Some remarks on Arturo’s comment below.

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier


From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of 
tozziart...@libero.it</compose?To=tozziart...@libero.it> [tozziart...@libero.it]
Sent: December 6, 2016 4:17 AM
To: Jerry LR Chandler; fis@listas.unizar.es</compose?To=fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: [Fis] R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space 
???

Dear Jerry,
thanks a lot for your interesting comments.
I like very much the logical approach, a topic that is generally dispised by 
scientists for its intrinsic difficulty.
We also published something about logic and brain (currently under review), 
therefore we keep it in high consideration:
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/11/15/087874

However, there is a severe problem that prevents logic in order to be useful in 
the description of scientific theories, explanans/explanandum, and so on. The 
severe problem has been raised by three foremost discoveries in the last 
century: quantum entanglement, nonlinear dynamics and quantistic vacuum.
Quantum entanglement, although experimentally proofed by countless scientific 
procedures, is against any common sense and any possibliity of logical inquiry. 
The concepts of locality and of cause/effect disappear in front of the puzzling 
phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is intractable in terms of logic, 
neither using the successful and advanced approaches of Lesniewski- Tarski, nor 
Zermelo-Fraenkel&apos;s.
The same stands for nonlinear chaotic phenomena, widespread in nature, from 
pile sands, to bird flocks and to brain function. When biforcations occur in 
logistic plots and chaotic behaviours take place, the final systems&apos; 
ouputs are not anymore causally predictable.
Quantistic vacuum predicts particles or fields interactions occurring through 
breaks in CPT symmetries: this means that, illogically, the arrow of the time 
can be reverted (!!!!!) in quantistic systems.

[John Collier] I believe the problems here can be resolved by adopting an 
information-theoretic account of causality. I have not yet shown how it applies 
in QM or in complexly organised systems, but I see no special problems. The 
basic idea is that causal connection between two things is that the same 
information is carried by both. It is a development of Reichenbach’s 
markability account of causation, but without the questionable invocation of 
counterfactuals. You can find accounts in the two papers below. The second 
gives a brief account of how it should be applied to complexly organized 
systems. The papers are very condensed, I warn readers, but several people have 
got the idea on the first read. The second paper uses the Barwise-Seligman 
notion of information flow explicitly. It helps to know that first, but I give 
a brief description.

  *   Causation is the Transfer of 
Information<http://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/causinf.pdf> In Howard Sankey (ed) 
Causation, Natural Laws and Explanation (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999)

  *   Information, causation and 
computation<http://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/CollierJohn%20formatted.pdf> 
(2012. Information and 
Computation:<http://astore.amazon.co.uk/books-books-21/detail/9814295477> 
Essays on Scientific and Philosophical Understanding of Foundations of 
Information and Computation, Ed by Gordana Dodig Crnkovic and Mark Burgin, 
World Scientific)

John
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to