Dear Pedro, Thank you for your intersting comment: throw interesting new light on the several fascinating topics > around > the necessarily \"social\" construction of human knowledge...
In this way we turn back to the concluding topic of our discussion (that might be a starting point of a new discussion) -- about <<reality of information laws>>. In my picture of reality <<information reality>> is not less real than <<material reality>>. You wrote about social construction of human knowledge... In my book <<transformers of information>> are not less objective than electrons or photons. Roughly speaking this imply that <<transformers of information>> with completely different physical realization would generate the same social structure of science, just because the objectivity of information laws. But, as I wrote, this idscussion induces deep philosophic questions... All the best, Andrei > 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 > With Best Regards, Andrei Khrennikov Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc., University of Vaxjo, Sweden _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
