Dear All,
Concerning the discussion of "black holes" vis-a-vis biological systems,
the latter recycling while the former presumably not,
the point is that all non-linear systems whatever their nature and the
initial conditions develop in finite time vortical singularities
through which the systems do recycle, and this is related to a transition
from orientability to non-orientability of the one-point compactification
of the complex plane (Riemann sphere), and to the structure of uncertainty
. An instance of this is that of non-linear thermodynamical systems, for
which entropy diverges followed by a transition through negative entropy by
which the system recycles itself as a novel (re)organization.
Allow me to remark that this is not exclusive to biological systems. A
discussion of this, the relation to morphogenesis, semiotics and cognition
is presented in

and further relations with chemistry, biology, metamathematics, cognition,
genomics and evolution is elaborated in

Thanking you for your kind attention.

Best regards,

Diego Rapoport

2017-01-24 16:32 GMT-03:00 <>:

> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>    1. Re: Fw: A Curious Story (Pedro C. Marijuan)
>    2. Re: [FIS] A Curious Story (Jerry LR Chandler)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:31:31 +0100
> From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <>
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story
> Message-ID: <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
> 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
> El 21/01/2017 a las 9:32, Joseph Brenner escribi?:
> > 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 <>
> > *To:* 'fis' <>
> > *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 escribi?:
> >> I like this response from Lou
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Mariju?n
> Grupo de Bioinformaci?n / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragon?s de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigaci?n Biom?dica de Arag?n (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> -------------------------------------------------
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> a660b1f7/attachment-0001.html>
> ------------------------------
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 13:32:17 -0600
> From: Jerry LR Chandler <>
> To: fis <>, "Otto E. Rossler" <>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] [FIS] A Curious Story
> Message-ID: <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Dear  Otto:
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:05 AM, Otto E. Rossler <
> <>> wrote:
> >
> > But as convincing as this may be, it is still not my main point. My main
> and real point is: CERN refuses to update its official safety report LSAG
> for exactly as long.
> >
> > But there is an even more disturbing point. IF an organization openly
> refuses to contradict evidence of committing a crime (even the biggest of
> history), it is very very strange in my own eyes at least that no one in
> the world, from the media to the profession, from Europe to Africa to
> America to Asia, is even able to spot this fact as deserving to be
> alleviated or at least publicly discussed.
> >
> > Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for
> this historically unique phenomenon?
> > (Understanding is sometimes more important than surviving -- right?
> Forgive me the pun.)
> >
> > I am very grateful for the discussion,
> > take care, everyone,
> > Otto
> I will offer some opinions that are related to the  ?public? philosophy of
> science policy.  At the end, I will raise a question about the philosophy
> of epistemic mathematics as it manifests itself in the epistemology of
> physical ?models? of natural phenomenological events.
> My personal experience with the interface between ?doing? experimental
> molecular biology and ?doing? legally-enforcable public health standards
> lasted over a decade during my service in the US  Public Health Service.
> The vast gaps between specific experimental evidence and the subsequent
> emission of a public statements by senior government officials necessarily
> require a shift from the study of nature to the projections of future
> social behaviors.  The simple example of what I speak is the biological
> evidence for a physical-chemical structure to cause cancer in animals and
> the removal of that particular physical-chemical structure from commerce.
> Vinyl chloride is one of many such examples where the professional
> communities preformed a ?Risk Analysis? that resulted in restricting Vinyl
> Chloride usage.  In the early 1980?s I was one of the founding members of
> the Society for Risk Analysis which seeks to illuminate the murky areas
> between scientific information and public policy.
> see: <>
> Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk
> characterization, risk communication, risk management, and policy relating
> to risk. Our interests include risks to human health and the environment,
> both built and natural. We consider threats from physical, chemical, and
> biological agents and from a variety of human activities as well as natural
> events. We analyze risks of concern to individuals, to public- and
> private-sector organizations, and to society at various geographic scales.
> Our membership is multidisciplinary and international.
