Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your intersting comment:
throw interesting new light on the several fascinating topics
> around 
> the necessarily \"social\" construction of human knowledge...

In this way we turn back to the concluding topic of our discussion (that
might be a starting point of a new discussion) -- about <<reality of
information laws>>. In my picture of reality <<information reality>> is
not less real than <<material reality>>. You wrote about 
social construction of human knowledge... In my book <<transformers of
information>> are not less objective than electrons or photons. Roughly
speaking this imply that  <<transformers of information>> with
completely different physical realization would generate the same social
structure of science, just because the objectivity of information laws. 
But, as I wrote, this idscussion induces deep philosophic questions...

All the best, Andrei

> Dear Andrei and colleagues,
> Thanks a lot for your re-capping of the session. It is a very
> thoughtful 
> perspective on information from the quantum side. My only comments
> would 
> relate to your (partial) identification of models, reality, and 
> mathematics. It sounds too strong to my hears. We have cut science
> from its 
> human origins, and then we resort to very curious reification myths.
> How 
> does the practice of science relate to our human nature? The
> tentative new 
> branch of \"neuromathematics\" (it has already surfaced in past
> discussions) 
> could throw interesting new light on the several fascinating topics
> around 
> the necessarily \"social\" construction of human knowledge...
> I join your concerns when you state:
> >I am trying to sell the idea that the whole quantum enterprise is
> about
> >simplification of description of extremely complex physical
> phenomena.
> >I developed models in that the quantum probabilistic model appears
> as a
> >projection of more complex classical statistical model.
> >Then I proceed: Wau! In such a case it seems that quantum
> probability
> >theory and quantum information could be used everywhere where we
> could
> >not provide the complete description of phenomena and we just try
> to
> >create a simplified representation in complex Hilbert space.
> >So one can apply quantum information theory everywhere, from
> financial
> >mathematics to genetics.
> Months ago, when discussing on biomolecular networks, I argued that
> rather 
> than a classical \"state\" the central info construct of the living
> cell 
> should be the \"cycle\", then implying the advancement of a \"phase\" 
> (recapitulating and somehow making continuous the classical
> biomolecular 
> views of Start, Gap1, Mitosis, Gap2 as discrete phases of the cell
> cycle) 
> maintaining at the same time a continuous adaptation of the inner
> molecular 
> population to the environmental demands. These biological sentences
> may 
> sound very different from quantum statements, but I do not think so.
> My 
> opinion is that the the living cell and other genuine \"informational\"
> entities share a fundamental \"adaptability\" problem, having to fit
> with 
> with limited processing resources to an open ended environment, and
> then 
> having to tune their production-degradation engines to cope  with
> both 
> their own phase in the cycle and their external happenstance. Michael
> Conrad produced great stuff on formal quantum-inspired approaches to
> ecological adaptability (see Kevin Kirby in this list too). And it
> could be 
> done for aspects of nervous systems and economic life too...
> Unfortunately 
> a Gordian knot of themes appears: sensibility, robustness,
> networking, 
> fitness-value-meaning, adaptability, evolvability (to mention but a
> few). 
> The future will tell whether we are able to trascend formal analogies
> between realms and achieve a new, more catholic approach to
> information 
> --none of the current approaches has achieved a breakthrough yet, so
> the 
> need for our exchange of views!
> I also think that recent developments in string theory are a good
> help 
> --and quite inspiring-- for our problems. See Leonard Suskind, with
> his 
> \"Landscape\" approach (The Cosmic Landscape, 2005). Breaking the
> continuous 
> at the Planck scale means also a new hint on \"where\" we can situate 
> fundamental laws of nature \"physically\" --a question not responded
> yet in 
> the discussion, for my taste.
> Thanking your inspiring comments,
> Pedro
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list

With Best Regards,

Andrei Khrennikov

Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
fis mailing list

Reply via email to