Dear Lou, Pedro and All,

there was some interesting unintentional RECURSION in the latest postings
we obtained here.
I hope you will have sufficient time during the holidays to ponder on Lou’s
central points and their recent comments.
In due time I will come back to comment on them, Pivar’s art images and
some other enigmatic aspects with an idea of how they may be pragmatically

I wish you all an Happy and Peaceful Easter!


On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Louis H Kauffman <> wrote:

> Sorry Louis, but try again, please, for your address was wrong in the
> list!!!! --Pedro
> (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 biology.
> 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 (& 6818)
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to