I will make one short comment.
There is a difference between the physical nature of the wave function as a sum 
over possibilities and the actuality of a measurement.
One can believe in the actuality of all the possibilities.
This is David Deutch’s contention.
It is a matter of debate.
There is no question that the wave function as a whole has physical meaning, 
but what has physical actuality is what can be measured.
What has mathematical actuality is another matter. The highest orders of 
infinity have mathematical actuality. 

> On Mar 28, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> Dear Lou and Colleagues,
> On 25 Mar 2016, at 19:51, Louis H Kauffman wrote:
>> Dear Karl,
>> Thank you for this very considered letter.
>> I would like to ask you about your entry
>> "6.      Quantum information. By keeping an exact accounting about which 
>> predictions are being fulfilled to which degree we see a self-organisation 
>> evolve on competing interpretations of a+b=c. Using the property of an 
>> element to belong to a cycle with cardinality n, we can use the negated form 
>> of not-belonging to different other cycles to transmit information. 
>> Information is a statement about something that is not the case. We can show 
>> the impossibility of a spatial arrangement of arguments of a sentence to 
>> cause impossibilities of coexistence of commutative arguments of the same 
>> sentence. “
>> My question: How is your comment about quantum information related to the 
>> orthodox minimal model for quantum information that we usually use?
>> I will detail this model in the next paragraph. I do understand that your 
>> paragraph refers to the complementarity aspects of quantum information. The 
>> description below is a concise formulation of the entire quantum model.
>> What is lacking for physics is the addition of the structure of observables 
>> and the relationship of the temporal evolution of the unitary transformation 
>> with the Hamiltonian (i.e. with formulations of physical energy).
>> Lifted in this way from the particular physics, this description is minimal 
>> take on quantum theory that can be used in discussing its properties.
>> Quantum Theory in a Nutshell
>> 1. A state of a quantum system is a vector |psi> of unit length in a complex 
>> vector space H. H is a Hilbert space, but it can be finite dimensional. 
>> Convectors are denoted by <phi | so that <phi |psi> is a complex number and 
>> <psi |psi> is a positive real number.
>> 2. A quantum process is a unitary transformation U: H ——> H. Unitary means 
>> that the U* = U^{-1} where U* denotes the conjugate transpose of U.
>> 3. An observation projects the state to a subspace. The simplest and most 
>> useful form of this is to 
>> assume that H has an orthonormal basis { |e_1> ,|e_2>,…} that consists in 
>> all possible results of observations.
>> Then observing |psi> results in |e_n> for some n with probability |<e_n | 
>> psi>|^2.
>> Note that the Sum_{n} |<e_n | psi>|^2 = 1 since |psi> is a vector of unit 
>> length.
>> This description shows that quantum theory is a dynamic sort of probability 
>> theory. The state vector |psi> is a superposition of all the possibilities 
>> for observation, with complex number coefficients.
> It seems to me that what is truly remarkable in quantum mechanics (without 
> collapse) is that the superposition are *not* superposition of possibilities, 
> but of actualities. If those where not actualities, we would not been able to 
> exploit the interference between parallel computations like we can do with a 
> quantum computer (but which is also already illustrated in the two slits 
> experiments).
> Then this confirms the "computationalist theory of everything", which is 
> given by any formalism, like Robinson Arithmetic (the rest is given by the 
> internal machine's phenomenology, like the one deducible from 
> incompleteness). Indeed, in that theory, the stable (predictible) observable 
> have to be given by a statistics on all computation going through our actual 
> state. This (retro-)predicts that the physical obeys to some quantum logic, 
> and it can be derived from some intensional nuance on the Gödel 
> self-referential provability predicate (like beweisbar('p') & 
> consistent('t')).
> In quantum mechanics without collapse of the wave during observation, the 
> axiom 3 is phenomenological, and with computationalism in the cognitive 
> science (the assumption that there is a level of description of the brain 
> such that my consciousness would proceed through any such emulation of my 
> brain or body at that level or below) the whole "physical" is 
> phenomenological. 
> Physics becomes a statistics on our consistent sharable first person (plural) 
> experiences. With "our" referring to us = the universal numbers knowing that 
> they are universal (Peano Arithmetic, Zermelo Fraenkel Set Theory, viewed as 
> machine, are such numbers).
