Re: [Fis] Summing up: New Year Lecture

2018-02-01 Thread Karl Javorszky
Biodiversity and Cartography



The excellent summary by Pedro of the session just past highlights several
different areas of processes, which appear to be interrelated at least in
some methodological ways. Pedro says in effect: “… systems such as
circulatory, pulmonary, renal, brain, etc. …” appear to work in a
comparable fashion, which has probably to do with fusing of two different
spaces into one common space.



Please allow me to propose a visualisation. We see a landscape with hills
and valleys. Some local biotopes have evolved, in which specific flora and
fauna are endemic, well adapted to their respective local circumstances. We
suspect that there are common traits present in the management of the
diverse habitats, with some obviously sustainable feedback loops –
otherwise the area would be barren. In this allegory, if one investigates
the functions in circulatory systems, one would be likened to someone
investigating insect life in a rainy forest in a division of our imagined
landscape. A person looking into the workings of the renal systems could be
seen as a team investigating the life of mammals in a savanna.



Among these field workers, a land surveyor tries to find someone who would
be interested in a new way to formalise the parameters of each and all of
the habitats, and tabulate every possible variety of anything that lives in
any of the habitats. This invention is way beyond the needs of any of the
field teams investigating the adaptations the fauna had to undergo due to
the properties of the flora, or partly the other way around. The teams have
heard about trigonometry and satellite positioning, but they are not
involved with the infrastructure of science. It would take a road building
engineer to see slopes and angles everywhere, and of that profession are
the biologists not. The teams could have heard about continual change,
because they understand that change is what life is all about, but they had
never thought to be possible to actually use measurable change tools like
one uses a scalable microscope.



Trigonometry would have remained a special pastime for scientists, had not
lenses, oculars and sextants been produced to the necessary degree of
mechanical precision. For the applications of trigonometry to become
ubiquitous in our everyday life, it was necessary to have achieved progress
in fine mechanics and precision measurement tools. The technology had to
keep step with the ideas. Both the ideas were present and the tools have
become available. The innovation could become integrated into the culture.



Presently, we try to understand the concept of information. In Pedro’s
words: “… two 3D projections are fused into a 4D one. The gain in
information is evident …”. The implication of Pedro’s thought is that
sequences, generally: order, are depositories of information, which gets –
in a fashion – released or actualised in the moment of the fusion of two
spaces into a common, third, space.

This state of affairs puts the problem with technology and ideas on its
head. We do have the technology to produce any kind of imaginable order and
disorder and to find such closed loops that are self-replicating. What we
lack presently is the understanding by the prospective users that they need
such a tool, and that such a tool is a) thinkable, b) designable, c)
realisable, d) working, e) useful.



To give an example:

The two spaces Pedro refers to are well defined. They can be observed by
reordering expressions of *a+b=c *on the properties *{a+b,a;b-2a,a;a-2b,b-2a
(A), a+b,b;b-2a,a-2b;a-2b,a (B)}*. Euclid spaces *(A) *and *(B)* merge
together into Newton space *(C), *of which the axes are *a+b, b-2a, a-2b.*
The axes of space *(C)* have each *two *sub-axes: this is the reason that 1
logical linear position can have 4 planar coordinate-pairs. (This was
narrated some two years ago in this FIS chatroom also, being Step Eight of
the lecture Learn to Count in Twelve Easy Steps. Otherwise see: Natural
Orders.)



May be suggestion be allowed that it would be more precise to talk of
merging (co-resonance) of planes rather than of merging of spaces. In a
logical sense, the space is generated by a continuous turn of 3 planes and
should not be assumed to have an independent, a-priori existence.



The land surveyor presents his compliments to the officials involved in
managing progress of society and may politely suggest, that some precision
tools have been fabricated, by which the results of the endoscopy of order
and information can be unwrapped, extricated and applied to manifold uses.






