Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments. 
Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I 
wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest 
becomes the most difficult. I will try here.


There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow 
physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input according 
to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and parameters 
that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome may be 
probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.


There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as 
the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary 
conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of 
the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the 
self-production/self-propagation of the entity.


In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made 
meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.


Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from its 
intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything goes... 
and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, stones, cells, 
etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the mechanistic way of thinking.


best regards--Pedro



Koichiro Matsuno escribió:


At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:

In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language 
must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction 
among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.


The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks, 
including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with use 
of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is 
methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the 
things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast, 
the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of 
cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing 
chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something 
referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended. 
Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting in 
the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, so 
far.


   Koichiro

*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry 
LR Chandler

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
*To:* fis 
*Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of 
human communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the immediate 
issue.


 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.

The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication between 
the general community and, say, the music (operatic and ballad) 
communities.


Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining 
terms as “metaphor”in another discipline.


Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly 
known and understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities. 
 In the chemical community, the understanding is at the level of 
intuition because ordinary usage within the discipline requires an 
intuitive understanding of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in 
different disciplines.


(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, 
Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)


The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings 
and definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES.  For example, 
ordinary public language is necessary for expression of meaning of 
mathematical symbolic logic.  But, from the basic mathematical 
language, once it grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of 
symbols and new meanings for relations among mathematical symbols. 
 Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of terms that are 
have different meanings in its technical language.


 The meaning of mathematical terms is developed from an associative 
logic that is foreign to ordinary language.  From these antecedents, 
the consequences are abundantly clear. The communication between the 
meta-languages fail. The mathematicians have added vast symbolic 
logical structures to their symbolic communication with symbols. In 
other words, the ordinary historian and scientist are not able to 
grasp the distinctive meanings of mathematical information.


Physical information is restricted to physical units of measure and 
hence constrained to borrowing mathematical symbols and relating to 
the ordinary language as its meta-language.


The perplexity of chemical information theory is such that it is not 
understandable 

Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

First of all, because this is first my post in this year, please receive my 
best wishes for health and prosperity in the new 2016 year!

Let it be peaceful and constructive!

About quarks and all other entities I would to remember (in accordance with 
Pedro) that :


All entities in the world INTERACT, but only LIVE ONES COMMUNICATE.

Computers do not communicate, they interact via corresponded networks.
But the (result from this) interaction may be assumed (by humans) as 
communication between live creatures (i.e. humans).


Happy New 2016 Year!

Friendly regards
Krassimir





-Original Message- 
From: Pedro C. Marijuan

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 4:06 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments.
Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I
wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest
becomes the most difficult. I will try here.

There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow
physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input according
to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and parameters
that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome may be
probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.

There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as
the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary
conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of
the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the
self-production/self-propagation of the entity.

In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made
meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.

Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from its
intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything goes...
and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, stones, cells,
etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the mechanistic way of thinking.

best regards--Pedro



Koichiro Matsuno escribió:


At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:

In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language must 
go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction among 
forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.


The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks, including 
possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with use of a virtual 
exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is methodologically 
tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the things to be exchanged 
exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast, the real exchange of matter 
underlying the actual instantiation of cohesion, which concerns the 
information phenomenologist facing chemistry and biology in a serious 
manner, is about something referring to something else in the actual and 
is thus open-ended. Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual 
cohesion acting in the empirical world which the physicist has failed in 
coping with, so far.


   Koichiro

*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry LR 
Chandler

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
*To:* fis 
*Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of 
human communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the immediate 
issue.


 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.

The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication between the 
general community and, say, the music (operatic and ballad) communities.


Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining terms as 
“metaphor”in another discipline.


Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly known 
and understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities. In the 
chemical community, the understanding is at the level of intuition because 
ordinary usage within the discipline requires an intuitive understanding 
of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in different disciplines.


(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, 
Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)


The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings and 
definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES.  For example, ordinary 
public language is necessary for expression of meaning of mathematical 
symbolic logic.  But, from the basic mathematical language, once it 
grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of symbols and new meanings 
for relations among mathematical symbols. Consequently, mathematicians 
re-define a long index of terms that are have different 

Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Loet Leydesdorff]

There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as the
input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary conditions
and to the accumulated experiential information content of the entity. The
outcome is adaptive: aiming at the self-production/self-propagation of the
entity.

 

"Real communication" among cells? It depends on how one defines
communication. 

Cells, for example, are not able to apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

But there is, indeed, adaptation based on exchange relations among cells.
This can also be considered as Shannon-type of communication + feedback
loops. 

 

Best,

Loet

 

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Dear Pedro, and the previous discussants,

I refer to my paper presented last year at the Vienna summit:
- quarks continuously exchange gluons;
- gluon exchange takes place between quarks in different "colour" states
(otherwise they were in identical quantum states, what is excluded by 
the Pauli principle);
- they must avoid to get into identical colour state even after the 
gluon exchange;
- for this reason, before (or at least parallel to) gluon exchange, they 
must obtain information on the (colour) state of the partner;
- whatever physical phenomenon mediates this knowledge about the 
partner, this is a kind of *information* exchange.

