Dear Guy,

I, too , was enthused by Dieter's emphasis on process, although I  
don't quite share your concern about neglecting structural pattern. As  
an ecologist, I spent my career studying *patterns of processes*,  
i.e., networks of ecological interactions. Furthermore the information  
embodied in the pattern of processes is quite amenable to  
quantification.

A process-first ontology would view particles and their related  
structures as outcomes of configurations of processes. Such was a  
major thrust of my process view of evolution, as espoused in my last  
book, "A Third Window".

The chief benefit of a process-based narrative of evolution is that  
one can consistently view evolution going forward. The particle-law  
conventional metaphysic always entails a great deal of backtracking.

Doubtless, many of you will disagree, but that's part of the fun of FIS!

The best to all,
Bob U.

Quoting Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu>:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been enjoying the current discussion and appreciate DieterĀ“s  
> focus on process.  I am an evolutionary biologist, not a physicist,  
> but I would like to suggest one way in which some of the views  
> expressed in different posts might be reconciled.
>
>> From a simplistic point of view, I think it is fair to posit that  
>> spatial pattern (e.g., the existence of particles) is manifested  
>> information, and that pattern is generated by process (e.g.,  
>> particle interaction).  Process itself can also be viewed as  
>> information in the form of temporal pattern.  Pattern and process  
>> are inextricably linked in self-organizing dissipative systems,  
>> which represent a special class of "its".  Other kinds of "its"  
>> include artifacts of dissipative system dynamics, which stumble  
>> from one local entropy peak to another under thermodynamic  
>> constraints.  Of course, particulate artifacts can also be swept up  
>> in other thermodynamic cascades, including those exploited by other  
>> dissipative systems.
>
> The Prigogine notion of dissipative systems provides a compelling  
> case, in my view, for including both pattern and process in generic  
> treatments of information.
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy
> --
> Dr. Guy A. Hoelzer
> Department of Biology, MS 314
> University of Nevada Reno
> Reno, NV  89557
>
>
>
> On 9/29/10 3:38 AM, "Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez"  
> <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
>
> (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
>



_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to