Sorry Louis, but try again, please, for your address was wrong in the list!!!! 
(I have just discovered, in a trip pause)
BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@
From: Louis H Kauffman < <>>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:56:06 -0500
To: fis< <>>
Cc: Pedro C. Marijuan< 
Subject: Re: [Fis] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

Dear Plamen,
It is possible. We are looking here at Pivar and his colleagues working with 
the possibilities of materials. It is similar to how people in origami have 
explored the possibilities of producing forms by folding paper.
If we can make hypotheses on how topological geometric forms should develop in 
a way that is resonant with biology, then we can explore these in a systematic 
way. An example is indeed the use of knot theory to study DNA recombination. We 
have a partial model of the topological aspect of recombination, and we can 
explore this by using rope models and the abstract apparatus of corresponding 
topological models. Something similar might be possible for developmental 
> On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:45 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov 
> < <>> wrote:
> Dear Lou and Colleagues,
> yes, I agree: an artistic approach can be very fruitful. This is like what 
> Stuart Kauffman says about speaking with metaphors. At some point our 
> mathematical descriptive tools do not have sufficient expressional power to 
> grasp more global general insights and we reach out to the domains of 
> narration, music and visualisation for help. And this is the point where this 
> effort of reflection upon a subject begins to generate and develop new 
> expressional forms of mathematics (logics, algebras, geometries). I think 
> that you and Ralph Abraham noted this in your contributions about the mystic 
> of mathematics in the 2015 JPBMB special issue. Therefore I ask here, if we 
> all feel that there is some grain of imaginative truth in the works of Pivar 
> and team, what piece of mathematics does it needs to become a serious theory. 
> Spencer-Brown did also have similar flashy insights in the beginning, but he 
> needed 20+ years to abstract them into a substantial book and theory. This is 
> what also other mathematicians do. They are providing complete works. Modern 
> artists and futurists are shooting fast and then moving to the next 
> “inspiration”, often without “marketing” the earlier idea. And then they are 
> often disappointed that they were not understood by their contemporaries. The 
> lack of They are often arrogant and do not care about the opinion of others 
> like we do in our FIS forum. But they often have some “oracle” messages. So, 
> my question to you and the others here is: Is there a way that we, 
> scientists, can build a solid theory on the base of others' artistic 
> insights? Do you think you can help here as an expert in topology and logic 
> to fill the formalisation gaps in Pivar’s approach and develop something 
> foundational. All this would take time and I am not sure if such artists like 
> Pivar would be ready to participate a scientific-humanitarian discourse, 
> because we know that most of these talents as extremely egocentric and 
> ignorant and we cannot change this. What do you think?
> Best,
> Plamen
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Louis H Kauffman < 
> <>> wrote:
> Dear Plamen,
> I do not know why Gel-Mann supported this. It is interesting to me anyway. It 
> is primarily an artistic endeavor but is based on some ideas of visual 
> development of complex forms from simpler forms.
> Some of these stories may have a grain of truth. The sort of thing I do and 
> others do is much more conservative (even what D’Arcy Thompson did is much 
> more conservative). We look for simple patterns that definitely seem to occur 
> in complex situations and we abstract them and work with them on their own 
> grounds, and with regard to how these patterns work in a complex system. An 
> artistic approach can be very fruitful.
> Best,
> Lou
>> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov 
>> < <>> wrote:
>> Dear Lou, Pedro and Colleagues,
>> I have another somewhat provoking question about the "constructive" role of 
>> topology in morphogenesis. What do you think about the somewhat artistic, 
>> but scientifically VERY controversial theory about the origin and 
>> development of life forms based on physical forces from classical mechanics 
>> and topology only, thus ignoring all of genetics, Darwinism and Creationism:
>> <>
>> What part of this can be regarded as science at all, and If there is 
>> something missing what is it? Why did a person like Murray Gel-Mann support 
>> this?
>> Best
>> Plamen
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
>> < <>> wrote:
>> Louis, a very simple question: in your model of self-replication, when you 
>> enter the environment, could it mean something else than just providing the 
>> raw stuff for reproduction? It would be great if related to successive 
>> cycles one could include emergent topological (say geometrical-mechanical) 
>> properties. For instance, once you have divided three times the initial 
>> egg-cell, you would encounter three symmetry axes that would co-define the 
>> future axes of animal development--dorsal/ventral, anterior/posterior, 
>> lateral/medial. Another matter would be about the timing of complexity, 
>> whether mere repetition of cycles could generate or not sufficient 
>> functional diversity such as Plamen was inquiring in the case of molecular 
>> clocks (nope in my opinion).  best--Pedro
>> -- 
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
>> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
>> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
>> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
>> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <tel:%2B34%20976%2071%203526> (& 6818)
>> <>
>> <>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> <>
>> <>

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to