> Of course, the biological example is remote from the issues of risk
> analysis for CERN experiments, but many parallels exist.   The SRA journal
> articles may provide you deeper insights into "what is going on" behind the
> public facades.
> With regard to your specific concern
> > Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for
> this historically unique phenomenon?
> I suggest that at least three principle possibilities exist:
> 1. Senior CERN officials have evaluated you assertions and rejected them
> as implausible.
> 2. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted the
> mathematical truths but consider the risk to be so minuscule that this risk
> (and your logic) can be ignored.
> 3. Senior CERN officials have evaluated your assertions and accepted your
> conclusions and have no plausible counter-arguments to the calculated
> levels of risk. Therefore, silence.
> I would note that as public officials, senior CERN officials are keenly
> aware of the potential of a detailed risk analysis of experiments could
> endanger the continued public funding of CERN.
> The reason the situation is ?curious?, as you so adroitly express the
> current stalemate, is because of the deep, deep, deep traditions of the
> scientific community to insist upon the free thought, free speech, free
> discussions on matter of public policy, public risk analysis, ?
> Thus, I see this ?curious? behavior as a political problem that can be
> addressed by seeking a political solution that respects scientific
> traditions and hence, to motivate senior CERN officials to act honorably in
> the best interests of all.
> Now, for a comment about epistemic mathematics.  These thoughts are remote
> from the specific issues regarding the risk of local black holes.  These
> are generic w.r.t. the nature of scientific information its communication
> through logically distinctive symbol systems.
> For my research on health risk analysis, I undertook a detailed study of
> the origin of scientific units of measure. By way of background, economic
> units of measure are essential to non-local trade.  International trade
> requires common units of measure that can be used to ensure fairness
> between quantity and price per unit quantity.
> To this end, the French established (in the late 18 th Century) the
> ?metric system?, based on natural measures, that relate material facts to
> one-another in an interdependent manner (Distance, volume, density of
> water, mass, etc.).  Subsequently, international committees, cooperatively
> financed by governments, elaborated standards of measurement.   see:
> <
> Modern physical units originated from these economic concerns.  Physical
> phenomenology is quantified in these economic terms, except for the
> chemical elements which are quantified in terms of the atomic numbers.
> Thus, the atomic numbers created a new form of epistemic mathematics,
> fundamentally different from the unit-less nature of pure mathematics.
> So, the question that has bothered me for some decades is the consistency
> of the system of units of various cosmological theories.  Obviously, my
> inquiry into this question has left me  skeptical about the consistency of
> cosmological theories - are they more than theories  of mathematical
> convenience?  (see the two quotes appended below that address modal logics
> and the intersection with C S Peirce?s ?relational logic".)
> In order to relate these questions to FIS, one can generalize the question:
> 1. What is the difference that makes a difference between pure mathematics
> and epistemic mathematics?
> 2. Is ?information" merely pure mathematical imagination or is
> ?information? epistemic?
> 3. By extension, is chemical information both epistemic and ontological
> information?
> 4. By further extension, can the epistemic and ontological information of
> the atomic numbers generate the organization of the animate from the
> inanimate?
> Well, Otto, this note has strayed widely from your basic concerns.  But,
> thankfully, well-pointed questions have a delightful way of generating the
> further emergences of well-pointed questions!  Thank you for your
> remarkable posts.
> Peace.
> Cheers
> Jerry
> C. I.  Lewis
> It is so easy... to get impressive ?results? by replacing the vaguer
> concepts which convey real meaning by virtue of common usage by pseudo
> precise concepts which are manipulable by ?exact? methods ? the trouble
> being that nobody any longer knows whether anything actual or of practical
> import is being discussed.
> D. Scott:
> Formal methods should only be applied when the subject is ready for them,
> when conceptual clarification is sufficiently advanced... No modal logician
> really knows what he is talking about in the same sense that we know what
> mathematical entities are. This is not to say that the work to date in
> modal logic is all bad or wrong, but I feel that insufficient consideration
> has been given to questioning appropriateness of results... it is all too
> tempting to refine methods well beyond the level of applicability.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> 0ed47e1e/attachment.html>
> ------------------------------
> Subject: Digest Footer
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> ------------------------------
> End of Fis Digest, Vol 34, Issue 38
> ***********************************
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to