Isn't it a "real" communication?
I argue: it is.

Best regards, Gyuri



On 2016.01.21. 15:06, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments. 
Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I 
wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest 
becomes the most difficult. I will try here.


There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow 
physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input 
according to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and 
parameters that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome 
may be probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.


There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as 
the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary 
conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of 
the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the 
self-production/self-propagation of the entity.


In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made 
meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.


Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from 
its intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything 
goes... and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, 
stones, cells, etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the 
mechanistic way of thinking.


best regards--Pedro



Koichiro Matsuno escribió:


At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:

In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language 
must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction 
among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.


The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks, 
including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with 
use of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is 
methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the 
things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast, 
the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of 
cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing 
chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something 
referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended. 
Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting 
in the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, 
so far.


   Koichiro

*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry 
LR Chandler

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
*To:* fis 
*Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of 
human communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the 
immediate issue.


 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.

The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication 
between the general community and, say, the music (operatic and 
ballad) communities.


Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining 
terms as “metaphor”in another discipline.


Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly 
known and understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities. 
 In the chemical community, the understanding is at the level of 
intuition because ordinary usage within the discipline requires an 
intuitive understanding of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in 
different disciplines.


(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, 
Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)


The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings 
and definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES. For example, 
ordinary public language is necessary for expression of meaning of 
mathematical symbolic logic.  But, from the basic mathematical 
language, once it grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of 
symbols and new meanings for relations among mathematical symbols. 
 Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of terms that 
are have different meanings 

[Fis] _ Re: _ RE: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Bob Logan]

Dear Colleagues - Using the terms communication and information to talk about 
the interaction of quarks and all non-sentient particles for that matter is 
strictly metaphoric and as a teacher of the poetry of physics how could I 
object. I do not but at the same time I want to invoke my relativity of 
information principle so that we are clear about the terms communication and 
information applied to quarks and other non-sentient particles as opposed to 
the sentient folks who can read this post unlike any quark on the face of the 
universe. In a paper I co-authored with Stuart Kauffman and others including R. 
Este, R. Goebel, D. Hobill and I. Shmulevich entitled  Propagating 
Organization: An Enquiry  we invoked the principle of the relativity of 
information, namely that the word information refers to many different 
phenomena and that its meaning depends on the context in which the word is 
used. 

best wishes - Bob Logan 

PS Here is the abstract:

Abstract

Our aim in this article is to attempt to discuss propagating organization of 
process, a poorly articulated union of matter, energy, work, constraints and 
that vexed concept, “information”, which unite in far from equilibrium living 
physical systems. Our hope is to stimulate discussions by philosophers of 
biology and biologists to further clarify the concepts we discuss here. We 
place our discussion in the broad context of a “general biology”, properties 
that might well be found in life anywhere in the cosmos, freed from the 
specific examples of terrestrial life after 3.8 billion years of evolution. By 
placing the discussion in this wider, if still hypothetical, context, we also 
try to place in context some of the extant discussion of information as 
intimately related to DNA, RNA and protein transcription and translation 
processes. While characteristic of current terrestrial life, there are no 
compelling grounds to suppose the same mechanisms would be involved in any life 
form able to evolve by heritable variation and natural selection. In turn, this 
allows us to discuss at least briefly, the focus of much of the philosophy of 
biology on population genetics, which, of course, assumes DNA, RNA, proteins, 
and other features of terrestrial life. Presumably, evolution by natural 
selection – and perhaps self-organization - could occur on many worlds via 
different causal mechanisms.

Here we seek a non-reductionist explanation for the synthesis, accumulation, 
and propagation of information, work, and constraint, which we hope will 
provide some insight into both the biotic and abiotic universe, in terms of 
both molecular self reproduction and the basic work energy cycle where work is 
the constrained release of energy into a few degrees of freedom. The typical 
requirement for work itself is to construct those very constraints on the 
release of energy that then constitute further work. Information creation, we 
argue, arises in two ways: first information as natural selection assembling 
the very constraints on the release of energy that then constitutes work and 
the propagation of organization. Second, information in a more extended sense 
is “semiotic”, that is about the world or internal state of the organism and 
requires appropriate response. The idea is to combine ideas from biology, 
physics, and computer science, to formulate explanatory hypotheses on how 
information can be captured and rendered in the expected physical 
manifestation, which can then participate in the propagation of the 
organization of process in the expected biological work cycles to create the 
diversity in our observable biosphere.

Our conclusions, to date, of this enquiry suggest a foundation which views 
information as the construction of constraints, which, in their physical 
manifestation, partially underlie the processes of evolution to dynamically 
determine the fitness of organisms within the context of a biotic universe.

The whole article is available at: 
https://www.academia.edu/783503/Propagating_organization_an_enquiry


And here is the section on the relativity of information:

Section 4. The Relativity of Information

 

In Sections 2 we have argued that the Shannon conception of information are not 
directly suited to describe the information of autonomous agents that propagate 
their organization. In Section 3 we have defined a new form of information, 
instructional or biotic information as the constraints that direct the flow of 
free energy to do work.

