[Fis] _ Re: Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 39

[Alex Hankey]

ary or even tertiary ?memory? of something
> >>> underlying deeper below the microbiological surface. It is at least
> worth
> >>> thinking in this direction. I do not mean necessarily the role of the
> >>> number concept and Platonic origin of the universe, but something
> probably
> >>> much more ?physical? or at least staying at the edge between
> >>> physical/material and immaterial such as David Deutsch?s constructor
> theory
> >>> (http://constructortheory.org/) and Brian Josephson?s
> >>> ?structural/circular theory? (
> >>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.02429.pdf;
> >>> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1506/1506.06774.pdf;
> >>> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4860.pdf) searching for the theories
> >>> underpinning the foundations of the physical laws (and following
> Wheeler?s
> >>> definition for a ?Law without Law?.
> >>>
> >>> Some of you may say that QT and Gravitation Theory are responsible for
> >>> such kind of strange effects, but I would rather leave the brackets
> open,
> >>> because the recent discussion about potentialities and actualities in
> QM
> >>> brings up the idea that there are still different ways of looking at
> those
> >>> concepts (although they are strictly defined in their core domains).
> This
> >>> was actually also the lesson from the last special issue on integral
> >>> biomathics (2015) dedicated to phenomenology, with the different
> opinions
> >>> of scientists and philosophers on obviously clear matters in their
> domains.
> >>> This is why also the question of what we define as science needs to be
> >>> probably revised in future to include also such issues that are ?felt?
> >>> rather than ?reasoned?, even if we do not have the ?proofs? yet,
> because
> >>> the proofs also emerge as subjective (or perhaps ?suggested?! ? ask the
> >>> psychologists for that aspect) thoughts in the minds of the
> mathematicians.
> >>> I am really glad that we began such a phenomenological discussion on
> this
> >>> aspect such as Hipolito?s paper (
> >>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715000899)
> >>> that was widely commented in the reviewer?s circle. In many cases when
> we
> >>> have a ?fuzzy? intuition about a certain relationship or analogy we
> miss
> >>> the correct definitions and concepts, and so in a creative act to hold
> down
> >>> the flying thought we move to using examples, metaphors, pictures.
> Pedro
> >>> correctly addressed the explanatory problem of science which
> presupposes a
> >>> certain causative and predicative ?workflow? to derive a conclusion
> from
> >>> the facts, and this is the way in which also proofs are (selectively)
> made.
> >>> As a young scholar I often wondered how artificially people like Gauss,
> >>> Cauchy and Weierstrass  design their proofs, but then I got used to
> >>> that style. It was a question of overall convention. I am thankful to
> Lou
> >>> for his response on my question about using adequate ?resonant?
> methods to
> >>> model developmental biology, because this is also an important aspect
> of
> >>> the biology (and physics as well) including the
> >>> phenomenological/first-person view of an ?observer-participant? (to use
> >>> Vrobel?s term) which is crucial for understanding the process of
> >>> self-reflection/recursion/cycle in science, which is usually led by
> what?:
> >>> the intuition, also well recognized by such giants like Poincare and
> >>> Einstein. Isn?t not ?resonance? in the core of detecting such vibration
> >>> between the observer and the observed? Because logic, backtracing and
> proof
> >>> come later.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And finally, when looking at the clear simple mathematical abstractions
> >>> of numbers, vectors, directions, sets, algebras, geometries, etc. used
> by
> >>> many without scrutinizing when developing system (biological) models
> of yet
> >>> another kind of mechanics/automation/machinery of the physical
> reality, I
> >>> am asking myself which are the premises for using such tools to
> describe a
> >>> model: the parameters, or the idea behind? It is probably not a
> commonly
> >>> known fact (even for those who are engaged with such exciting
> disciplines
> >>> as algebraic geometry and geometrical algebra, now considered to be
> very
> >>> close to what we wish to express in biology) that William Hamilton, the
> >>> inventor of the quaternions did not simply use the already known
> concept of
> >>> ?vector? in his method. Instead he used ?step? with ?direction? to
> express
> >>> a duration of time (or ?duree? as Husserl called it from the other
> side of
> >>> the phenomenological divide) and action (to move from A to B): two very
> >>> biology-related concepts at that time (although they may be considered
> as
> >>> physical or computational today). He actually stated that if there is
> >>> geometry as a pure science of space, then algebra must be the pure
> science
> >>> of time [1]. What did we actually gain for biology from merging space
> and
> >>> time in physics? And if we apply a specific mathematical-computational
> >>> technique what is the key idea/intuition behind it?. Because, as a
> >>> colleague pathologist told me this morning about the model correctness
> when
> >>> predicting the development of tumors: the model can be assumed for
> being
> >>> correct based on the interpretation of some (limited) set of data, but
> >>> Ptolemy's system was also considered to be correct in its rather
> complex
> >>> way of predicting the movement of the celestial bodies. Where is the
> >>> difference? I am curious about your opinion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Reference:*
> >>>
> >>> [1] W. R. Hamilton, 1835. Theory of Conjugate Functions, or Algebraic
> >>> Couples; with a Preliminary or Elementary Essay on Algebra as the
> Science
> >>> of Pure Time. *Trans. Royal Irish Acad*., Vol. XVII, Part II. 292-422.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Plamen
> >>> __
> >>>
> >>> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> >>> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
> >>> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
> >>> (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Fis mailing list
> >>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> >>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> Fis mailing list
> >> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Fis mailing list
> >> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >>
> >>
> > ___
> > Fis mailing list
> > Fis@listas.unizar.es
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >
> >
> >
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160330/4878398c/attachment.html
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> --
>
> End of Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 39
> ***
>



