Dear Joseph, The Borsuk-Ulam theorem looks like a translucent glass sphere between a light source and our eyes: we watch two lights on the sphere surface instead of one. But the two lights are not just images, they are also real with observable properties, such as intensity and diameter. Until the sphere lies between your eyes and the light source, the lights you can see are two (and it is valid also for every objective observer), it's not just a trick of your imagination or a Kantian a priori. Therefore, the link between topology and energy/information is very strong. If we just think the facts and the events of the world in terms of projections, we are able to quantitatively elucidate puzzling and counterintuitive phenomena, such as, for example, quantum entanglement https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-016-2998-7 Therefore, the 'eternal' discussion of whether geometry or energy (call it dynamics, informational entropy, or whatsoever) is more fundamental in the universe, does not stand anymore: both geometry and energy describe the same phenomena, although with different languages. In physical terms, we could say that geometry and energy are 'dual' theories, e.g., they are interchangeable in the description of real facts and events.
-- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android venerdì, 25 novembre 2016, 00:28PM +01:00 da Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch : >Dear All, > >Pedro should be thanked already for this new Session, even as we welcome Andrew and Alexander. The depth of your work facilitates rigorous discussion of serious philosophical as well as scientific issues. > >In Pedro's note of 2016.11.24 there is the following: > >" Somehow, the projection of brain "metastable dynamics" (Fingelkurts) to higher dimensionalities could provide new integrative possibilities for information processing. And that marriage between topology and dynamics would also pave the way to new evolutionary discussions on the emergence of the "imagined present" of our minds." > >What Pedro calls here "the marriage between topology and dynamics" reminds one of the 'eternal' discussion of whether geometry or energy (dynamics) is more fundamental in the universe. I just suggest that there are alternative terms to focus on and describe the interaction between topology and dynamics that are more - dynamic, and make an emergence a more logical consequence of that interaction. > >Best wishes, > >Joseph >_______________________________________________ >Fis mailing list >Fis@listas.unizar.es >http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
