Dear Koichiro,
Your "peripheral" remarks were not so to me, but exactly the further grounding
in physics that I for one feel necessary. I would like to focus on two
statements I found particularly relevant:
> If information has anything significant in its own right and can stand alone
> irrespective of whether or how it may become analytically accessible, on the
> other hand, one must go beyond the stipulation of the standard model.
The logical system I am proposing does nothing too far outside the standard
model. It focuses on the dualities and self-dualities of energy as
metaphysically significant, with the inherent oppositional relation -
distinguishable co-existing actualities and potentialities - as the basis for
information.
>...why not take up carbon chemistry as one more concrete example going beyond
>the hurdle? So > far as we know, there has been no attempt for determining >
>both carbon compounds as the building pieces of biology and chemical affinity
>latent in them in a mutually consistent manner.
Logic in Reality provides a consistent interpretation of the "latent affinity"
of chemical compounds in terms of residual "unsaturated" potentialities that
are the resultant of those of the atoms, which result in turn from those at the
lowest quantum level. This reality is equivalent to the information carried to
higher levels of complexity that is necessary for the emergence of new forms
and processes. It is the latent affinity (potentiality) of
carbon-nitrogen-oxygen-sulfur compounds that enable them to be the building
blocks of biology.
The reason that I call this approach a logic rather than "just" a restatement
of the underlying chemical physics is that one maintains its principles when
entering the epistemological domain, eliminating as far as possible the barrier
between epistemology and ontology that has been the source of so much ....,
well, difficulty.
Koichiro's note talks to the basic question Kevin and I posed, the reality +
causal efficacy of fluctuons. More evidence for or against will be easier to
evaluate with this in hand.
Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph
----- Original Message -----
From: Koichiro Matsuno
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
Folks,
Kevin Kirby's opening remark on the Fluctuon model of Michael Conrad shed
light on the role of information in physics and beyond. Here is some peripheral
remark of my own, though a bit lengthy.
1) Practicing physics may look informational in exercising its own
specification without saying so explicitly. A case in point is the
renormalization scheme as demonstrated in quantum electrodynamics (QED). QED is
quite self-consistent in specifying and determining the values of both the
electric charge of an electron and its mass. Tomonaga-Schwinger have
successfully set up a descriptive scheme of synchronizing the multiple times
presiding over the virtual processes which might violate conservation laws in
between in the light of the uncertainty principle in energy and time. The
synchronization that is faithful to observing all the relevant conservation
laws is an act of making both determinations of the mass under the influence of
the electric charge and of its reversal coincidental, that is, the act of
making both ends meet. A neat expression of the synchronization is seen in
Dyson's equation in terms of Feynman's diagram. In short, the physical
parameter called a mass or an electric charge is internally specified,
determined and measured as such in the renormalization scheme of QED. So far,
so good.
2) Michael felt some uneasiness with the renormalization scheme since
the notion of information remains redundant and secondary at best there.
Although the definitive values of the mass and the electric charge might seem
informational to the experimentalist who intends to measure them externally, an
electron in QED can already be seen to measure and fix them internally on its
own. In the physical world describable in one form of renormalized scheme or
another, that is to say, in the standard model of physics, information is
merely a derivative from something more fundamental. The standard physicist has
a good excuse for marginalizing information. If information has anything
significant in its own right and can stand alone irrespective of whether or how
it may become analytically accessible, on the other hand, one must go beyond
the stipulation of the standard model. A notorious case that has strenuously
kept defying the renormalization project of whatever kind attempted so far is
quantum gravity, which was Michael's primary concern. Self-consistent scheme of
justifying quantum gravity is required to reach continuity (gravity) as
starting from discontinuity (quantum) and at the same time to reach
discontinuity as starting from continuity even on an experimental basis.
3) The analytical tool Michael employed was conservation laws
paraphrased in terms of elementary perturbation theory as Kevin noted. While
the standard model is grounded upon the likelihood that all the relevant
conservation laws could eventually be met insofar as one is lucky enough to
encounter a specific form of synchronization, the Fluctuon model squarely faces
up to the situation that there is no chance of expecting such a fortunate
synchronous coincidence. Substantiating each conservation law on energy or
momentum is a must in any case, while asking simultaneous fulfillment of all
the relevant conservation laws is too much. What is unique to the Fluctuon
model is its emphasis on the participation of persistent and itinerant
disequilibrium or a Fluctuon in implementing conservation laws internally,
though there is no room for it in the mind of the standard physicist. This
perpetual disequilibrium is all pervasive and reverberating up and down and
from left to right and back.
4) Once I asked Michael that while the graviton is nice in its ambition
of going beyond the standard model of physics, why not take up carbon chemistry
as one more concrete example going beyond the hurdle? So far as we know, there
has been no attempt for determining both carbon compounds as the building
pieces of biology and chemical affinity latent in them in a mutually consistent
manner. His reply was this. "Right, but I want to cover more even though it may
look crazy to many. That is an issue of quantum gravity and life. Anyway, life
is short." Granted.
Best,
Koichiro Matsuno
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
