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 Dieter´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
