Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Joseph, Bob, and Otto --and All,

Thanks for the responses. First to Joseph and Bob: my interpretation of 
Conrad's is not literal, at least at the time being, as I think that the 
information themes are changing very fast in the quantum --recent 
interpretations of entanglement and black holes by the group IT FROM 
QUBIT say extremely interesting "generative" things about 
space-time-info and cosmology. See Juan Maldacena (Sci. Am. Nov. 2016) 
and Clara Moskowitz (Sci.Am. Jan. 2017). The way I take Conrad's is as a 
call to a new way of thinking on physical information, biologically 
inspired, rather than the common opposite direction. And also I extend 
it to reconsider the nature of physical reality and of "laws of nature" 
themselves--the distributed "genomes" of this cosmos. Our recurrent 
discussions on what's info cannot consolidate until we adumbrate a good 
portion of such new way of thinking--I am not criticizing them, but 
asking for augmented doses of tolerance and patience. Let me be a little 
provocative: none of us has walked yet the extra mile(s) needed. We have 
to recognize that we are far from the new info paradigm and must keep 
circling around Jericho walls...


Unless until the little thing that Otto is warning knocks in our doors. 
I cannot respond to the symmetry difference and to the probability 
arguments--the main question to debate indeed. Sure that the previous 
scientific generation would have entered nonchalantly to this debate. 
But not the business-politics oriented figures of today (social networks 
panic). Well, at least I can comment on the last paragraphs on the 
framework surrounding the frustrated discussion. The global health and 
adaptability of the scientific enterprise seem to be in jeopardy. 
Coincidentally, we are lead to remind Conrad's tradeoff between 
computation and adaptability/evolvability? As computing has enormously 
increased its efficiency and social reach, the social adaptability via 
new thought and new research is decreasing and surrounding itself in a 
tunnel vision. See for instance what are the coming flagship programs in 
the EUnion after the Human Brain Project: "Future of [digital] 
Healthcare" and "Robot Companions for Citizens." Yeah, a lot of people 
--elderly-- will be alone: let's make nice robots for them. Even they 
will learn to smile and laugh, and we will create bonds with them as the 
Szilamandee paper from Otto says--and also my own research on laughter 
(see link below). Techno-pseudo-happiness for everybody... Yes, fresh 
new views from social science and humanities would have plenty to say.


Best wishes--Pedro
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026


El 21/01/2017 a las 9:32, Joseph Brenner escribió:

Dear Pedro and All,
Thanks to Pedro again for this thought-provoking theme. We are all in 
states of greater or lesser ignorance regarding it!
Here is just, again, a thought about your quote of Conrad: "/when we 
look at a biological system we/ are looking at the face of the 
underlying /physics of the universe/."
I.M.H.O., this statement is true but only partially so. There are 
non-thermodynamic parts of the underlying physics of the universe that 
are not visible at the biological level of reality, and a coupling 
between them remains to be demonstrated. Quantum superposition and 
self-duality have analogies in macroscopic physics, but quantum 
non-locality and sub-quantum fluctuations do not.
Of course, if you allow slightly altered laws of nature, many things 
may be possible as Smolin suggests. However, I suggest that the domain 
of interaction between actual and potential states in our everyday 
'grown-up' world also has things to tell us, /e.g./, about 
information, that can be looked at more easily.

Best wishes,
Joseph
- Original Message -
*From:* Pedro C. Marijuan 
*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 

Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Robert E. Ulanowicz]

Dear Joseph, Pedro & Otto,

Just my own 2 cents on a topic with which I have little familiarity. I
heartily agree with our dear departed friend Michael Conrad. We are indeed
looking at the underlying physics of the universe, however, I would
maintain (and I think that Joseph and Otto would probably agree), the
physics we see is not entirely subsumed under the conventional scientific
metaphysics. In fact, I wrote a book trying to articulate in systematic
fashion what I think that amended metaphysics looks like.


Greetings to all,
Bob U.

> 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


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

[Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Joseph Brenner]

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 escribió:

  I like this response from Lou,
  Otto




--
  From: Louis H Kauffman 
  To: Pedro C. Marijuan  
  Cc: fis 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story



  Dear Folks, 
  It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning Professor 
Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
  It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or false.
  It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is correctly 
alligned to physical prediction.
  Note also that a reaction such as 
  "THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND SAVING A 
LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”.
  Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in the form 
of taking a given conclusion for granted
   and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an opinion. 


  By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political state of 
the world.


  This 

Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Joseph, Loet, Pedro, Terry e Tutti,
anch'io non sono esperto di mini-buchi neri. Posso semplicemente (?) dire,
per essermene occupato nel contesto della "Nuova economia",
che:
- i buchi neri danno luogo e tempo ad un processo di tras-in-formazione i
cui "input" e "output" sono materia, energia e informazione, sebbene, in
stati diversi;
- Il mio "Il sistema fabbrica-mercato" (1979-2011) non è altro che
un'organizzazione-struttura che funziona come un buco nero o scatola magica;
- in diversi libri ho trattato questa problematica evidenziando, pur non
essendo un fisico (teorico), che S. Hawking  negli anni Settanta formulò
una difettosa o sbagliata concezione-definizione dei buchi neri, tanto da
fare-perdere una famosa scommessa  come lui stesso ha riconosciuto nel 2004;
- la mia teoria del valore (economico) è basata sulla combinazione creativa
di energia e informazione oppure, in modo più completo, sul triangolo dei
tre surplus o neg-entropie;
- non ho la pretesa di esporre-imporre punti di vista esclusivamente
economici implicanti approfondimenti specialistici tipici della scienza
delle valutazioni; etc.
Non sarebbe il caso di affrontare la discussione-confronto su i problemi
che di volta in volta la Fis-rete affronta senza fare uso di eccessive
specializzazioni concettuali e linguistiche, almeno nella prima fase
dell'analisi, onde consentire a tutti coloro che ne hanno titolo e voglia
di partecipare evitando la confusione-disordine che si traduce
inevitabilmente in entropia termodinamica o cibernetico-matematica, ma
esclude proprio la primaria importanza della neg-entropia della vita legata
all'ordine o all'informazione genetica e semantica?
Come bene dice (benedice) spesso Joseph senza un approccio ontologico (ed
io aggiungo un'apposita memoria paradigmatica) adeguato e condiviso da
tutti, non si fa molta strada e soprattutto chi è poverino come me non
apprende molto.
Comunque, grazie anche per le critiche e i suggerimenti che mi verranno.
Un saluto affettuoso.
Francesco Rizzo

2017-01-12 11:03 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner :

> Dear All,
>
> I am sorry but I am still not satisfied with the evolution of this
> discussion to date. I am still looking forward to some explicit comment on
> my initial question of why mini black holes would not evaporate. I note
> that both Alex and Bruno asked the same question, before we have seen
> Gyorgy's comment.
>
> I can confirm from my own small experience as an organic chemist that
> entities can be created in the laboratory that not only do not exist in
> nature but could not be produced by 'Nature' on its own. The reactants,
> reaction vessels, temperatures and pressures to produce certain
> fluorochemicals and fluoropolymers could not be brought together in the
> same place and time without human intervention.
>
> In contrast, I see nothing in the discussion here of mini black holes
> that, first, suggests they could be the consequence of intentionally
> prepared states, with large energies 'brought together' in such a way that,
> second, their development would not follow known paths. I do not claim
> that I could follow the detailed mathematical physics of the demonstration
> of the existence of a "5% probability" that such states would not
> evaporate. But I and probably others of you much better could still follow
> a scientific discourse on the basis of some background and internal
> structure.
>
> For example, the following statement from one of Otto's notes seems to me
> to be a *non sequitur:*
>
> "If black holes are always uncharged, electrons cannot be point-shaped as
> is usually assumed because they would then be black holes and hence
> uncharged. They are bound to have a finite diameter large enough to prevent
> them from becoming black holes and hence be uncharged."
>
> It is no longer valid to say that electrons are dimensionless points;
> experiments now establish a radius of the order of 10 to the -22 meters. If
> they are 'point-shaped' in the sense of being effectively spherically
> symmetrical, their putative fate as black holes seems irrelevant.
>
> Would it still be possible to see some such new statements regarding both
> formation and evolution of mini black holes? The reference article
> (Szilamandee) simply repeats the statements we have seen, albeit in an
> interesting poetic context.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Joseph
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Otto E. Rossler 
> *To:* Gyorgy Darvas  ; fis 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 10:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=
> publication=szilamandee
>
>
> --
> *From:* Otto E. Rossler 
> *To:* Gyorgy Darvas ; fis 
> *Cc:* Louis H Kauffman ; Pedro C. Marijuan <
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:12 PM
> 

[Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear All,

I am sorry but I am still not satisfied with the evolution of this discussion 
to date. I am still looking forward to some explicit comment on my initial 
question of why mini black holes would not evaporate. I note that both Alex and 
Bruno asked the same question, before we have seen Gyorgy's comment.

I can confirm from my own small experience as an organic chemist that entities 
can be created in the laboratory that not only do not exist in nature but could 
not be produced by 'Nature' on its own. The reactants, reaction vessels, 
temperatures and pressures to produce certain fluorochemicals and 
fluoropolymers could not be brought together in the same place and time without 
human intervention.

In contrast, I see nothing in the discussion here of mini black holes that, 
first, suggests they could be the consequence of intentionally prepared states, 
with large energies 'brought together' in such a way that, second, their 
development would not follow known paths. I do not claim that I could follow 
the detailed mathematical physics of the demonstration of the existence of a 
"5% probability" that such states would not evaporate. But I and probably 
others of you much better could still follow a scientific discourse on the 
basis of some background and internal structure.

For example, the following statement from one of Otto's notes seems to me to be 
a non sequitur:

"If black holes are always uncharged, electrons cannot be point-shaped as is 
usually assumed because they would then be black holes and hence uncharged. 
They are bound to have a finite diameter large enough to prevent them from 
becoming black holes and hence be uncharged."

It is no longer valid to say that electrons are dimensionless points; 
experiments now establish a radius of the order of 10 to the -22 meters. If 
they are 'point-shaped' in the sense of being effectively spherically 
symmetrical, their putative fate as black holes seems irrelevant. 

Would it still be possible to see some such new statements regarding both 
formation and evolution of mini black holes? The reference article 
(Szilamandee) simply repeats the statements we have seen, albeit in an 
interesting poetic context.

Thank you.

Joseph

- Original Message - 
From: Otto E. Rossler 
To: Gyorgy Darvas ; fis 
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story


https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication=szilamandee





From: Otto E. Rossler 
To: Gyorgy Darvas ; fis  
Cc: Louis H Kauffman ; Pedro C. Marijuan 

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story



I conform with Geörgyi's tale.





From: Gyorgy Darvas 
To: fis  
Cc: Otto E. Rossler ; Louis H Kauffman ; 
Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story



Dear All,
I follow O. Rössler's concerns for a few years.
As a physicist (who is probably not the best specialist in the black hole 
physics), I do not want to involve in detailed physical explanations and 
mathematical proofs for information specialists, not certainly specialised in 
physics. 

According to me, there is a misunderstanding that makes the story curious.
Stellar black holes are a result of a gravitational collapse. That collapse 
takes place, when the mass of the star exceeds a critical value; it is a result 
of the locally high gravitational field. that gravitational field is stronger 
than the electromagnetic field that (in a very simplified picture) keeps the  
electrons revolve in a distance around the nucleus. 
In the course of that gravitational collapse the electron shells of the atoms 
fall in the nucleus.  The properties of the black holes are defined for them. 
The star becomes very small in size, but has a strong gravitational field, and 
behaves like described in the bh literature.
Cause: high gravity; effect: collapse, emergence of a bh.

One can produce single atom collapse in extreme laboratory circumstances. Why 
not? However, that single (or few) atom collapse will not produce a 
gravitational field exceeding the critical value; since its mass is much less 
than the critical. The reason is that it was "created" not by a self-generated 
gravitational collapse. Therefore, it will not "eat" matter in its environment. 
According to the lack of distance between the nucleus and electron shell(s) 
around it, these "atoms" (sic!) are called mini-black-holes. However, they do 
not behave like the stellar black holes over the critical mass. The name is 
only an analogy, marked by the prefix "mini-".
Cause: not high gravity;