2018-01-30 14:06 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan :

> Dear FISers,
>
> Apart from the very interesting critique by Sungchul, there is an
> intriguing comment I would like to make respect the new evolutionary views
> presented. I will risk to discuss on a topic, topology, too far from my
> usual fields. So I trust the benevolence of FIS readers.
>
> As far as we have been told, the germ line cells, the gametes, co

Re: [Fis] Summing up: New Year Lecture

2018-02-01 Thread tozziarturo
Dear Karl and Pedro, 

A unifying principle underlies the organization of physical and biological 
systems. It relates to a well-known topological theorem which succinctly states 
that an activity on a planar circumference projects to two activities with 
“matching description” into a sphere. Here we ask: what does “matching 
description” mean? Has it something to do with “identity”? Going through 
different formulations of the principle of identity, we describe diverse 
possible meanings of the term “matching description”. We demonstrate that the 
concepts of “sameness”, “equality”, “belonging together” stand for intertwined 
levels with mutual interactions. By showing that “matching” description is a 
very general and malleable concept, we provide a novel testable approach to 
“identity” that yields helpful insights into physical and biological matters. 
Indeed, we illustrate how a novel mathematical approach derived from the 
Borsuk-Ulam theorem, termed bio-BUT, might explain the astonishing biological 
“multiplicity from identity” of evolving living beings as well as their 
biochemical arrangements.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610717302055



> Il 1 febbraio 2018 alle 17.16 Karl Javorszky  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Biodiversity and Cartography
> 
>  
> 
> The excellent summary by Pedro of the session just past highlights 
> several different areas of processes, which appear to be interrelated at 
> least in some methodological ways. Pedro says in effect: “… systems such as 
> circulatory, pulmonary, renal, brain, etc. …” appear to work in a comparable 
> fashion, which has probably to do with fusing of two different spaces into 
> one common space.
> 
>  
> 
> Please allow me to propose a visualisation. We see a landscape with hills 
> and valleys. Some local biotopes have evolved, in which specific flora and 
> fauna are endemic, well adapted to their respective local circumstances. We 
> suspect that there are common traits present in the management of the diverse 
> habitats, with some obviously sustainable feedback loops – otherwise the area 
> would be barren. In this allegory, if one investigates the functions in 
> circulatory systems, one would be likened to someone investigating insect 
> life in a rainy forest in a division of our imagined landscape. A person 
> looking into the workings of the renal systems could be seen as a team 
> investigating the life of mammals in a savanna.
> 
>  
> 
> Among these field workers, a land surveyor tries to find someone who 
> would be interested in a new way to formalise the parameters of each and all 
> of the habitats, and tabulate every possible variety of anything that lives 
> in any of the habitats. This invention is way beyond the needs of any of the 
> field teams investigating the adaptations the fauna had to undergo due to the 
> properties of the flora, or partly the other way around. The teams have heard 
> about trigonometry and satellite positioning, but they are not involved with 
> the infrastructure of science. It would take a road building engineer to see 
> slopes and angles everywhere, and of that profession are the biologists not. 
> The teams could have heard about continual change, because they understand 
> that change is what life is all about, but they had never thought to be 
> possible to actually use measurable change tools like one uses a scalable 
> microscope.
> 
>  
> 
> Trigonometry would have remained a special pastime for scientists, had 
> not lenses, oculars and sextants been produced to the necessary degree of 
> mechanical precision. For the applications of trigonometry to become 
> ubiquitous in our everyday life, it was necessary to have achieved progress 
> in fine mechanics and precision measurement tools. The technology had to keep 
> step with the ideas. Both the ideas were present and the tools have become 
> available. The innovation could become integrated into the culture.
> 
>  
> 
> Presently, we try to understand the concept of information. In Pedro’s 
> words: “… two 3D projections are fused into a 4D one. The gain in information 
> is evident …”. The implication of Pedro’s thought is that sequences, 
> generally: order, are depositories of information, which gets – in a fashion 
> – released or actualised in the moment of the fusion of two spaces into a 
> common, third, space.
> 
> This state of affairs puts the problem with technology and ideas on its 
> head. We do have the technology to produce any kind of imaginable order and 
> disorder and to find such closed loops that are self-replicating. What we 
> lack presently is the understanding by the prospective users that they need 
> such a tool, and that such a tool is a) thinkable, b) designable, c) 
> realisable, d) working, e) useful.   
> 
>  
> 
> To give an example:
> 
> The two spaces Pedro refers to are well defined. They can be observed by 
> reordering exp