemate, is because of the deep, deep, deep traditions of the > scientific community to insist upon the free thought, free speech, free > discussions on matter of public policy, public risk analysis, ? > > Thus, I see this ?curious? behavior as a political problem that can be > addressed by seeking a political solution that respects scientific > traditions and hence, to motivate senior CERN officials to act honorably in > the best interests of all. > > > Now, for a comment about epistemic mathematics. These thoughts are remote > from the specific issues regarding the risk of local black holes. These > are generic w.r.t. the nature of scientific information its communication > through logically distinctive symbol systems. > > For my research on health risk analysis, I undertook a detailed study of > the origin of scientific units of measure. By way of background, economic > units of measure are essential to non-local trade. International trade > requires common units of measure that can be used to ensure fairness > between quantity and price per unit quantity. > > To this end, the French established (in the late 18 th Century) the > ?metric system?, based on natural measures, that relate material facts to > one-another in an interdependent manner (Distance, volume, density of > water, mass, etc.). Subsequently, international committees, cooperatively > financed by governments, elaborated standards of measurement. see: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units> > > Modern physical units originated from these economic concerns. Physical > phenomenology is quantified in these economic terms, except for the > chemical elements which are quantified in terms of the atomic numbers. > Thus, the atomic numbers created a new form of epistemic mathematics, > fundamentally different from the unit-less nature of pure mathematics. > > So, the question that has bothered me for some decades is the consistency > of the system of units of various cosmological theories. Obviously, my > inquiry into this question has left me skeptical about the consistency of > cosmological theories - are they more than theories of mathematical > convenience? (see the two quotes appended below that address modal logics > and the intersection with C S Peirce?s ?relational logic".) > > In order to relate these questions to FIS, one can generalize the question: > > 1. What is the difference that makes a difference between pure mathematics > and epistemic mathematics? > 2. Is ?information" merely pure mathematical imagination or is > ?information? epistemic? > 3. By extension, is chemical information both epistemic and ontological > information? > 4. By further extension, can the epistemic and ontological information of > the atomic numbers generate the organization of the animate from the > inanimate? > > Well, Otto, this note has strayed widely from your basic concerns. But, > thankfully, well-pointed questions have a delightful way of generating the > further emergences of well-pointed questions! Thank you for your > remarkable posts. > > Peace. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > C. I. Lewis > It is so easy... to get impressive ?results? by replacing the vaguer > concepts which convey real meaning by virtue of common usage by pseudo > precise concepts which are manipulable by ?exact? methods ? the trouble > being that nobody any longer knows whether anything actual or of practical > import is being discussed. > D. Scott: > Formal methods should only be applied when the subject is ready for them, > when conceptual clarification is sufficiently advanced... No modal logician > really knows what he is talking about in the same sense that we know what > mathematical entities are. This is not to say that the work to date in > modal logic is all bad or wrong, but I feel that insufficient consideration > has been given to questioning appropriateness of results... it is all too > tempting to refine methods well beyond the level of applicability. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20170124/ > 0ed47e1e/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Fis Digest, Vol 34, Issue 38 > *********************************** >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
