Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?
be the following statement by Terry: Only the linkage between them (JEB: the molecular phenomena of the model) that constitutes autogenesis lacks a known empirical exemplar. It is an empirical question whether this can occur, and what conditions and types of molecules this would require. I see no physico-chemical reason to doubt this possibility. According to my view of real molecules as instantiating both actual and potential properties, the linkage between them does also. If this picture is correct, we have a correct way of looking at the phenomena themselves. We can then accept the value of the model, which does not violate the principle but ignores it, but not forget this additional principle when returning to reality. My view is, admittedly, dependent on acceptance of the reality of quantum entities and their most complex (non-Boolean) properties as the foundation of the dualisms at higher levels of reality. However, I believe I am not alone here. I therefore look forward to further discussions of Terry's approach to information in which the additional physics and its dynamic logic might be explicitly taken into account. Many thanks again, Joseph Message d'origine De : dea...@berkeley.edu Date : 31/01/2015 - 00:10 (PST) À : joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture? Hi Joseph, Indeed there is much more to discuss than I could include in this already too long discussion paper. The related absence issues are of course critical to my thinking. I value your continued feedback on these issues as well. I think you do a quite adequate job of restating the autogenesis hypothesis in your first paragraph. I also agree with your comment about the model of autogenesis being incomplete because it does not specify the necessary stereochemical properties of the interacting molecules, or for that matter the energy flux that is required to drive reciprocal catalysis, the shapes and charges of molecules that tend to self assemble into containers (like viral capsids), the rate-coupling required for reciprocal catalysis and self-assembly to be reciprocally supportive, and the entropy production of the whole process, etc., etc. Yes, much simulation and lab work lies ahead. I actually don't see a problem there, however, nor do I think this results in circularity. Nothing at the molecular level smuggles in properties that define information in the model. All that matters for my purpose is that I am not postulating any unrealistic atomic and molecular properties. When Ludwig Boltzmann used an idealized thought experiment for formulate his atomistic account of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with particles that didn't even interact, it was sufficient to model the general logic of entropy increase. No real atoms, no real physics, just the logic of time and random change in position. The model captured what was minimally necessary and no more. Yes, Gibbs and others fine-tuned the account, adding the role of free-energy and many dimensions of interactions, but Boltzmann's thought experiment laid the foundation. So I don't consider the abstraction involved in the autogenesis model to be an intrinsic fatal flaw. The question is whether or not it is too simple, or whether it violates some basic physico-chemical principles. I can't see how you can doubt that it is a realistic model, since both component processes are well-studied molecular phenomena with innumerable exemplars available. Only the linkage between them that constitutes autogenesis lacks a known empirical exemplar. It is an empirical question whether this can occur, and what conditions and types of molecules this would require. I see no physico-chemical reason to doubt this possibility. Your question about qualitative signification and my concept of work saving seemed to lead inexplicably into a comment about human and social history. Lost me there. But you also seemed to suggest that the autogenic model provided no fixed ground for making a qualitative assessment (significance). I believe that it does. In the autogenic model this depends on there being a fixed amount of chemical work required to reconstitute an autogenic complex from a specific state of disaggregation. This differential can be assigned a finite repeatable value (again not specifying specific molecules). This functionally defined threshold provides the reference value that I argue is required for assessing the significance of information. It is both a qualitative state difference (non-algorithmic in your terms) and yet the product of a quantitative work differential. This assessment is best exemplified by the second autogenic model system; i.e. with the shell that loses integrity with increasing numbers of bound catalytic substrates. The threshold value of its transition from intact-inert to disaggregated
[Fis] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture?
Dear All, I would like to thank Terry for his detailed analysis of my comments on his work. I should repeat that I consider his theory as a necessary part of any emerging theory of information and going beyond Shannon. I also commend him for indicating where it is 'incomplete' (sic), subject to differences of opinion as to what may be relevant from other approaches which have not been explicitly discussed in his paper. One interesting place to start might be the following statement by Terry: Only the linkage between them (JEB: the molecular phenomena of the model) that constitutes autogenesis lacks a known empirical exemplar. It is an empirical question whether this can occur, and what conditions and types of molecules this would require. I see no physico-chemical reason to doubt this possibility. According to my view of real molecules as instantiating both actual and potential properties, the linkage between them does also. If this picture is correct, we have a correct way of looking at the phenomena themselves. We can then accept the value of the model, which does not violate the principle but ignores it, but not forget this additional principle when returning to reality. My view is, admittedly, dependent on acceptance of the reality of quantum entities and their most complex (non-Boolean) properties as the foundation of the dualisms at higher levels of reality. However, I believe I am not alone here. I therefore look forward to further discussions of Terry's approach to information in which the additional physics and its dynamic logic might be explicitly taken into account. Many thanks again, Joseph Message d'origine De : dea...@berkeley.edu Date : 31/01/2015 - 00:10 (PST) À : joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Concluding the Lecture? Hi Joseph, Indeed there is much more to discuss than I could include in this already too long discussion paper. The related absence issues are of course critical to my thinking. I value your continued feedback on these issues as well. I think you do a quite adequate job of restating the autogenesis hypothesis in your first paragraph. I also agree with your comment about the model of autogenesis being incomplete because it does not specify the necessary stereochemical properties of the interacting molecules, or for that matter the energy flux that is required to drive reciprocal catalysis, the shapes and charges of molecules that tend to self assemble into containers (like viral capsids), the rate-coupling required for reciprocal catalysis and self-assembly to be reciprocally supportive, and the entropy production of the whole process, etc., etc. Yes, much simulation and lab work lies ahead. I actually don't see a problem there, however, nor do I think this results in circularity. Nothing at the molecular level smuggles in properties that define information in the model. All that matters for my purpose is that I am not postulating any unrealistic atomic and molecular properties. When Ludwig Boltzmann used an idealized thought experiment for formulate his atomistic account of the 2nd law of thermodynamics with particles that didn't even interact, it was sufficient to model the general logic of entropy increase. No real atoms, no real physics, just the logic of time and random change in position. The model captured what was minimally necessary and no more. Yes, Gibbs and others fine-tuned the account, adding the role of free-energy and many dimensions of interactions, but Boltzmann's thought experiment laid the foundation. So I don't consider the abstraction involved in the autogenesis model to be an intrinsic fatal flaw. The question is whether or not it is too simple, or whether it violates some basic physico-chemical principles. I can't see how you can doubt that it is a realistic model, since both component processes are well-studied molecular phenomena with innumerable exemplars available. Only the linkage between them that constitutes autogenesis lacks a known empirical exemplar. It is an empirical question whether this can occur, and what conditions and types of molecules this would require. I see no physico-chemical reason to doubt this possibility. Your question about qualitative signification and my concept of work saving seemed to lead inexplicably into a comment about human and social history. Lost me there. But you also seemed to suggest that the autogenic model provided no fixed ground for making a qualitative assessment (significance). I believe that it does. In the autogenic model this depends on there being a fixed amount of chemical work required to reconstitute an autogenic complex from a specific state of disaggregation. This differential can be assigned a finite repeatable value (again not specifying specific molecules). This functionally defined threshold provides the reference value that I argue is required for assessing the significance of information
