Re: [Fis] Simple amswer: NOT!
On 8 March 2018 at 8:10 AM, Plamen L. Simeonov wrote: What do you think about the other more interesting phenomenon recently: the blockchain technology・・・? Folks, Yes, that looks lucrative protocols making our current Internet more secured. But it has some side effects. The likely introduction of that technology under the guise of crypto-currencies into the interlinked network of financial institutions regulated by the central banks such as FRB and ECB may induce an unexpected fragility in the system. One symptom could be the runaway explosion of outstanding accounts because of the P2P (peer-to-peer) nature set free from the control of the regulatory agencies by postponing the clearing of unpaid debts indefinitely. This fragility could easily flare up in any dialogic transactions or discourses unless each participant is sufficiently self-restrained. Of course, there should be no such fragility in the single-authored discourse by definition, while bilateral transactions are inevitable in our everyday life in any case. Koichiro Matsuno Yes, that looks a lucrative technology making our current Internet more secured. But it also has some unwelcome side effect. The likely introduction of that technology under the guise of crypto-currencies into the interlinked network of the central banks such as FRB and ECB may induce an unexpected fragility to the system. One symptom could be the runaway explosion of outstanding accounts because of the P2P (peer-to-peer) nature set free from the control of the regulatory agencies by postponing the clearing of unpaid deficits indefinitely. This fragility could flare up quite easily in any dialogic transactions or discourses unless each participant is sufficiently self-restrained. Of course, there should be no such fragility in the single-authored discourse by definition. Koichiro Matsuno From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:10 AM To: Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> Cc: FIS <fis@listas.unizar.es>; Alberto J. Schuhmacher <ajime...@iisaragon.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] Simple amswer: NOT! Dea FISes, with respect to this big data and machine learning cults today, which I consider as somewhat useful fragments of a much bigger paradigm but not the non-plus-ultra tendency in science, let me ask you a bit different question: What do you think about the other more interesting phenomenon recently: the blockchain technology and the chances for a forum like FIS to use it for perpetuating knowledge to change the paradigm of conventional thinking towards a global intellectual standard currency? Perhaps this is what deserves your attention. All the best. Plamen On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com <mailto:mar...@foibg.com> > wrote: Dear Alberto, Let imagine that we are at the naturist beach, i.e. naked. OK! You will see all what I am and I will se the same for you. Well, will you know what I think or shall I know the same for you? Simple answer: NOT! No Data base may contain any data about my current thoughts and feelings. Yes, the stupid part of humanity may be controlled by big data centers. But all times it had been controlled. Nothing new. The pseudo scientists may analyze data and may create tons of papers. For such “production” there was and will exist corresponded more and more big cemeteries. I had edited more than one thousand papers. Only several was really very important and with great scientific value !!! Collection of data is important problem and it will be such for ever. But the greater problem for humanity is collection of money And the last cause the former! And the last is many times more dangerous than former! Do not worry of Data-ism! Be worried of the Money-ism! I will continue next week because this is my second post ( Thanks to wisdom of Pedro who had limited Writing-letter-ism in our list! ). Friendly greetings Krassimir From: <mailto:ajime...@iisaragon.es> Alberto J. Schuhmacher Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 10:23 PM To: <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> fis Subject: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research? Dear FIS Colleagues, I very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss with all of you. My mentors and science teachers taught me that Science had a method, rules and procedures that should be followed and pursued rigorously and with perseverance. The scientific research needed to be preceded by one or several hypotheses that should be subjected to validation or refutation through experiments designed and carried out in a laboratory. The Oxford Dictionaries Online
Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?
On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote: A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command. Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of observers for our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the concrete participants such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing what would seem appropriate for them to do without minding what we are observing. At issue must be how something looking like a chain of command could happen to emerge without presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to its emergence would be the well-being of each participant taken care of locally, as a replenishable inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of life. The impending agenda is on something general universal as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness resides within the concreteness down to the bottom. Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. Computation upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now points is not available to the local participants because of the lack of the physical means for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among themselves. Koichiro Matsuno ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Math, math, math!
