[Fis] Fwd: Re: Shannonian Mechanics? From M. Godron

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Asunto: Re: [Fis] [SPAM] Shannonian Mechanics?
Fecha:  Sat, 2 Jul 2016 11:17:02 +0200
De: Michel Godron 
Para:   Pedro C. Marijuan 



in red

 Cordialement. M. Godron
Le 01/07/2016 à 13:59, Pedro C. Marijuan a écrit :

Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,

You are right in your complaint. We have been saying very similar 
things concerning information generation--and also in your symbolic 
introduction of Darwin in your scheme concerning that series of 
complementary questions. Sorry for being so brief but I need some 
extra time to re-read your initial doc in this light and the very 
cogent responses you have been producing, particularly to Loet's 
points. In my first penny of next week I will comment on those 
matters. Now I respond to other comments (which partially dovetail 
with your themes).


To Loet, fine, we think very differently. Rather than Althusser's 
derogatory remark, I look at Schrodinger's disclaimer in his famous 
"What is Life": /"...[necessaryly] some of us should venture to embark 
on a synthesis of facts and theories, albeit with second hand and 
incomplete knowledge of some of them—and at the risk of making fools 
of ourselves.” /Whether such kind of synthetic approaches (performed 
by each new scientific generation) can be successful or not today, is 
something that neither you nor me can foretell. At the very least, the 
enormous expansion of bio-info-comp disciplines in our times makes 
this demand more necessary than ever. No "hidden program" in my 
previous post but the open constatation that we have an excellent 
opportunity today in order to delineate those potential "universals" 
and "essential core" in an almost completely describable living 
system--bacteria.
The  informatinal structure ( = "essential core" ?) of living beings _at 
five scales_ has been decribed in /Ecologie et évolution du monde vivant 
/Ed. L'Harmattan Paris/. /At the molecular scale, the link betsween 
information and tehrmodynamic negentropy is established. I could send 
some paragraphs of this book to the colleagues interested by any scale.//
At least the rudiments of such approach appear in my team's work on 
Proyariotic Signaling Systems and in "How the Living...".

Could you send it to me ?
Anyhow, when I referred to "principles" I was not meaning your 
interpretation as "origins" but to the usual way practicing scientists 
work on them. For instance, after more than 30 years of painful 
experimental, microscopy work on nervous systems, Ramon y Cajal wrote 
his formidable "Textura del Sistema Nervioso del Hombre y los 
Vertebrados", considered as the foundational opus of modern 
neurosceince. There he exposed the new "Doctrine of the Neuron", based 
on a few revolutionary principles... Mutatis mutandis, it might be an 
interesting case-model regarding the info science renewal commented in 
the previous post.


To Alex, I see the opposite. Making the "universals" species specific 
means that you can communicate and share gestalts far more easily 
within your own phylum or class, or order, than with the far distant 
ones. So, other mammals can approximately "read" your facial 
expressions and postural stance, and get your meaning, while starfish 
or insects will not. Don't you think so?


To Bob (offline comment), many thanks for the comprehension. I am 
happy that from different angles we see in common some stumbling 
blocks to win. Actually, one needs both kinds of criticisms, positive 
and negative, in order to advance a little more in this viscous 
terrain... but making constructive criticisms becomes a more difficult 
task.


Apologies if I have missed some other more brief comments. And sorry 
Marcus if this was sort of a disruption, but I think that your 
discussion topic invites quite a lot to transgress the boundaries.


Best--Pedro
___
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] Black Hole Notes (reply to John & Krassimir)

[Marcus Abundis]

John – thank you for the intriguing article on the back hole information
paradox. But I was surprised you saw Krassimir's note as insulting that at
"the same time he/she has no [idea] what is 'information'”. This caused me
to take a closer look at the article, which seemed to affirm Krassimis's
view.

The reported progress relies on "information-preserving massless particles
known as 'soft hair', which they say should surround black holes." This
sounds fairly speculative, and it is called "research"?

Then "Hawking's colleague Andrew Strominger
 of Harvard
University explains . . . 'People find it very hard to accept that in the
quantum world, momentum and position are not absolute quantities,' he says.
'But that *pales into insignificance* compared with what we would have to
accept were Hawking's contention true. We would have to accept that there
are no laws of physics."' [emphasis added]
This implies some radically new view of physics (or whatever we might call
it) is needed to frame the matter . . . but now they are merely positing
"soft hair" and various "hairdos"?

A noted figure suggests the "idea to be 'worth pursuing', but points out
that it can only account for a part of the information that enters a black
hole. " And . . . what idea is not worth pursuing?

An yet another figure says the "authors fail to spell out exactly how the
information in the hair becomes encoded into the Hawking radiation." I
imagine even some of the study's authors might agree with Krassimir's
statement.

THE PUNCH LINE . . .
In a priori modeling (the focus of this session) I carefully name *at
least* three types of meaning (paper #2) – the only three of which I am
CERTAIN. Still, your article and other explorations into QM imply
the possibility of other types of *meaningful information*. But such ideas
have not been researched, or posited by me, I only see them as vague
possibilities. Perhaps *you* would care to comment on *meaningful
information* in those contexts. I would find that interesting.

As for Krassimir's comment . . . I thought it was very mild compared to
what might have been said about this admittedly interesting news.

Again, thank you for sharing the article.

Marcus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis