Dear colleagues, What if meaning is equivalent to "zero"?
I mean, if we backtrack to the origins of zero, we find those obscure philosophers related to Buddhism in India, many centuries ago (Brahmagupta, 600 ad). It was something difficult to grasp, rather bizarre, the fruit of quite a long and winding thought, and frankly not of much practicity. Then after not many developments during a few centuries, another scholar in central Asia (al-Kwarismi) took the idea and was able to algorithmize the basic arithmetic operations. Mathematics could fly... and nowadays any school children learns and uses arithmetics & algebra so easily.
The idea is that if we strictly identify (we "zero" on) meaning as a biological construct, work it rigorously for the living cell as a tough problem of systems biology (and not as a flamboyant autopoiectic or autogenic or selftranscence doctrines of Brahmaguptian style), then we work for a parallel enactive action/perception approach in neuroscience, and besides pen a rigorous view in social-economic setting under similar guidelines --and also find the commonalities with quantum computing and information physics... finally information science will fly.
Otherwise, if we remain working towards the other direction, the undergrounds of zero downwards, we will get confined into bizarre, voluminous, useless discussions & doctrines on information. Cellular meaning is our zero concept: we should go for it.
best Pedro
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