> An actuality is a possibility seen from inside, somehow, in this context or 
> theory (QM without collapse, or Computationalism). 
> Personally, it seems that quantum mechanics, when we agree on the internal 
> phenomenological of actuality in the possibilities, confirms the most 
> startling, perhaps shocking, consequence of computationalism (digital 
> mechanism). Note that it does not make the physical itself computable a 
> priori.
>> Via the absolute squares of these coefficients |psi. can be regarded as a 
>> probability distribution for the outcomes that correspond to each basis 
>> direction. Since the coefficients are complex numbers and the quantum 
>> processes preserve the total probability, one has room for complexity of 
>> interaction, phase, superposition, cancellation and so on.
> OK.
> Best,
> Bruno
>> Best,
>> Lou Kauffman
>>> On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Karl Javorszky <karl.javors...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>>> 1.      Are the facts complicated or is our interpretation of the facts 
>>> complicated?
>>> again, the discussion centres on interpretations of Nature. How do we 
>>> picture some processes of Nature – like, specifically, the workings of 
>>> genetics and biology generally -, and which explanational tools do we use 
>>> to consolidate our views of Nature.
>>> We assume that Nature is describable by our tools, which tools agree to our 
>>> concepts of consistent, logical, useful, true. We agree that basic working 
>>> principles of Nature must be simple, easy to understand and quite logical, 
>>> in fact self-evident, once one has understood them. 
>>> We agree that what we want to observe are relations among appearances, and 
>>> that geometry, specifically topology will play a fundamental part in the 
>>> explanations which we seek. 
>>> Now the next step is to reflect on what makes our current perceptions and 
>>> ideas about Nature so far off the right track, that we experience Nature to 
>>> be hard to understand, complicated and beyond our present capacity to 
>>> explain in a simple fashion.
>>> We cannot state that basic rules and laws Nature appears to obey are 
>>> circumstantial and complicated. We can only conclude that we, humans, are 
>>> making an interpretation complicated, although Nature by axiom works in the 
>>> most simple and logical fashion. 
>>> 2.      Back to basics
>>> The rule we want to understand is very simple and basic. It is only our 
>>> being used to not paying attention to small details which makes us believe 
>>> that the rule is complicated. Had we not insisted that generating c=a+b 
>>> from (a,b) is the most important way of dealing with (a,b) we could use 
>>> other aspects of (a,b) too.
>>> The addition makes use of the similarity property of object. Similarity 
>>> (and within it, the special case of symmetry) is such an important tool in 
>>> survival and reproduction that our neurology forces us to see it far more 
>>> important than dissimilarity. Culture reinforces this common sense approach 
>>> to (a,b).
>>> Nature herself, however, is not in a Darwinian competition, therefore she 
>>> does make use of other aspects of (a,b), next to a+b=c. Just for 
>>> illustration, let me mention b-a, b-2a, 2b-3a, a-2b, 2a-3b and more of this 
>>> kind. These are as valid properties of (a,b) as their sum, but have had 
>>> much less of stage time and employment so far.
>>> If we want to learn something new, why don’t we start with a+b=c, the 
>>> mother of all observations. Let us give it a try and believe it to be 
>>> possible that one can learn something new and clever and that it will be 
>>> useful. 
>>> 3.      Order 
>>> We cannot dispute the fact that there is a quite exact and well-regulated 
>>> order behind genetics. So it is natural that we look deeper into the 
>>> concept of order.
>>> Order means that an element with known properties is in a place with known 
>>> properties that match the same order, which established the match. Order 
>>> assigns a place to an element and an element to a place. 
>>> Doing an exercise with some standard specimen of a+b=c, we see that we can 
>>> order the collection in differing ways, according to the order aspect we 
>>> use to establish a sequence among the elements. (If we sort our library on 
>>> title, we arrive at a different linear enumeration of the books compared to 
>>> one we arrive at if we sort the library on author.)
>>> The differing aspects of a+b=c impose differing orders on the collection of 
>>> statements a+b=c. These may well be contradictory among each other. 
>>> The realm we enter here may appear unusual and complicated, because we had 
>>> not been getting used to deal with logical statements that are false, 
>>> irrelevant or contradictory. 