On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions. [KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone. There is no doubt about mathematical reality in the eternal present accessible in the present tense. Also, our folks interested in historical sciences including biology and communication at large often refer to something not in the present via the present tense. In any case, we are historical beings. That must look quite uneasy to mathematicians. One loophole for making it tolerable to the mathematicians might be to admit that the mathematical notion of a trajectory of observable parameters does survive in the finished record but the future trajectories may remain unfathomable at the present. Despite that, historical sciences can raise the question of what could be persistent and durable that may be accessible in the present tense, though somewhat in a more abstract manner compared to the record of concrete particulars. Koichiro Matsuno -Original Message- From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of tozziart...@libero.it Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:21 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Math, math, math! Dear FISers, My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable journals, for a simple reason: I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions. Sent from Libero Mobile ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism
On 6 Nov 2017 at 5:30AM, John Collier wrote: In fact I would argue that the notion of information as used in physics is empirically based just as it is in the cognitive sciences. Our problem is to find what underlies both. Yes, there have already been serious attempts in this direction, though which may not yet have received due attention from the folks interested in the issue of information. One example is the entropy production fluctuation theorem by Gavin Crooks (1999). The agenda is on the distinction between states and events in thermodynamics. An essence is seen in the uniqueness of thermodynamics allowing for even the non-state or history-dependent variable such as heat. This perspective is powerful enough to precipitate a dependable synthesis out of integrating both the state and the process descriptions. When a microscopic system of interest contacts a heat bath, its development along an arbitrary trajectory of the state attributes of the system necessarily accompanies the associated event of heat flow either to or from the bath. If the trajectory is accompanied by the heat flow to the bath over any finite time interval, it would be far more likely compared with the reversed trajectory absorbing the same amount of heat flow from the bath. This has been a main message from Crooks’ fluctuation theorem. One practical implication of the theorem is that if the trajectory happens to constitute a loop, the likely loop must be the one having the net positive heat flow to the bath. For the reversed loop trajectory would have to come to accompany the same amount of heat flow from the bath back into the inside of the system, and that would be far less likely. Any robust loop trajectory appearing in biochemistry and biology must be either clockwise or anti-clockwise, and by no means an undisciplined mix of the two. A lesson we could learn from this pedagogical example is that thermodynamics is a naturalized tool for making macroscopic events out of the state attributes on the microscopic level irrespectively of whether or not it may have already been called informational. It is quite different from what statistical mechanics has accomplished so far. Something called quantum thermodynamics is gaining its momentum somewhere these days. Koichiro Matsuno From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of John Collier Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 5:30 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism Loet, I have no disagreement with this. at least in the detailed summary you give. In fact I would argue that the notion of information as used in physics is empirically based just as it is in the cognitive sciences. Our problem is to find what underlies both. My mention of the Scholastics was to Pierce's version, not the common interpretation due to a dep misunderstanding about what they were up to. I recommend a serous study of Peirce on te issues of meaning and metaphysics. He wa deeply indebted to their work iin logic. Of course there may be no common ground, but the our project is hopeless. Other things you have said on this group lead me to think it is not a dead end of confused notions. In that case we are wasting our time. John ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The two very important operations of Infos
On 27 Oct 2017 at 3:09 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: the cogitatum which transcends us is intersubjectivity. It is not physical. The physical is res extensa, whereas this remains res cogitans. Loet, let me hope this will not merely be a quibble about the terms. We may say that the physical is for res extensa in classical physics. However, we are not sure whether the same would apply to quantum physics supporting the infrastructure of our material world. Some philosophers sympathetic to quantum physics are in favor of contrasting res potentia a la Werner Heisenberg with res extensa. Once we are determined to face res potentia, that is for those individuals as the concrete vehicles carrying uncountable counter-factual conditionals. Thus, the inter-individual relationship mediated by emitting and absorbing the quantum particles, whether big or small, is in charge of revealing the factual conditionals through the measurement internal to the participating individuals. One advantage of focusing on internal measurement may be the likelihood for approaching persistence or duration as the quality directly retrievable from the underlying individual events. The additional ontological commitment required here is kept to a bare minimum such as allowing for res potentia for the individuals. Koichiro Matsuno From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:09 AM To: Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu>; Foundation of Information Science <fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] The two very important operations of Infos Dear Terry and colleagues, (...) , there cannot be interminable regress of this displacement to establish these norms. At some point normativity requires ontological grounding where the grounded normative relation is the preservation of the systemic physical properties that produce the norm-preserving dynamic. I have problems with the words "ontological" and "physical" here, whereas I agree with the need of grounding the normative. Among human beings, this grounding of subjective normativity can be found in intersubjectivity. Whereas the subjective remains cogitans (in doubt), the intersubjective can be considered as cogitatum (the thing about which one remains in doubt). For Descartes this cogitatum is the Other of the Cogito. The Cogito knows itself to be incomplete, and to be distinguished from what transcends it, the Transcendental or, in Descartes' terminology, God. (This is the ontological proof of God's presence. Kant showed that this proof does not hold: God cannot be proven to exist.) Husserl (1929) steps in on this point in the Cartesian Meditations: the cogitatum which transcends us is intersubjectivity. It is not physical. The physical is res extensa, whereas this remains res cogitans. It cannot be retrieved, but one has reflexive access to it. Interestingly, this philosophy provides Luhmann's point of departure. The intersubjective can be operationalized as (interhuman) communication. The codes in the communication can relatively be stabilized. One can use the metaphor of eigenvectors of a communication matrix. They remain our constructs, but they guide the communication. (Luhmann uses "eigenvalues", but that is a misunderstanding.) Using Parsons' idea of symbolic generalization of the codes of communication, one can continue this metaphor and consider other than the first eigenvector as "functional differentiations" which enable the communication to process more complexity. The model is derived from the Trias Politica: problems can be solved in one of the branches or the other. The normativity of the judiciary is different from the normativity of the legislative branch, but they both ground the normativity that guides us. The sciences are then a way of communication; namely, scholarly communication about rationalized expectations. Scholarly communication is different from, for example, political communication. An agent ("consciousness" in Luhmann's terminology) recombines reflexively and has to integrate because of one's contingency. The transcendental grounding is in the communication; it remains uncertain. Fortunately, because this implies that it can be reconstructed (by us albeit not as individuals). A non-human does not know oneself to be contingent. Lots of things follow from this; for example, that the non-human does not have access to our intersubjectivity as systems of expectations. Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Associate Faculty, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor
Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote: the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem (2006). If (a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise their free will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and molecules lack their share of the similar capacity. For our bodies eventually consist of those atoms and molecules. Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent atoms and molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob Ulanowicz at long last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case would have to forcibly be dismissed. This has been my second post this week. Koichiro Matsuno From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Alex Hankey Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM To: Arthur Wist <arthur.w...@gmail.com>; FIS Webinar <Fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they are as fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass. Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those emphasized by complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe. Alex ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?
On 16 Oct 2017 at 8:35 AM, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero wrote: Most of information processing devices consist of a design of some sort of feedback loop. I don`t know if we could translate this idea to all the kinds of systems we all deal with. Right. We know a lot of cycles or loops in our profession including autocatalytic cycles of various types, semiotic closure (Howard Pattee), circular causality (Gregory Bateson) and closure to efficient cause (Robert Rosen) just to name only a few. What concerns us at this point is that when we call something a loop without referring directly to the material object supporting the loop, the chance of being accused of assuming an anthropocentrism would be pretty high. How could we avoid this? One lesson we have learned from physics is that if one can associate the name tag of anything with the state attribute of a given system at any moment, the name-calling of anthropocentrism could be waived. For instance, something called entropy could survive insofar as it is associated with the state attribute of the system of interest. Despite that, no state assignment of a loop could be likely because the state has been static by itself unless it is acted upon by something else. Most of us must be familiar with how clumsy it would be to describe the operation of a loop in terms of ad hoc state transitions. One likelihood of approaching a loop descriptively might be to admit any elements of interest on the table at any moment without stipulating the congruent state assignment globally. That is to say, the environment to any element could differ from that to any other. One advantage of this picture might be that the environments of each element could be agential in their internal coordination if we can luckily escape from the entrapment by “anything goes”. Whether such an internal coordination could be likely must be totally an empirical matter. This issue may be most crucial for the origins of life anywhere. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Koichiro Matsuno From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Jose Javier Blanco Rivero Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 8:35 AM To: Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>; Fis, <fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”? Dear Krassimir, dear all, I have noticed that some descriptions of information make use of anthropocentric metaphors and that might be misguiding (for instance, subjective and objective information (Sung)). Agent is a concept that retains some sort of action-theoretic background but at the same time assumes the existence of nonhuman agents. Agency would be then a causal relation wherein the agent "causes" some sort of effects. I don`t feel confortable with this concept. I prefer the the concept of observer. But this one is problematic too, for the same reason: it is supposed that a human is there watching, feeling, measuring, etc. I think we have to get rid of these humanistic assumptions in order to gain insight into the issues we want to explore. Definitely I don`t think I have the answer, but following D. Hofstadter, H. von Foerster, N. Luhmann and others we could think of a agent/observer as a self-referential loop. Most of information processing devices consist of a design of some sort of feedback loop. I don`t know if we could translate this idea to all the kinds of systems we all deal with. But it would be worth finding out. An operative loop enables the differentiation of system and environment. The system acquires the capacity to control its own behavior. At some point its internal states are so many that it biffucartes and grow complex. Subsystems can differentiate by the same mechanism. So, that`s my point: one have to look for self-referential loops in order to find the observer/agent. An intelligent agent would be some kind of loop (strange loop, maybe). It`s just a hypothesis anyway... Best regards, ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Heretic
On 4 Oct 2017 at 6:01 AM, tozziart...@libero.it <mailto:tozziart...@libero.it> wrote: my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very valuable skills and efforts in other fields. This penetrating statement reminds me of another similar one made by John Bell in Against Measurement (1990) as saying “On this list of bad words from good books, the worst of all is ‘measurement’. … In fact the word has had such a damaging effect on the discussion that I think it should now be banned altogether in quantum mechanics.” Then, an intriguing sequel to this declamation is that most practical physicists have seemed to be immune to such a charge while being committed themselves to the measurement business as usual. One sympathetic understanding towards those practical physicists comes from the recent development of QM distinguishing between quantum coherence and quantum correlation. While quantum coherence is about the superposition of the states in a given single system on a definite Hilbert space, quantum correlation is about the correlation between different systems. Measurement is exclusively for the correlation between the two different systems, in which one is called a system to be measured and another one is called a measurement apparatus. The deed of measurement is practiced by the apparatus absorbing the quantum particles such as photons, electrons, atoms and molecules emitted from the system in focus. On the other hand, any theoretical enterprise may be inclined to take the stance making whatever closed system contrast with a theoretician external to the system. One exaggerated example is the dichotomy of TOE (theory of everything) and a committed theoretician sitting outside of the universe (then, where?). The externalist stance is the rule of conduct adopted for setting only one system, no matter how big or small it may be, against the concerned theoretician. No measurement is in need there. There is no difference between quantum correlation and coherence to the strict externalist because only one system is allowed there. In contrast, the difference between the two would become a serious matter to the practicing physicists paying due attention to the act of measurement. Which stance to take out of the two of the externalist’s and the internalist’s would be our choice. Information may also follow suit. Koichiro Matsuno From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of tozziart...@libero.it Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:01 AM To: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: [Fis] Heretic Dear FISers, After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term "information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique definition of information. Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) empirical testable prevision able to assess "information". For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms? Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense. Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists. Therefore, my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very valuable skills and efforts in other fields. It is a waste of your precious time to focus yourself in something that is so vague. It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is information, if nobody knows what does it mean. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH
On 19 Sept 2017 at 1:26 AM Terrence W. DEACON wrote: the science of information is still at an early stage and could be potentially held back by the hubris of certainty. Although I do not want to muddy the waters further, the distinction between information (to whom; or only to the statistician?) and physical sciences as we know them today may be in need of clarifying the nature of space and time underlying both the issues. So, suppose a fair coin toss game. If the tossing is repeated, the probability of heads or tails up would be just fifty-fifty. However, the outcome of each individual tossing-up would be either head or tail, and by no means in between like the fifty-fifty. What is more, the coin in focus assumes participation of a durable agent for repeating its toss-up. The statistician takes for granted the participation of the ordinary space and time or the static spacetime exclusive to the block-universe when the fifty-fifty probability is addressed. On the other hand, the agent involved in tossing the coin up is uncertain about the outcome of the next toss-up while the results of the preceding attempts already done remain definite. The future toward the capricious agent of tossing it up is open, while the content of the past has already been definitively fixed. The spacetime to such a playful agent is dynamically variable in distinguishing between the definite past and the indefinite future. The nature of the content of time differs between the past and the future. Information as an identifier of the distinction between the definite past and the indefinite future goes beyond the scope exclusive to the standard physics limited to the static block-universe, in the latter of which both the past and the future are definitively determinate at the present in a static manner. Nonetheless, there seems to be some hope in quantum mechanics in circumventing the present stalemate inflicting a heavy body blow on the stymied block-universe physics. If both the occurrence of a pure quantum state and its measurement could happen to be likely in a natural or experimental setting, such a pure state may obtain its duration with probability unity under the conditions that the frequency of repeated measurements can be enhanced without facing any limit, thanks to the quantum Zeno effect. The quantum player underlying such a quantum toss-up game could turn out to be quite steady and durable rather than merely being capricious. Biology upholding a durable organization of a concrete particular nature seems to take full advantage of durable individual events of QM origin. Although information seems to be quite a newbie in the philosopher-dominating time-honored discipline addressing the hard issue of what both space and time may look like, it might be able to enjoy some chance of bringing in something new empirically there. Koichiro Matsuno From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Terrence W. DEACON Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:26 AM To: Foundations of Information Science Information Science <Fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH All of these claims and counter-claims are null hypotheses - hypothetical axioms yet to be tested, both for logical coherence and empirical usefulness. Place your bets. Mine are on contrary assumptions: i.e. non-Turing computability, fundamental incompleteness, and a deep entanglement between information (including reference and functional value) and its necessary physical substrates. Of course for this to be science all need to eventually yield testable hypotheses. This level of controversy over basic issues indicates to me that the science of information is still at an early stage and could be potentially held back by the hubris of certainty. — Terry ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks
At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote: In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces. The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks, including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with use of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast, the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended. Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting in the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, so far. Koichiro From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Jerry LR Chandler Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM To: fisSubject: [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro: Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of human communication. Pedro's last post neatly addresses the immediate issue. But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper. The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just scientific meaning vs. historical meaning. Nor, communication between the general community and, say, the music (operatic and ballad) communities. Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining terms as "metaphor" in another discipline. Pedro's post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly known and understood in the symbolic logic and chemical communities. In the chemical community, the understanding is at the level of intuition because ordinary usage within the discipline requires an intuitive understanding of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in different disciplines. (For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.) The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings and definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES. For example, ordinary public language is necessary for expression of meaning of mathematical symbolic logic. But, from the basic mathematical language, once it grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of symbols and new meanings for relations among mathematical symbols. Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of terms that are have different meanings in its technical language. The meaning of mathematical terms is developed from an associative logic that is foreign to ordinary language. From these antecedents, the consequences are abundantly clear. The communication between the meta-languages fail. The mathematicians have added vast symbolic logical structures to their symbolic communication with symbols. In other words, the ordinary historian and scientist are not able to grasp the distinctive meanings of mathematical information. Physical information is restricted to physical units of measure and hence constrained to borrowing mathematical symbols and relating to the ordinary language as its meta-language. The perplexity of chemical information theory is such that it is not understandable in any one meta-language or any pair of meta-languages. In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces. The early metalanguage of chemistry was merely terms within ordinary language, such as the names of elements. Or, the common names for oils from various sources. Around the turn of the 19 th Century, the metalanguage of chemistry started it century-long journey to become a meta-language of mathematics with the development of the concepts of atomic weights for each singular elements and molecular weight, and molecular formula for each different molecule. The critical distinction that separates the meta-language of chemistry from other metalanguages is the absolute requirement for specification of the name of any object on the basis of it's distinction from other signs or collections of signs. Thus, chemical information theory, in terms of metalanguages, requires the exact usage of the meta-languages of both physics and mathematics in order to define the origin of its symbolic logic, as well as the natural metalanguage of ordinary human communication. Biological information theory is grounded on chemical information theory, using a particular encoding of meaning within dynamical systems, to
Re: [Fis] The Measurement Problem from the Perspective of an Information-Theoretic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
At 4:28 AM 11/27/2015, John C. wrote: A paper by my former graduate advisor, Jeff Bub, who was a student of David Bohm's. http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/17/11/7374 The Measurement Problem from the Perspective of an Information-Theoretic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Yes, Bub's insistence on the absolute randomness would remain invincible as far as third-person probabilities are taken for granted from the outset in comprehending what messages would QM convey to us. On the other hand, once one may happen to feel at ease with the first-person probabilities (see, for instance, James Hartle's "Living in a superposition" http://arXiv.org/abs/1511.01550 ), the first-person probability of the occurrence of such an agent assuming the first-person status would come to approach unity even within the framework of the decoherent-histories interpretation of QM. Koichiro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] life cycles
At 4:38 AM 10/6/2015, Stan wrote: Then we need to consider which life cycle we are going to investigate. One conversation? The duration of conference?, etc. Cycles are really enigmatic. Listening to the same old story repeating itself may sound tedious. However, there is one exception. If each turn of repetition is affinitive in recruiting something new from the outside while replacing some of the predecessor already there, the cycle can constantly be updated. The whole enterprise is empirically structural. In addition, repeating oneself can be guaranteed even on the thermodynamic ground alone. If adiabatic processes are allowed to intervene, they can assume two roles at the same time. One is to feed upon the available resources as fast as possible. One more is to install a highly complicated pathway of energy flow full of cycles to dissipate the intake at the similar fast rate so as to make both ends of the inlet and outlet to meet. While the intake of the resources proceeds through the surface of the organized whole of those cycles, the dissipation takes place in the entire volume of the organization. Thus, enhancing the volume of the organized web of those cycles may be a natural consequence for meeting the greater rate of resource intake. Of course, chemistry can provide a lot of material hardware to implement such a prescient web of cycles. Koichiro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Information Foundation of the Act--F.Flores L.deMarcos
At 4:13 AM 07/27/2015, Luis de Marcos Ortega wrote: a) cycles can imply infinite loops that in our opinion are not appropriate to model human actions b) even considering cycles a set of actions can still be modeled a as a tree, so we consider that loops add unnecessary complexity to the model Loops are clumsy, to be sure. Nonetheless, loops look indispensable in implementing the cohesion for making an organization. An organization maintaining itself through the exchange of component elements has recourse to the cohesion acting between the individual elements incumbent in the organized body and the de novo individuals to be recruited from nearby for replacemt. In fact, a loop can be the cohesive factor of a structural nature emerging from the participating individuals. Koichiro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM
At 4:00 AM 06/27/2015, John Collier wrote: I also see no reason that Bateson’s difference that makes a difference needs to involve meaning at either end. [KM] Right. The phrase saying “a difference that makes a difference” must be a prototypical example of second-order logic in that the difference appearing both in the subject and predicate can accept quantification. Most statements framed in second-order logic are not decidable. In order to make them decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must definitely be needed. A popular example of such a qualifier is a subjective observer. However, the point is that the subjective observer is not limited to Alice or Bob in the QBist parlance. Koichiro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .
At 9:36 PM 06/17/2015, Pedro wrote: ... What if information belongs to action, [KM] This is a good remark suggesting that information may go beyond the standard stipulation of first-order logic. A great advantage of mathematics grounded upon first-order logic is to enjoy the provability or computability of an inductive judgement with use of the few axiomatic primitives. This scheme, however, does not work for information at large, though notably except for Shannon's information bits. If one faces a statement like information is probabilistic, it would go beyond first-order logic when the predicate to be probabilistic admits its quantification as revealed in the context-dependent probabilities in QM. Once we enter the higher stage of second-order logic, it could be possible to form an opinion of course while its provability may be out of reach in most cases. Nonetheless, if one wants to save something good with saying information is probabilistic, a likely makeshift might be to relate information to action, for instance, as appealing to conditiona! l probabilities which are quite at home with the action of setting and detecting such conditions. Koichiro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Informational Bookkeeping
At 9:14 PM 09/05/2014, Pedro wrote: Who knows, focusing on varieties of bookkeeping might be quite productive! [KM] Pedro, your kick was loud enough to waken me up from my long hibernation. Suppose there are many things popping up here and there concurrently with no synchronization among them on the spot. Then, we would be totally at a loss what to do when asked to tell what is going on there. One plan as a last resort would be to make an appeal to a scheme of synchronization even if conceivable out of the blue. One candidate would be Bob U's energy, in reference to which we can safely say which are synchronized and which are sequential. One more candidate of this sort might be a reaction cycle of a natural origin, since any component reaction going round the cycle is ipso facto made synchronous with the occurrence of the cycle itself. Koichiro ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The Information Flow
Folks, Bob U said The foundations, they are trembling! I have taken it to imply that propositional calculus itself is also in a bad shape. This observation reminds me of the hanging paradox first invented by an American logician Arthur Prior more than 60 years ago. It goes like this: On a certain Saturday a judge sentenced a man to be hanged on Sunday or Monday at noon, stipulating at the same time that the man would not know the day of his hanging until the morning of the day itself. The condemned man argued that if he were hanged on Monday, he would be aware of the fact by noon on Sunday, and this would contravene the judge's stipulation. So the date of his hanging would have to be Sunday. Since, however, he had worked this out on Saturday, and so knew the date of his hanging the day before, the judge's stipulation was again contravened. The date, therefore, could not be Sunday either. The prisoner concluded that he would not be hanged at all. However, the official gazette issued on Tuesday reported that the man was hanged on last Sunday. The logician-prisoner (the externalist) was right in his deduction upon the trusted propositional calculus, while the judge (the internalist) was also right in faithfully executing the sentence. But both cannot be right at the same time. Despite that, the internalist could finally come to preside over this empirical world. I had a hard time to convince myself of it. Strange? Cheers, Koichiro Matsuno ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S.
Folks, A nice thing about the dichotomies such as the actual-potential (Peirce), einselection-superposition (Schroedinger), figure-background (Merleau-Ponty), filling-up - void (Marijuan), presence-absence (Deacon) and the like is the appraisal of the individual-class dichotomy even if an exhaustive list of the individuals constituting the class is not available. The price we have to pay for this, however, is that first person descriptions would have to be employed for appreciating the presence of some individuals that are currently absent on the spot for whatever reasons. In contrast, the individual-class dichotomy accessible to third person descriptions such as the dichotomy of each probabilistic event and its distribution would have to be explicit and definite with regard to both the individuals and the class from the outset. Cheers, Koichiro Matsuno ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] replies to several. The Key to Time
Dear Loet, Joseph and All, Let me just clarify the difference making a difference between both of you and me. First, to Loet; In other words: time is a construct of language? The answer will be yes if the physicist accepts time when preparing an authentic user’s manual on how to set up and read each clock. But, the answer will be no if somebody claims that time exists prior to the existence of our languages. These two attitudes are necessarily mixed up in our practice of doing empirical sciences as revealed in the contrast between evolutionary and developmental biology. That is the strength of empirical sciences. The “various conservation laws” are not a construct of language but constraints on constructions in language? Any empirical law, once established and framed in human languages, is very peculiar compared to the case of nomological laws in general in claiming its validity whenever or wherever in the empirical world unless our faith on the empirical regularity perceivable in the record is lost. Needless to say, some empirical laws mingled with something going beyond our experiences such as a wishful thinking might turn out to be wrong as in the case of Einstein’s big blunder. The original cyclic motions predate the reading. They are given? By whom and in which language? Some of our remote ancestors full of curiosity may have happened to notice the look-alike cyclic stellar movement as looking up into the sky every night and to report the astonishing observations to the folks in the neighborhood. This must have been the beginning of the whole story. Is the dative of a message different from the third case in the declension? The dative as the indirect object of a verb corresponds to the third case in the declension of a noun in German. Suppose the sentence like “He gives her a ring.” Of course, the “her” is the dative of the direct object “a ring”. Nonetheless, a proper interpretation of the sentence framed in the present tense is pretty difficult. “He” might want to make “a ring” to be a message of something else, while “she” might refuse to accept it. The dative is reactively active or passively synthetic and is by no means reactively passive. The dative can metamorphose into a subject in the next round. Moreover, the actual exchange of giving and refusing can be revealed as referring to the update of the perfect tense in the progressive tense. If “information” can be defined in terms of a probability distribution, would “time” be definable as a frequency distribution? This is really a Big “If”. If both the distributions are available, I could follow the argument. If such distributions are not available in advance for whatever reasons, the second best would be to rely upon conditional probabilities as the distributions further qualified by the explicit participation of measurement. In the latter, the relationship between information and time is more convoluted and interwoven. Bob Ulanowicz knows it better. Then, to Joseph; In my extension of logic to complex systems, reality and appearance are related contradictorially: Your distinction between reality and appearance reminds me of the notorious distinction between things-in-themselves and their phenomenology. I wish I could grasp the distinction. What I cannot speak about I have to pass over in silence. Perception is a real energetic process that is driven by our underlying dynamics,… not by verbs and their objects. Perhaps, this must be the take-home message you gave me. At issue is how to verbally respond to the question of what does “a real energetic process” look like. We are then required to employ some verbs to meet the assignment. (I do know the situation would be far more eased in the wet lab., less confrontational.) In fact, you have already provided us with a sound response to this question as saying “ … is driven by our underlying dynamics”. In short, perception of a perception of the flow of time ad infinitum eventually precipitates the construction of the flow of time. I think behind Loet’s reference to time as possibly a frequency distribution is a similar desire to move away from linguistic structures to real structures. Referring to and relying upon linguistic vehicles is unavoidable. Otherwise, we have to shut our mouths. The next big hurdle to jump over must be how to secure a passable correspondence between the linguistic vehicles and the object in the target as Jerry Chandler repeatedly emphasized on this list. Third, to Ted; We bridge that today with the two paradigms on which we build science: measurement and theories of cause. The notion of tense touches on both, one from one world, the other from the second. I ask your opinions on this third flow. The third flow is for the binding agency of a novel type. The cohesion acting between the
Re: [Fis] replies to several. The Key to Time
Dear Joseph, I feel that in point 3. of your note you describe a key to time but you do not use it! Right. The last time, I skipped over something. The issue is how to descriptively approach phenomenological time via the interplay between real, physical systems without prior reference to the flow of time on the global scale. My intended entry for this endeavor has been to pay attention to some physical body remaining invariant while being constantly involved in exchanging its constituent subunits. That is to say, once a molecular aggregate happens to appear whose class identity is kept intact while the constituent subunits constantly come and go, the through-flow maintaining the class identity of the aggregate can superficially be associated with the flow of time as we know of it in the contradictory sense that while passing away constantly, time remains as time as keeping its identity. The flow of time here is only taken as “a representation”, or an anthropocentric metaphor at best, of the material through-flow as a decisive factor for keeping the class identity of a physical body at the cost of the vicissitude of the individual identities of the constituent subunits. The cyanobacterial circadian clocks are just an empirical example of keeping the class identity of a KaiC hexamer while constantly exchanging or shuffling the monomeric KaiC subunits. The objective, as you have written well earlier, is to better understand the interplay of what we call the tenses in language. The underlying issue is how can we construct the flow of time from the tenses. When the constant update of the present perfect tense in the present progressive tense is referred to in the finished record, we can perceive the flow of time as driven by the transitive verb “update” in the present tense, though only in retrospect. This updated version of the flow of time in retrospect exhibits a marked contrast to the flow of time riding on the intransitive verb “flow” in the present tense unconditionally, the latter of which is common to the standard practice of physical sciences even including relativity. The occurrence of the perfect tense is due to the act of measurement of material origin distinguishing between the before and after its own act, while its frequent update in the progressive tense will be necessitated so as to meet various conservation laws such as material or energy flow continuity to be registered in the record, e. g., not to leave the failure in meeting the flow continuity behind. The KaiC hexamers of cyanobacteria are involved in the constant update of the prefect tense in the progressive tense. How is that for using time as a synthetic construction rather than as an analytical tool?! The flow of time read by the externalist, say, by Ptolemy-Newton, into an invariant cyclic motion of the stellar configuration displayed over the sky is enigmatic in relating a cyclic movement of physical bodies to a linear movement of something else called time. A less ambitious approach could be to relate a linear movement of physical bodies to the linear movement of time even if the latter is an anthropocentric artifact, unless the artifact interferes with the physical bodies. The flow of time read-into by the physicist implies no linear flow of time in the absence of the physicist as leaving only the original cyclic motions behind. That must be quite stifling. In contrast, appreciating the material through-flow keeping the class identity of the supporting material aggregate as being represented as the flow of time comes to imply that the through-flow is informational in that it presumes both the message (e.g., the subunits to be exchanged) and its dative (e.g., the aggregate processing their exchanges). Both information and time, once set free from the read-into flow of time, are common in sharing the similar materialistic and energetic context in incorporating the transitive verbs into themselves as holding the contrast between the direct and the indirect object of a verb, that is to say, between a message and its dative. Despite that, I am not quite sure at this moment whether this synthetic view would merely be one step backward for the sake of the likely two steps forward to come. Best, Koichiro ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] replies to several
Folks, Joseph wrote: Two aspects of the exchange between Koichiro and Loet merit attention: 1) Loet said that his point of replacing “why” with “what” did not seem necessary to him. In my mind, however, when Koichiro refers to “what is communicated by what”, he is insisting on not losing the qualitative components of the information involved. Let me make my points a little bit clearer. 1. Being empirical is not necessarily rational (e.g., Galilei’s empirical inertia v.s. Aristotle’s rational telos). 2. Linear progression of time, say time (t+1) following time t, is already a consequence of synchronization among the clocks available to us. A point of clarification is that synchronization in the making as a necessary condition for a meaningful integration into whatever context is not sure about whether it could also proceed upon a linear progression of time. Suppose everybody asks the nearest neighbor “what time do you have?”. The outcome might be somewhere in between the two extremes of a successful synchronization in the end among all of them on one hand and a total mess on the other. 3. Linguistic or theoretical access to synchronization in the making would be hard to imagine when it is prohibited to refer to time as a comprehensible analytical tool in advance. This does not however mean the end of the whole issue. Empirical access to synchronization in the making is totally different. Cyanobacteria as the first photosynthetic bacteria appeared on Earth could have been quite successful in synchronizing their circadian clocks among them without asking the help of our languages. 4. Addressing the theoretical question of what kinds of material means are employed for the job of synchronization and why, goes far beyond our present rational comprehension. Although the cyanobacterial circadian clocks employ three different kinds of protein called KaiA, B and C for the job, we cannot say for sure at this moment why these particular proteins would come to be focused upon. This has been an irrevocable empirical fact. 5. Neuronal dynamics is full of synchronization in the making by means of exchanging an extremely wide variety of chemical messengers, including for instance acetylcholine, available empirically. 6. Even if we take a pause for a while for addressing the grandiose why-questions, there may still remain some room for tailoring time for a comprehensible analytical tool. Time is further qualified in terms of its tense. There remains a likelihood of addressing how the actual dynamics would proceed through the interplay between the different tenses, especially between the present progressive and the present perfect tense. 7. Put it bluntly, information synthesizes the flow of time from scratch. Cheers, Koichiro ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] The world of singularities, beyond language. Necessity and Sufficiency
Dear Loet and All, Your remark “what is communicated and why?” sounds suggestive in many respects. If the question is paraphrased into “what is communicated by what?”, the perennially perplexing issue of what is time would come up to the surface once again since the temporality of communication is already there. The time involved in this question is certainly different from another time pertinent to one more question of “what is moved by what?” as entertained in physics in general and in mechanics in particular. At issue is the nature of time unique to the exchange of a message, whether it may be an atom, molecule or whatever else for that matter. Cheers, Koichiro ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Our condolences to Japan colleagues for the earth quake tragedy in Japan --K.Markov
Dear Kassimir, Pedro and FIS Colleagues, Many thanks for your concerns to the natural disaster hitting the northern part of Japan during the past few days. Please let us have some time to survive this hard fact of life. Regards, Koichiro Matsuno (now near Tokyo) From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:57 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Our condolences to Japan colleagues for the earth quake tragedy in Japan --K.Markov We all join Krassimir's message of solidarity and condolences with our FIS colleagues of Japan. Such a tragic event... ---Pedro - Mensaje original - Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com Saturday 12 March 2011, 11:33 am Our condolences to Japan colleagues for the earth quake tragedy in Japan Dear FIS Colleagues from Japan, Please receive our condolences for the earth quake tragedy in Japan! It is really great loss for all of us! Please do not hesitate to ask us for support and help in this sorrow moment. Krassimir ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap
Folks, Joseph wrote: my and Kevin K.'s basic question of whether /new evidence exists of any interaction between the world modeled by fluctuons and the thermodynamic world/ has in my opinion not been answered. Evidence is very old. In a nutshell, mechanics is about the equality of quantities of the same quality, e.g., three laws of motion in Newtonian mechanics. The quality of motion remains invariable in mechanics. In contrast, thermodynamics is about the equality of quantities of the different qualities, as revealed in the first law of thermodynamics presiding over the conservation of energy while allowing for the transformation of its quality. What is unique to thermodynamics is the participation of an internal agency being capable of identifying and processing the difference of qualities. The apparatus James Prescott Joule reported in 1843 demonstrated that the gravitational potential energy lost by the weight attached to a string causing a paddle immersed in water to rotate was equal to the heat energy gained by the water by friction with the paddle. It was not the physicist (or former brewer) Joule himself, but was the internal agency of material origin that was responsible for keeping the relationship between heat, the current, which generates it, and the conductor through which it passes. Somewhere right in the middle of the energy transformation changing its quality from the potential to the heat energy, some ambivalent situation would inevitably arise such that a residual amount of energy is not clear whether it may belong to the potential or to the heat energy, or to neither. Nonetheless, the conservation of energy must be observed in the finished record. Thermodynamics leaves conservation laws as being consequential upon the more fundamental motion of material origin, though such a feat is totally inconceivable in mechanics. It was regrettable to see that the subsequent takeover of thermodynamics by atomic physics which duly and triumphantly dismissed any chances for an agency of material origin other than the physicists themselves. However, a mere dismissal by a decree is not all that powerful. A touchstone is to see any likelihood of the motion of material origin for the sake of the conservation of energy, rather than on the conservation already guaranteed. The Fluctuon model of Michael Conrad is one attempt for appreciating the motion for the sake of meeting the conservation laws from within like thermodynamics does. Best, Koichiro ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
Folks, Kevin Kirby's opening remark on the Fluctuon model of Michael Conrad shed light on the role of information in physics and beyond. Here is some peripheral remark of my own, though a bit lengthy. 1) Practicing physics may look informational in exercising its own specification without saying so explicitly. A case in point is the renormalization scheme as demonstrated in quantum electrodynamics (QED). QED is quite self-consistent in specifying and determining the values of both the electric charge of an electron and its mass. Tomonaga-Schwinger have successfully set up a descriptive scheme of synchronizing the multiple times presiding over the virtual processes which might violate conservation laws in between in the light of the uncertainty principle in energy and time. The synchronization that is faithful to observing all the relevant conservation laws is an act of making both determinations of the mass under the influence of the electric charge and of its reversal coincidental, that is, the act of making both ends meet. A neat expression of the synchronization is seen in Dyson's equation in terms of Feynman's diagram. In short, the physical parameter called a mass or an electric charge is internally specified, determined and measured as such in the renormalization scheme of QED. So far, so good. 2) Michael felt some uneasiness with the renormalization scheme since the notion of information remains redundant and secondary at best there. Although the definitive values of the mass and the electric charge might seem informational to the experimentalist who intends to measure them externally, an electron in QED can already be seen to measure and fix them internally on its own. In the physical world describable in one form of renormalized scheme or another, that is to say, in the standard model of physics, information is merely a derivative from something more fundamental. The standard physicist has a good excuse for marginalizing information. If information has anything significant in its own right and can stand alone irrespective of whether or how it may become analytically accessible, on the other hand, one must go beyond the stipulation of the standard model. A notorious case that has strenuously kept defying the renormalization project of whatever kind attempted so far is quantum gravity, which was Michael's primary concern. Self-consistent scheme of justifying quantum gravity is required to reach continuity (gravity) as starting from discontinuity (quantum) and at the same time to reach discontinuity as starting from continuity even on an experimental basis. 3) The analytical tool Michael employed was conservation laws paraphrased in terms of elementary perturbation theory as Kevin noted. While the standard model is grounded upon the likelihood that all the relevant conservation laws could eventually be met insofar as one is lucky enough to encounter a specific form of synchronization, the Fluctuon model squarely faces up to the situation that there is no chance of expecting such a fortunate synchronous coincidence. Substantiating each conservation law on energy or momentum is a must in any case, while asking simultaneous fulfillment of all the relevant conservation laws is too much. What is unique to the Fluctuon model is its emphasis on the participation of persistent and itinerant disequilibrium or a Fluctuon in implementing conservation laws internally, though there is no room for it in the mind of the standard physicist. This perpetual disequilibrium is all pervasive and reverberating up and down and from left to right and back. 4) Once I asked Michael that while graviton is nice in its ambition of going beyond the standard model of physics, why not take up carbon chemistry as one more concrete example going beyond the hurdle? So far as we know, there has been no attempt for determining both carbon compounds as the building pieces of biology and chemical affinity latent in them in a mutually consistent manner. His reply was this. Right, but I want to cover more even though it may look crazy to many. That is an issue of quantum gravity and life. Anyway, life is short. Granted. Best, Koichiro Matsuno ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis