Dear Joseph, Koichiro and FIS colleagues, I have been observing your discussion on biological time for a while now. May I make a suggestion with your permission.
I think that Koichiro raised an important issue, in particular as contribution to our INBIOSA project (www.inbiosa.eu) that deserves more elaborate attention. Therefore, I suggest to move the discussion from the predominant philosophical realm (exchange of opinions) to the more pragmatical one. In INBIOSA we are interested in initiating the development of a new theory of (internalist) biological time supported by both theoretical insights/models and experimental evidence. So, why don't you propose specific examples in support of each one's argument (perhaps in other living systems except cyanobacteria) along with 1-2 corollaries (extrapolations/predictions) of these arguments and methods to prove them by experiments. We can get closer to the truth within a joint project proposal (of disjoint viewpoints) defined to clear up the horizon. We have provided such facilities for proposal submission in INBIOSA and I even have 2 specific EC research programmes that can be addressed to fund this kind of research. What do you think? I invite the ones who are interested in this to let me know. Thank you for your attention, Best wishes! Plamen ___ ___ ___ Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov landline: +49.30.38.10.11.25 fax/ums: +49.30.48.49.88.26.4 mobile: +49.15.22.89.02.26.4 email: pla...@simeio.org URL: www.simeio.org On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>wrote: > Dear Koichiro, > > > > I share in part Loet’s frustration in trying to understand your complex > constructions. Please let me propose, therefore three strategies that might > be helpful in naturalizing them, that is, converting them into concepts that > fit the science with which we are, or can become, more familiar. > > > > 1. Generalization. > > If your approach to the time of cyanobacteria is a valid one, it should > apply generally. I, my wife and the system I-and-my-wife must also generate > specific times, as I think we do. > > > > 2. Relating Reality and Appearance. > > In my extension of logic to complex systems, reality and appearance are > related contradictorially: there is some reality to appearance and some > appearance to reality. Thus, if as you state the “flow of time” is a > “representation” or a “metaphor”, I would say it is primarily an appearance, > albeit a very convincing one, whereas the “material flow-through” is > primarily a reality. In a separate process, we may relate “flow of time on a > global scale” to tenses, but what is important to me is that the two flows > are related as appearance and reality (“time as time retaining its > identity”). > > > > This interpretation helps me, at least, clarify the first part of your > hermetic sentence: > > > > Both information and time, once set free from the read-into flow of time, > are common in sharing the similar materialistic and energetic context/ in > incorporating the transitive verbs into themselves as holding the contrast > between the direct and the indirect object of a verb, that is to say, > between a message and its dative. > > > > Time, here, and please correct me if mistaken, is the real “energetic” time > that is generated by real systems. I would welcome your comment on my > formulation of this point in my earlier note. This time winds up being > interpreted (for evolutionary reasons) as “read-into flow of time” and from > which it needs to be distinguished. This reading answers Loet’s first > objection: time is not a construct of language, but “flow-of-time” can be > related to linguistic structures. I see both information-as-process and > time-as-process as probability distributions, but we should come back to > this. > > > > As to Loet’s second objection, Koichiro, I think you weakened your argument > by reference to something that looks unreal, namely, “original cyclic > motions”. If you had simply said “observable celestial motions”, the > contrast with incorrect representations of them (e.g., as invariant) I think > would be clear. > > > > 3. Avoiding Linguistic Structures. > > The most difficult bit to “naturalize”, as Loet also felt, is your use of > linguistic structures. Such structures, when used to attempt to explicate > the flow of information in real systems, which is a real, energetic process, > become part of the problem. Real energetic phenomena do not spend their > effort and time (J) on incorporating transitive verbs (into what?), or > holding contrasts between direct and indirect objects (how?). > > Thus when you write > > > > The underlying issue is how we can construct the flow of time from the > tenses. When the constant update of the present perfect tense in the present > progressive tense is referred to in the finished record, we can perceive > the flow of time as driven by the transitive verb “update” in the present > tense, though only in retrospect. > > > > you have mentioned together two separate issues that I feel need to be > unpacked: “construction of the flow of time” and “perception of the flow of > time”. > > > > If we agree that “flow of time” is just a metaphor, as noted above, its > construction from linguistics is to me a secondary issue. Perception of the > flow of time, however, is an absolutely essential concept that I have never > seen addressed adequately outside the cosmology of Lusanna and Pauri. > Perception is a real energetic process that is driven by our underlying > dynamics, as primarily 3D creatures in a 4D universe, not by verbs and their > objects. What are “the message” (accusative, direct object) and “to the > message” (dative, indirect object) doing in the first citation in 2. above? > > > > 4. My final strategy is simply a suggestion, but perhaps it helps to > explain my critique of the use you make of tense: there should be some > relation made to space and what Lupasco considered the real, contradictorial > relation between time and space. I think behind Loet’s reference to time as > possibly a frequency distribution is a similar desire to move away from > linguistic structures to real structures. Thus Loet’s designation of time as > something that can be communicated fits with the idea of time as something > real, always associated with physical entities. Going even farther out on a > limb, we may consider time as discussed above and information as two > perspectives on the same physical process. > > > > I and I am sure Loet, as well as others would look forward to your replies. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Joseph > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> > *To:* 'Koichiro Matsuno' <cxq02...@nifty.com> ; 'Joseph > Brenner'<joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>; > 'fis' <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:42 AM > *Subject:* RE: [Fis] replies to several. The Key to Time > > Dear Koichiro and colleagues, > > > > Let me try to raise some questions. I find the language sometimes > difficult. Examples might help! > > > > Ø The underlying issue is how can we construct the flow of time from the > tenses. > > > > In other words: time is a construct of language? > > > > When the constant update of the present perfect tense in the present > progressive tense is referred to in the finished record, we can perceive > the flow of time as driven by the transitive verb “update” in the present > tense, though only in retrospect. > > > > This is a description of this construction process: how it works. > > > > This updated version of the flow of time in retrospect exhibits a marked > contrast to the flow of time riding on the intransitive verb “flow” in the > present tense unconditionally, the latter of which is common to the standard > practice of physical sciences even including relativity. The occurrence of > the perfect tense is due to the act of measurement of material origin > distinguishing between the before and after its own act, while its frequent > update in the progressive tense will be necessitated so as to meet various > conservation laws such as material or energy flow continuity to be > registered in the record, e. g., not to leave the failure in meeting the > flow continuity behind. The KaiC hexamers of cyanobacteria are involved in > the constant update of the prefect tense in the progressive tense. > > > > The “various conservation laws” are not a construct of language but > constraints on constructions in language? Have they always been these > constraints or only since the scientific revolution of the 17th century? > > > > Ø The flow of time read by the externalist, say, by Ptolemy-Newton, into > an invariant cyclic motion of the stellar configuration displayed over the > sky is enigmatic in relating a cyclic movement of physical bodies to a > linear movement of something else called time. A less ambitious approach > could be to relate a linear movement of physical bodies to the linear > movement of time even if the latter is an anthropocentric artifact, unless > the artifact interferes with the physical bodies. The flow of time read-into > by the physicist implies no linear flow of time in the absence of the > physicist as leaving only the original cyclic motions behind. > > > > The original cyclic motions predate the reading. They are given? By whom > and in which language? (By God in the revelation of his creation, that is, > in the Bible?) > > > > That must be quite stifling. In contrast, appreciating the material > through-flow keeping the class identity of the supporting material aggregate > as being represented as the flow of time comes to imply that the > through-flow is informational in that it presumes both the message (e.g., > the subunits to be exchanged) and its dative (e.g., the aggregate processing > their exchanges). Both information and time, once set free from the > read-into flow of time, are common in sharing the similar materialistic and > energetic context in incorporating the transitive verbs into themselves as > holding the contrast between the direct and the indirect object of a verb, > that is to say, between a message and its dative. Despite that, I am not > quite sure at this moment whether this synthetic view would merely be one > step backward for the sake of the likely two steps forward to come. > > > > Is the dative of a message different from the third case in the declension? > Please, explain what you mean and provide perhaps an example. > > > > “Both information and time”…? If “information” can be defined in terms of a > probability distribution, would “time” be definable as a frequency > distribution? Is that perhaps how I can understand these two to be > juxtaposed in this sentence? > > (I would be inclined to consider time as “what is being communicated” when > frequencies are communicated.) > > > > Best wishes, > > Loet > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