 

The reader may legitimately ask the question “isn’t information just 
information?”, i.e., an invariant like the speed of light. Our response to this 
question is no, and to then clarify what seems arbitrary about the definition 
of information. Instructional or biotic information is a useful definition for 
biotic systems just as Shannon information was useful for telecommunication 
channel engineering, and Kolmogorov (Shiryayev 1993) information was useful for 
the study of 

Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Robert E. Ulanowicz]

Just a few words to follow on Pedro's concerning Howard's question:

>From our perspective all quarks are completely indistinguishable and
homogeneous, so the practical answer to Howard's question is "No, quarks
cannot communicate --period!"

It is possible, however, to imagine that quarks, being in large measure
wave packets, would at any instant be different from one another. One can
imagine multiple wave forms, dynamically changing with time. The
particular phasing between two quarks in the quantum vacuum could take on
any number of possibilities, and which possibility pertains at the time of
encounter would inform what kind of boson might result. Then it becomes
possible to speak of communication between them. It's just that we are
unable to access that level of interaction.

Cheers to all,
Bob U.

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments.
> Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I
> wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest
> becomes the most difficult. I will try here.
>
> There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow
> physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input according
> to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and parameters
> that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome may be
> probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.
>
> There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as
> the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary
> conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of
> the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the
> self-production/self-propagation of the entity.
>
> In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made
> meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.
>
> Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from its
> intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything goes...
> and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, stones, cells,
> etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the mechanistic way of
> thinking.
>
> best regards--Pedro
>
>
>
> Koichiro Matsuno escribió:
>>
>> At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:
>>
>> In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language
>> must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction
>> among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.
>>
>> The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks,
>> including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with use
>> of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is
>> methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the
>> things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast,
>> the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of
>> cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing
>> chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something
>> referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended.
>> Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting in
>> the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, so
>> far.
>>
>>Koichiro
>>
>> *From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry
>> LR Chandler
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
>> *To:* fis 
>> *Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks
>>
>> Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:
>>
>> Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of
>> human communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the immediate
>> issue.
>>
>>  But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.
>>
>> The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just
>> scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication between
>> the general community and, say, the music (operatic and ballad)
>> communities.
>>
>> Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining
>> terms as “metaphor”in another discipline.
>>
>> Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly
>> known and understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities.
>>  In the chemical community, the understanding is at the level of
>> intuition because ordinary usage within the discipline requires an
>> intuitive understanding of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in
>> different disciplines.
>>
>> (For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic,
>> Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta,
>> Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)
>>
>> The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings
>> and definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES.  For example,
>> ordinary public language is necessary for expression of meaning of
>> mathematical symbolic logic.  But, from the basic mathematical
>> language, once it grounded 

[Fis] A Meta(information)- scientific comment

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear FISers,

The most scientific aspect of the recent exchanges is their existence. It is 
obvious that some people feel more comfortable than others in ascribing 
properties to quantum particles that are characteristic of the thermodynamic 
world in which we exist, in particular difference (let us forget, if 
possible, Peirce's 'mind').


At one point, I myself said that quantum particles are, following the 
principles of Logic in Reality, distinguishable AND indistinguishable, the 
former by virtue of a minimum difference in 'location' of two particles in 
space-time, let alone any difference in properties. Today, I am less sure; 
this description, and Bob's, begs the question of whether quarks change in 
'time'; what 'position' means; and whether the term 'dynamic' can properly 
be used with regard to them.


Pedro and others of you will note that we are returning to the questions 
left unresolved in the discussion of Conrad's
'fluctuons', namely, is it proper to refer to changes that occur in levels 
that we cannot access, even with extensions of our senses, and not even 
characterize as temporal or spatial, as information. As noted in the first 
paragraph above, this seems to be turning out to be as much a psychological 
question as a physical one.


Best wishes,

Joseph

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" 

To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks


Just a few words to follow on Pedro's concerning Howard's question:


From our perspective all quarks are completely indistinguishable and

homogeneous, so the practical answer to Howard's question is "No, quarks
cannot communicate --period!"

It is possible, however, to imagine that quarks, being in large measure
wave packets, would at any instant be different from one another. One can
imagine multiple wave forms, dynamically changing with time. The
particular phasing between two quarks in the quantum vacuum could take on
any number of possibilities, and which possibility pertains at the time of
encounter would inform what kind of boson might result. Then it becomes
possible to speak of communication between them. It's just that we are
unable to access that level of interaction.

Cheers to all,
Bob U.


Dear FIS Colleagues,

Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments.
Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I
wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest
becomes the most difficult. I will try here.

There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow
physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input according
to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and parameters
that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome may be
probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.

There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as
the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary
conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of
the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the
self-production/self-propagation of the entity.

In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made
meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.

Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from its
intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything goes...
and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, stones, cells,
etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the mechanistic way of
thinking.

best regards--Pedro



Koichiro Matsuno escribió:


At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:

In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language
must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction
among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.

The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks,
including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with use
of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is
methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the
things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast,
the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of
cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing
chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something
referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended.
Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting in
the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, so
far.

   Koichiro

*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry
LR Chandler
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
*To:* fis 
*Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts