[Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
*THE NATURE OF MICROPHYSICAL INFORMATION:* *REVISITING THE FLUCTUON MODEL* *Kevin G. Kirby *Department of Computer Science Northern Kentucky University (US) *Joseph Brenner* International Center for Transdisciplinary Research Paris (France) 1. OPENING REMARKS (Kevin Kirby) In the standard view, taken for granted so completely it is rarely articulated, the fundamental physics of particles and fields is a mere platform for life. Physics and biology are surely deeply different: the extreme ends of the scales simply don't match up. For example, the notion that somehow the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum physics has some relevance for life seems nonsensical. But is it? In a series of papers published throughout the 1990s, Michael Conrad put together a theory in which life was, as he often put it, an image of the underlying physics of the universe. The mere title of one of the final papers in the series, and the title of the book he wanted to write, Quantum Gravity and Life, seems almost like a non sequitur. And indeed, the theory he put forth was difficult. But the claim I would like to put forward is that there are deep ideas here that -- even if the full details of the theory are not correct or not well-defined-- help us reach a more satisfying theory of information in the natural world. Tragically, Conrad passed away in 2001, and was unable to complete his book. Yet a very thorough description remains of his ideas in a series of sixteen papers from 1989 through 1998. This work centered on what he called fluctuon theory. The main exposition was in a series of papers Fluctuons I,II, III published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals during 1993-1996. For the purposes of this discussion, two briefer papers can be recommended as providing good summaries of his ideas here: * Conrad, M., 1995, Multiscale synergy in biological information processing. Optical Memory and Neural Networks 4(2), 89-98. * Conrad, M., 1998, Quantum gravity and life, BioSystems 46, 29-39. The fluctuon theory asserts that the universe is a kind of giant homeostat, but one in which the ground state is always in flight. The universe slides in and out of consistency. His starting point was the Dirac sea of negative energy particles: his vacuum was a plenum. There was more than one sea. One was of electrons and positrons, where photons are chains of such pairs. The gluons of the strong nuclear force were to be chains in a quark/anti-quark sea. Gravitons were chains that arose from all massive particles in these seas. Viewed this way, these chains of virtual particles, disturbances in the sea --which as a class he called fluctuons -- are responsible for all fundamental forces. He described fluctuons as skipping along the energy surface of the vacuum sea as analogous to a stone skipping along the surface of a pond. This theory is daunting not because it is mathematically complex; in fact, its mathematics mostly resembles elementary perturbation theory. It is daunting because it is so discontinuous with the standard model of particles and fields. For example, even though gluons play a role, there is no use of group theory or symmetry principles. What the fluctuon theory does have, however, is a mechanism for seeing the lifelike in the un-lifelike. Central to the theory is that there are vertical flows, up and down, across microscopic, mesoscopic, and macroscopic levels. In particular microscopic decorrelation and recorrelation processes are amplified up the scale, and this is characteristic of life. These flows in fact are information flows. (Information also plays a role in the fluctuon theory through the notion of anti-entropy.) How does logic connect to this? None of Conrad's work dealt with logic per se. But the fluctuon theory allowed Conrad to talk systematically about percolation networks, and the nested, hierarchical, compartmental structure of interactions is one way a logical approach could take hold here. To what extent can we see this as ontological levels of reality? In fact, could the dynamic oppositions discussed by Joseph Brenner in his LiR theory be aligned with the decorrelation/recorrelation concept in the fluctuon theory as it reaches across scales? Overall, within fluctuon theory the interaction between the manifest organism and its unmanifest vacuum sea image abets the evolution, persistence, and maintenance of this unique complexity [of life]. This is a fascinating and rich notion. What can we unfold from this notion now in 2010? 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR LOGICS IN REALITY (Joseph Brenner) In a Wheeler model of the universe, information as an abstract entity (bit) is ontologically prior to any material-energetic entity (it). If, however, energy or its effective quantum field or string equivalent is primitive, as I believe, interpretations of information in terms of energy become much more plausible. The
[Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
(The previous message was truncated, sorry. I am sending it again. ---P.) *THE NATURE OF MICROPHYSICAL INFORMATION:* *REVISITING THE FLUCTUON MODEL* *Kevin G. Kirby *Department of Computer Science Northern Kentucky University (US) *Joseph Brenner* International Center for Transdisciplinary Research Paris (France) 1. OPENING REMARKS (Kevin Kirby) In the standard view, taken for granted so completely it is rarely articulated, the fundamental physics of particles and fields is a mere platform for life. Physics and biology are surely deeply different: the extreme ends of the scales simply don't match up. For example, the notion that somehow the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum physics has some relevance for life seems nonsensical. But is it? In a series of papers published throughout the 1990s, Michael Conrad put together a theory in which life was, as he often put it, an image of the underlying physics of the universe. The mere title of one of the final papers in the series, and the title of the book he wanted to write, Quantum Gravity and Life, seems almost like a non sequitur. And indeed, the theory he put forth was difficult. But the claim I would like to put forward is that there are deep ideas here that -- even if the full details of the theory are not correct or not well-defined-- help us reach a more satisfying theory of information in the natural world. Tragically, Conrad passed away in 2001, and was unable to complete his book. Yet a very thorough description remains of his ideas in a series of sixteen papers from 1989 through 1998. This work centered on what he called fluctuon theory. The main exposition was in a series of papers Fluctuons I,II, III published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals during 1993-1996. For the purposes of this discussion, two briefer papers can be recommended as providing good summaries of his ideas here: * Conrad, M., 1995, Multiscale synergy in biological information processing. Optical Memory and Neural Networks 4(2), 89-98. * Conrad, M., 1998, Quantum gravity and life, BioSystems 46, 29-39. The fluctuon theory asserts that the universe is a kind of giant homeostat, but one in which the ground state is always in flight. The universe slides in and out of consistency. His starting point was the Dirac sea of negative energy particles: his vacuum was a plenum. There was more than one sea. One was of electrons and positrons, where photons are chains of such pairs. The gluons of the strong nuclear force were to be chains in a quark/anti-quark sea. Gravitons were chains that arose from all massive particles in these seas. Viewed this way, these chains of virtual particles, disturbances in the sea --which as a class he called fluctuons -- are responsible for all fundamental forces. He described fluctuons as skipping along the energy surface of the vacuum sea as analogous to a stone skipping along the surface of a pond. This theory is daunting not because it is mathematically complex; in fact, its mathematics mostly resembles elementary perturbation theory. It is daunting because it is so discontinuous with the standard model of particles and fields. For example, even though gluons play a role, there is no use of group theory or symmetry principles. What the fluctuon theory does have, however, is a mechanism for seeing the lifelike in the un-lifelike. Central to the theory is that there are vertical flows, up and down, across microscopic, mesoscopic, and macroscopic levels. In particular microscopic decorrelation and recorrelation processes are amplified up the scale, and this is characteristic of life. These flows in fact are information flows. (Information also plays a role in the fluctuon theory through the notion of anti-entropy.) How does logic connect to this? None of Conrad's work dealt with logic per se. But the fluctuon theory allowed Conrad to talk systematically about percolation networks, and the nested, hierarchical, compartmental structure of interactions is one way a logical approach could take hold here. To what extent can we see this as ontological levels of reality? In fact, could the dynamic oppositions discussed by Joseph Brenner in his LiR theory be aligned with the decorrelation/recorrelation concept in the fluctuon theory as it reaches across scales? Overall, within fluctuon theory the interaction between the manifest organism and its unmanifest vacuum sea image abets the evolution, persistence, and maintenance of this unique complexity [of life]. This is a fascinating and rich notion. What can we unfold from this notion now in 2010? 2. IMPLICATIONS FOR LOGICS IN REALITY (Joseph Brenner) In a Wheeler model of the universe, information as an abstract entity (bit) is ontologically prior to any material-energetic entity (it). If, however, energy or its effective quantum field or string equivalent is primitive, as I believe, interpretations
Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
Folks -- Comments upon Kirby’s Brenner’s ‘Opening Remarks’ (1) I used Conrad’s early information-based work in developing my conception of the scale/compositional hierarchy as applied to material systems. As a materialist, I may have ‘mis-read’ his work. I think this now, upon glimpsing this ‘fluctuon theory’, which is clearly not a materialist construct. Rather, it seems to lie in the realm of mathematical idealism. Admittedly, materialism may turn out to have been a ‘wrong turn’ in our attempts to understand the universe. Information itself may not be a materialist proposition! My own thinking is really ‘bit’ from ‘it’! Then, fluctuons may really be ‘its’, and not ‘bits’! Surely ‘bits’ emerged into the world with information theory, crisp as that is. I argue that any development must go from vaguer to more definite, as with any embryo. Bits ain’t vague. Or, tell me HOW they are vague. Fluctuons as limned here seem pretty vague to me – perhaps because language cannot reach their mathematical crispness! We do not yet have a fuzzy version of cosmology, I suppose. “Vertical flows” directly “up and down” the scale hierarchy contradicts one of the principles of that hierarchy in application, which requires transduction of information in order to cross scales (example: a higher level constructs statistical representations of lower level dynamics). That, of course would be in the ‘manifest, material world’. And it is precisely ‘information flows’ that would be interdicted at scale changes. “Percolation networks” to foster a “logical approach” to information flows across hierarchically organized compartments may seem OK in math. “Interaction” between manifest organisms and the “unmanifest vacuum” is tantalizing, but… in information theory? “Fascinating and rich”, yes. That these unmanifest communications are “not susceptible to being washed out by thermal fluctuations”, I suppose follows from the definition of ‘unmanifest’, but organisms seem to be manifest. What are we reaching for here? Transcendence of material limitations as the world goes sour on us? STAN Let me add that in my evening musings, I do entertain thoughts that might well be more crisply informed by fluctuon theory! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: (The previous message was truncated, sorry. I am sending it again. ---P.) *THE NATURE OF MICROPHYSICAL INFORMATION:* *REVISITING THE FLUCTUON MODEL* *Kevin G. Kirby *Department of Computer Science Northern Kentucky University (US) *Joseph Brenner* International Center for Transdisciplinary Research Paris (France) 1. OPENING REMARKS (Kevin Kirby) In the standard view, taken for granted so completely it is rarely articulated, the fundamental physics of particles and fields is a mere platform for life. Physics and biology are surely deeply different: the extreme ends of the scales simply don't match up. For example, the notion that somehow the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum physics has some relevance for life seems nonsensical. But is it? In a series of papers published throughout the 1990s, Michael Conrad put together a theory in which life was, as he often put it, an image of the underlying physics of the universe. The mere title of one of the final papers in the series, and the title of the book he wanted to write, Quantum Gravity and Life, seems almost like a non sequitur. And indeed, the theory he put forth was difficult. But the claim I would like to put forward is that there are deep ideas here that -- even if the full details of the theory are not correct or not well-defined-- help us reach a more satisfying theory of information in the natural world. Tragically, Conrad passed away in 2001, and was unable to complete his book. Yet a very thorough description remains of his ideas in a series of sixteen papers from 1989 through 1998. This work centered on what he called fluctuon theory. The main exposition was in a series of papers Fluctuons I,II, III published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals during 1993-1996. For the purposes of this discussion, two briefer papers can be recommended as providing good summaries of his ideas here: * Conrad, M., 1995, Multiscale synergy in biological information processing. Optical Memory and Neural Networks 4(2), 89-98. * Conrad, M., 1998, Quantum gravity and life, BioSystems 46, 29-39. The fluctuon theory asserts that the universe is a kind of giant homeostat, but one in which the ground state is always in flight. The universe slides in and out of consistency. His starting point was the Dirac sea of negative energy particles: his vacuum was a plenum. There was more than one sea. One was of electrons and positrons, where photons are chains of such pairs. The gluons of the strong nuclear force were to be chains in a quark/anti-quark sea. Gravitons were chains that arose from all massive
