Dear Pedro,
" Rafael and Michel are talking more about principles as general
concepts". It is not exactly what I meant, because the general
principles (for example the principle of identity or the principle of
non-contradiction) are not exactly "concepts".
Yet I agree with "the connection between Euclidean geometry and
politics, biology, etc. is factually impossible."
In " the panorama of biological information" we could include the
thermodynamical information gained by photosynthsis, the structural and
biochemical information used by macromolecules self-reproducting and by
the division of cellules in epigenetics, the strucutural and bionomical
information of vegetal and animal communities. and the formal
information used by humans in economy.
Cordialement.
M. Godron
Le 29/09/2017 à 12:55, Pedro C. Marijuan a écrit :
I also agree with Ji and John Torday about the tight relationship
between information and communication. Actually Principle 5 was
stating : "Communication/information exchanges among adaptive
life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all
scales." However, let me suggest that we do not enter immediately in
the discussion of cell-cell communication, because it is very
important and perhaps demands some more exchanges on the preliminary
info matters.
May I return to principles and Aristotle? I think that Rafael and
Michel are talking more about principles as general concepts than
about principles as those peculiar foundational items that allow the
beginning of a new scientific discourse. Communication between
principles of the different disciplines is factually impossible (or
utterly irrelevant): think on the connection between Euclidean
geometry and politics, biology, etc. I think Ortega makes right an
interpretation about that. When Aristotle makes the first
classification of the sciences, he is continuing with that very idea.
Theoretical sciences, experimental or productive sciences, and applied
or practical sciences--with an emphasis on the explanatory theoretical
power of both physics and mathematics (ehm, Arturo will agree fully
with him). I have revisited my old reading notes and I think that the
Aristotelian confrontation with the Platonic approach to the unity of
knowledge that Ortega comments is extremely interesting for our
current debate on information principles.
There is another important aspect related to the first three
principles in my original message (see at the bottom). It would be
rather strategic to achieve a consensus on the futility of struggling
for a universal information definition. Then, the tautology of the
first principle ("info is info") is a way to sidestep that
definitional aspect. Nevertheless, it is clear that interesting
notions of information may be provided relative to some particular
domains or endeavors. For instance, "propagating influence" by our
colleague Bob Logan, Stuart Kauffman and others, and many other
notions or partial definitions as well--I include my own "distinction
on the adjacent" as valuable for the informational approach in
biology. Is this "indefinability" an undesirable aspect? To put an
example from physics, time appears as the most undefinable of the
terms, but it shows up in almost all equations and theories of
physics... Principle three means that one can do a lot of things with
info without the need of defining it.
As for the subject that is usually coupled to the info term, as our
discussion advances further, entering the "information flows" will
tend to clarify things. The open-ended relationship with the
environment that the "informational entities" maintain via the
channeling of those info flows--it is a very special coupling
indeed--allows these entities the further channeling of the "energy
flows" for self-maintenance. Think on the living cells and their
signaling systems, or think on our "info" societies. Harold Morowitz's
"energy flow in biology" has not been paralleled yet by a similar
"information flow in biology". One is optimistic that the recent
incorporation of John Torday, plus Shungchul Ji and others, may lead
to a thought-collective capable of illuminating the panorama of
biological information.
(shouldn't we make an effort to incorporate other relevant parties,
also interested in biological information, to this discussion?)
Best wishes--Pedro
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