>>> Nature herself, however, has not been listening to Wittgenstein, and keeps 
>>> on doing things about which we should not be talking, as our rules of 
>>> logical grammar do not present themselves easily to discussing false, 
>>> irrelevant or contradictory states of the world. And, since we have had 
>>> some progress in processing of data since the time of Wittgenstein, we are 
>>> now able, with the help of computers, to visualise the creation and the 
>>> consolidation of logical conflicts. By using computers, we may start to 
>>> talk about that, what is not the case. We may observe typical patterns of 
>>> conflict resolution, of logical compromises that allow contradictions to 
>>> exist, up to a point.
>>> 4.      Cycles
>>> Here comes the solution: Nature does not act illogically, but, rather 
>>> elegantly, pushes off logical contradictions either into the future or into 
>>> the non-space. The mechanism is strikingly simple and self-evident. One 
>>> only has to generate a sequence and sort and resort it to observe the 
>>> existence of cycles. The concept is known in mathematics under the title of 
>>> “cyclic permutations”. We can use each element (a,b) as a data depository, 
>>> wherein we place symbols that are concurrently commutative and sequential. 
>>> The membership in a cycle is a symbol that is commutative for each of the 
>>> members of the cycle, but confers also a sequential attribute relating to 
>>> the sequence of place changes that are the essence of a cycle. We thus have 
>>> both commutative and sequenced symbols on elements of a set, which allows 
>>> utilising the extraordinarily helpful relation between the “now” and the 
>>> “past/future: not now”, illustrated in OEIS A242615.
>>> We use the cycles as basic units, not the “1” and its replicas. Order is a 
>>> prediction about where will be what, and by generating all possible orders, 
>>> we may generate a biggish table which contains all elements’ places under 
>>> each possible order. The reordering from one of the orders into a different 
>>> one of the orders happens by means of cycles.
>>> Among the cycles there are some which lend themselves easily to be used as 
>>> standard cycles. The standard cycles are simple implications, corollaries, 
>>> of a+b=c. 
>>> 5.      Geometry
>>> The standard cycles allow building rectangular spaces modi Descartes. The 
>>> geometry is strikingly subtle, elegant, logical and self-evident. The 
>>> attachment handles and their topology can be read off some tables which 
>>> detail which versions of a+b=c can coexist with which other versions of 
>>> a+b=c. This is indeed a combinatorics of geometry, based on properties of 
>>> natural numbers. 
>>> 6.      Quantum information
>>> By keeping an exact accounting about which predictions are being fulfilled 
>>> to which degree we see a self-organisation evolve on competing 
>>> interpretations of a+b=c. Using the property of an element to belong to a 
>>> cycle with cardinality n, we can use the negated form of not-belonging to 
>>> different other cycles to transmit information. Information is a statement 
>>> about something that is not the case. We can show the impossibility of a 
>>> spatial arrangement of arguments of a sentence to cause impossibilities of 
>>> coexistence of commutative arguments of the same sentence. 
>>> 7.      Summary
>>> The natural numbers are ready and waiting for the user to read results out 
>>> of their multitude. The task is for the human to be willing to look at 
>>> patterns that evolve as the order concept assigns places to elements. The 
>>> patterns made visible by reordering instances of a+b=c appear to be 
>>> modelling ways Nature does business in a simple, easy and self-evident 
>>> fashion.
>>> Happy First Full Moon After Spring Equinox to you all.
>>> Karl
>>> 2016-03-24 19:31 GMT+01:00 Louis H Kauffman <kauff...@uic.edu 
>>> <mailto:kauff...@uic.edu>>:
>>> 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 <lou...@gmail.com <mailto:lou...@gmail.com>> 
>>> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:56:06 -0500
>>> To: fis<fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
>>> Cc: Pedro C. Marijuan<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es 
>>> <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
>>> 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 
>>>> <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com <mailto:plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>> 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 <lou...@gmail.com 
>>>> <mailto:lou...@gmail.com>> 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 
>>>>> <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com <mailto:plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>> 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:
>>>>> http://www.ilasol.org.il/ILASOL/uploads/files/Pivar_ILASOL-2010.pdf 
>>>>> <http://www.ilasol.org.il/ILASOL/uploads/files/Pivar_ILASOL-2010.pdf>
>>>>> 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 
>>>>> <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> 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)
>>>>> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
>>>>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ 
>>>>> <http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>>>>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to