Dear Andrei and colleagues,
Thanks a lot for your re-capping of the session. It is a very thoughtful
perspective on information from the quantum side. My only comments would
relate to your (partial) identification of models, reality, and
mathematics. It sounds too strong to my hears. We have cut science from its
human origins, and then we resort to very curious reification myths. How
does the practice of science relate to our human nature? The tentative new
branch of "neuromathematics" (it has already surfaced in past discussions)
could throw interesting new light on the several fascinating topics around
the necessarily "social" construction of human knowledge...
I join your concerns when you state:
I am trying to sell the idea that the whole quantum enterprise is about
simplification of description of extremely complex physical phenomena.
I developed models in that the quantum probabilistic model appears as a
projection of more complex classical statistical model.
Then I proceed: Wau! In such a case it seems that quantum probability
theory and quantum information could be used everywhere where we could
not provide the complete description of phenomena and we just try to
create a simplified representation in complex Hilbert space.
So one can apply quantum information theory everywhere, from financial
mathematics to genetics.
Months ago, when discussing on biomolecular networks, I argued that rather
than a classical "state" the central info construct of the living cell
should be the "cycle", then implying the advancement of a "phase"
(recapitulating and somehow making continuous the classical biomolecular
views of Start, Gap1, Mitosis, Gap2 as discrete phases of the cell cycle)
maintaining at the same time a continuous adaptation of the inner molecular
population to the environmental demands. These biological sentences may
sound very different from quantum statements, but I do not think so. My
opinion is that the the living cell and other genuine "informational"
entities share a fundamental "adaptability" problem, having to fit with
with limited processing resources to an open ended environment, and then
having to tune their production-degradation engines to cope with both
their own phase in the cycle and their external happenstance. Michael
Conrad produced great stuff on formal quantum-inspired approaches to
ecological adaptability (see Kevin Kirby in this list too). And it could be
done for aspects of nervous systems and economic life too... Unfortunately
a Gordian knot of themes appears: sensibility, robustness, networking,
fitness-value-meaning, adaptability, evolvability (to mention but a few).
The future will tell whether we are able to trascend formal analogies
between realms and achieve a new, more catholic approach to information
--none of the current approaches has achieved a breakthrough yet, so the
need for our exchange of views!
I also think that recent developments in string theory are a good help
--and quite inspiring-- for our problems. See Leonard Suskind, with his
"Landscape" approach (The Cosmic Landscape, 2005). Breaking the continuous
at the Planck scale means also a new hint on "where" we can situate
fundamental laws of nature "physically" --a question not responded yet in
the discussion, for my taste.
Thanking your inspiring comments,
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
