Dear Joseph, Bob, and Otto --and All,
Thanks for the responses. First to Joseph and Bob: my interpretation of
Conrad's is not literal, at least at the time being, as I think that the
information themes are changing very fast in the quantum --recent
interpretations of entanglement and black holes by the group IT FROM
QUBIT say extremely interesting "generative" things about
space-time-info and cosmology. See Juan Maldacena (Sci. Am. Nov. 2016)
and Clara Moskowitz (Sci.Am. Jan. 2017). The way I take Conrad's is as a
call to a new way of thinking on physical information, biologically
inspired, rather than the common opposite direction. And also I extend
it to reconsider the nature of physical reality and of "laws of nature"
themselves--the distributed "genomes" of this cosmos. Our recurrent
discussions on what's info cannot consolidate until we adumbrate a good
portion of such new way of thinking--I am not criticizing them, but
asking for augmented doses of tolerance and patience. Let me be a little
provocative: none of us has walked yet the extra mile(s) needed. We have
to recognize that we are far from the new info paradigm and must keep
circling around Jericho walls...
Unless until the little thing that Otto is warning knocks in our doors.
I cannot respond to the symmetry difference and to the probability
arguments--the main question to debate indeed. Sure that the previous
scientific generation would have entered nonchalantly to this debate.
But not the business-politics oriented figures of today (social networks
panic). Well, at least I can comment on the last paragraphs on the
framework surrounding the frustrated discussion. The global health and
adaptability of the scientific enterprise seem to be in jeopardy.
Coincidentally, we are lead to remind Conrad's tradeoff between
computation and adaptability/evolvability? As computing has enormously
increased its efficiency and social reach, the social adaptability via
new thought and new research is decreasing and surrounding itself in a
tunnel vision. See for instance what are the coming flagship programs in
the EUnion after the Human Brain Project: "Future of [digital]
Healthcare" and "Robot Companions for Citizens." Yeah, a lot of people
--elderly-- will be alone: let's make nice robots for them. Even they
will learn to smile and laugh, and we will create bonds with them as the
Szilamandee paper from Otto says--and also my own research on laughter
(see link below). Techno-pseudo-happiness for everybody... Yes, fresh
new views from social science and humanities would have plenty to say.
Best wishes--Pedro
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026
El 21/01/2017 a las 9:32, Joseph Brenner escribió:
Dear Pedro and All,
Thanks to Pedro again for this thought-provoking theme. We are all in
states of greater or lesser ignorance regarding it!
Here is just, again, a thought about your quote of Conrad: "/when we
look at a biological system we/ are looking at the face of the
underlying /physics of the universe/."
I.M.H.O., this statement is true but only partially so. There are
non-thermodynamic parts of the underlying physics of the universe that
are not visible at the biological level of reality, and a coupling
between them remains to be demonstrated. Quantum superposition and
self-duality have analogies in macroscopic physics, but quantum
non-locality and sub-quantum fluctuations do not.
Of course, if you allow slightly altered laws of nature, many things
may be possible as Smolin suggests. However, I suggest that the domain
of interaction between actual and potential states in our everyday
'grown-up' world also has things to tell us, /e.g./, about
information, that can be looked at more easily.
Best wishes,
Joseph
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Pedro C. Marijuan <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* 'fis' <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2017 1:58 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Dear Otto and colleagues,
Thanks for the curious story and sorry that my absorption in low level
administrative themes has knocked me down-down during these weeks. But
not being a physicist, and even not a third rate aficionado, I can
contribute very little to the exchanges. At least I will try to remark
a couple of lateral aspects:
First, when I heard about this story, I was amazed how hysterical the
web records were. On the one side, the tabloid style comments and the
malicious personal attacks, and on the other side the offended,
irritated scientists. That your opinion deserved a "Charge of the
Nobel Brigade" with all those big names hurried together to smitten
any possible doubt, was sort of humorous. Wasn't from Horace that
saying of "vociferant montes et parturient ridiculus mus"? My
impression is that all those hyperactive new media have deteriorated
the exchange and maturation of scientific opinion. The fate of your
position on those hypothetic risks was irrationally discounted.
And about the theme itself, I join one of the initial comments on the
energy of singular cosmic rays, probabilistically having to cause such
microscopic destructive black holes in The Moon and somewhere else.
The wide swaths of the cosmos we watch today do not show sudden
instances of planet or star disappearance. As many thousands and
millions of those are well followed nowadays without reports of sudden
destruction: can this "stable" cosmos be an extra argument in the
discussion? Let me improvise some further views: Black holes relate
"quite a bit" to information matters. The controversy between Hawking,
Penrose, etc. about the fate of the quantum information engulfed
seemingly emitted is not the end of the story I think. If everything
should make functional sense in an integrated "organismic" cosmos, the
functionality of black holes is really enigmatic. They just become a
reservoir of dark matter for gravity? In this point our common friend
Michael Conrad (1996) put"/when we look at a biological system we/ are
looking at the face of the underlying /physics of the universe/."
Thereupon, I have always thought about the similarity between cellular
proteasomes (protein destructing machines) and the cosmic
(destructive) black holes. But the former RECYCLE and emit single
amino acid components for reuse, and then would the latter provide
only residual gravity? Lee Smolin said something bold: they recycle
too, and produce "baby universes" with slightly altered laws of
nature. Our planet final blimps would have some more fun incorporated
(with the big IF, of course)...
Best wishes
--Pedro
lEl 11/01/2017 a las 11:33, Otto E. Rossler escribió:
I like this response from Lou
-------------------------------------------------
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 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
[email protected]
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
