Dear FISers,

Thanks to Kevin and Joseph for their excellent texts --and to the many 
other responding parties. For my own argumentation purposes I find very 
useful the comments from Stan, Kevin Clark, Koichiro. There are three 
different aspects I would like to deal with. Given my burden of nasty 
complicate tasks, I have to leave them as open questions to try to 
formulate better in the future, or maybe to be kindly dealt with by 
other parties.

About the formalism to deal with entropies: How does the treatment of 
entropies by Michael in his Adaptability Theory --extended by the 
fluctuon model into the microphysical realm-- relate with the 
contemporary quantum information theory, and the qubits stuff? Given 
that it was initially conceived from the ecological perspective, can it 
be connected with Bob Ulanowicz's conceptualization of energy flow and 
diversity (and his tentative variational principle?) The paper by Kevin 
on "Biological adaptibilities and quantum entyropies" (BioSystems 64, 
2002, 33-41) is an excellent portal for this question.

Gravitation and the quantum--and information. There are plenty of 
theories on quantum gravitation to compare with the ideas in the 
fluctuon model, and to try to link with the information discussion. 
Given the curious biological penchant of Lee Smolin ("The Life of the 
Cosmos",1997, "Three roads to Quantum Gravity", 2000) and the relative 
clarity of his discussions on string theory and other approaches, I am 
very tempted to take some of his ideas on Calabi-Yau (manifolds) spaces 
as an ultimate Planckian scenario where energy and information collide 
and only elementary "distinctions" survive. They are communicable in 
some "open" dimensions, but not in the other "closed" ones... the idea 
of information as "distinction on the adjacent" is realized there; also 
in Smolin's discussions on information in black holes, birth of "baby 
universes, etc.   Could this frame of thought be put in agreement with 
the formal underpinnings of the fluctuon model --as far as I know, 
inspired by Josephson "fluxons" or electron solitons in quantum 
tunneling? It goes beyond my reach.

Percolation --and the all pervasive and reverberating circulation of the 
"perpetual disequilibrium" as Koichiro as put. This aspect of Michael's 
thought was fascinating for me, a "vertical" but terribly heterogeneous 
scenario of information flows. Given that Joseph and Stan have made neat 
statements from different angles about a "hierarchical" structure of 
levels, I contend in favor of the general predominance of the 
heterarchical scheme. When we leave the narrow confines of a discipline, 
or the boundaries of an experimental setting, "everything comes together 
again"... Given the limitations of our individual cognition, those 
vagaries in the environment are not accidental, but fundamental--and 
they percolate in our collective cognition and in our social use of the 
sciences. I agree with Joseph (I think) in the need of a more cogent 
logic "for the real" and not only for the formal-theoretical. Part of 
the problem is that this artificial "contention of percolation" has been 
treated differently in each major discipline. See for instance Peter 
Denning views on Computational Science-versus Information Science. 
Echoing McLuhan centennial, couldn't we call this problem as the 
irrenunciable "mosaic" structure of information percolation?

Thanking the patience,


Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554

fis mailing list

Reply via email to