-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789


2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics
and Phenomenological Philosophy
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Re: _ Re: On mathematical theories and models in biology

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Plamen Simeonov e Cari Tutti,
secondo U. Maturana e F. Varela la conoscenza ha fondamenti biologici.
Tutta la conoscenza, anche quella fisica, soprattutto quella quantistica,
ha fondamenti biologici. E viceversa, la biologia ha fondamenti
quantistici. Quel che scrivo qui sinteticamente può sembrare apodittico e
dogmatico, ma nei miei libri questo è analizzato, approfondito e sistemato
in modo organico: beninteso, secondo l'ottica della mia "Nuova economia".
Quindi vi sono elementi fondati per condividere l'accostamento tra
"platonismo, teologia, logica e algebra". Così come, a me pare ben fondato
il rapporto quadrangolare che passa tra: i numeri primi, la funzione d'onda
di Riemann, la meccanica quantistica e la geometria frattale (dei mercati)
(cfr. fra gli altri,  Rizzo R., "Una vita. Il figlio del garzone", Aracne
editrice, Roma, 2015, pp. 305-306.)
Un augurio, ancora, pasquale.
Francessco

2016-03-30 1:00 GMT+02:00 Guy A Hoelzer :

> Hi Robert,
>
> I haven’t read your book yet, but thanks for the link.  You have certainly
> thought through these issues much more deeply than I have and I appreciate
> your perspective.  I am trying to parse the meanings of your three
> fundamentals, so please let me know if I am getting the main ideas right.
>
> “Aleatoricism” seems to reflect the creativity associated with dynamics at
> ‘the edge of chaos’, or inherent to self-organization.  I would strongly
> agree with this as an essential fundamental that was not explicit in my
> formulation.  I would argue that aleatoricism and feedback are implicit in
> the notion of metabolism, but I like that you pull them out.
>
> I’m not sure what you are suggesting with the term “centripetality’.  Is
> this meant to reference the functional and dynamical coherence of
> self-organizing systems?
>
> Regards,
>
> Guy
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:39 PM, Robert E. Ulanowicz  wrote:
> >
> > Dear Guy,
> >
> > Please allow me to respond to your invitation to Terry with my two cents.
> >
> > My triad for supporting the dynamics of life is a bit different. I see
> the
> > three essential fundamentals as:
> >
> > 1. Aleatoricism
> >
> > 2. Feedback
> >
> > 3. Memory
> >
> > Just to briefly elaborate on each:
> >
> > 1. I use aleatoricism to avoid the baggage associated with the term
> > "chance", which most immediately associate with "blind" chance. The
> > aleatoric spans the spectrum from unique events to blind chance to
> > conditional chance to propensities to just short of determinism.
> >
> > 2. More specifically (and in parallel with autopoesis) I focus on
> > autocatalytic feedback, which exhibits the property of "centripetality".
> > Centripetality appears on almost no one's list of properties of life,
> > despite its ubiquity in association with living systems.
> >
> > 3. Memory (and information) likely inhered in stable configurations of
> > processes (metabolism) well before the advent of molecular encoding.
> Terry
> > speaks to this point in Biological Theory 1(2):136-49.
> >
> > My fundamentals do not include reproduction, because I see reproduction
> as
> > corollary to 2 & 3.
> >
> > I propose a full metaphysics for life predicated on these three
> > assumptions.
> > 
> >
> > Looking forward to what others see as fundamental.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >> I personally consider metabolism to be at the core of what constitutes
> >> â?~lifeâ?T, so the notion of autopoeisis is very attractive to me.  It
> is
> >> also possible that the richness of life as we know it depends on having
> >> metabolisms (activity), genomes (memory), and reproduction combined.
> The
> >> reductionistic approach to singling out one of these three pillars of
> life
> >> as its essence may be futile.  However, I want to point out that the
> most
> >> reduced version of â?~lifeâ?T I have seen was proposed by Terry Deacon
> in
> >> the concept he calls â?oautocellsâ? .  Terry has made great
> contributions
> >> to FIS dealing with related topics, and I hope he will chime in here to
> >> describe his minimalist form of life, which is not cellular, does not
> have
> >> any metabolism or genetically encoded memory.  Autocells do, however,
> >> reproduce.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Guy
> >
> >
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis