(herewith a very interesting text received off-line from a newcomer to
our list --welcome Dieter! ---Pedro)
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For many years I highly estimate the work of Michael Conrad -- whom I
never could see or hear in person. So the study was restricted to
reading some papers, and to store them as a separate file. I am very
glad for the references to more recent work.
2. Before making any comment on the transmitted text, I must admit that
I do not have sufficient knowledge on biology to give convincing remarks.
3. Modern physics must necessarily be "physics at the Planck scale". I
do not know whether in this moment there is a sufficient, explicit
physics at the Planck scale such that one build up on this basis.
Anyway, it must be a theory of processes, not of particles.
4. "Anti-entropy" or negentropy are children of the classical
Shannon-Weaver theory, which is incorrectly (only due to a certain
historical development) called "information theory". There are specific
(narrow, local) situations in biology where Shannon-Weaver is
sufficient. But in the general case -- and for a modern, futuristic
theory -- it can really be doubted whether Shannon-Weaver (here it is
always meant: together with extensions and ramifications) will be
sufficient. It seems to me that the comprehensive theory is needed,
which (again for historical reasons) is named theory of pragmatic
information. This is not opposed to Shannon-Weaver, but the latter is
included as a special case (one can state conditions under which Sh.-W.
will be adequate for a situation). An overview (including the historical
development) can be found:
Gernert, D., Pragmatic information: historical development and general
overview. Mind and Matter, vol. 4 no. 2 (2006) 141-167.
Here I am really only a reporter and historian -- I did not make
concrete contributions. The article can be downloaded (google >
dieter gernert).
5. For any concept setting out to connect "the manifest and the
unmanifest" a mathematical structure is required which permits us to
describe the manifest and the nonmanifest and the interaction between
both realms, or more precisely: conditions for an influence to occur in
a single situation. It seems to me that one can do this along the lines
sketched in my paper:
Gernert, D., Formal treatment of systems with a hidden organizing
structure, with possible applications to physics. Int. J. of Computing
Anticipatory Systems 16 (2004) 114-124.
It will become inevitable to use a vector space on the basis C (the
algebraic field of complex numbers). Best candidates in this moment are
C^3 and C^4 (such that we have 6- or 8-parametric manifolds -- not 6 or
8 dimensions!). Equally important is a measure for the similarity
between complex structures. To both issues I published proposals, and if
there will be better ones, I shall quickly adopt them.
6. Models like particle/anti-particle pair production is a matter of the
underlying physical structure; it will not contribute to explain the
interaction or non-interaction between two complex structures. Any
answer to the question "interaction between these two or not?" must take
into account the entire structure of those two.
7. I do not believe that consciousness has something to do with rather
elementary processes like the "unmasking" mentioned in the text. From
the viewpoint of a research strategy one can put off this question and
first try to understand the processes.
Kindest regards,
Dieter Gernert
Professor of Computer Science
Technical University of Munich
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
