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

[Koichiro Matsuno]

At 11:26 AM 01/22/2016, Bob U wrote:

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

[KM]  This remark is rich in its implication. Quantum particles belonging to
the same species are indistinguishable once an abstraction is adopted. The
wave function of a pair of quarks, that is an abstraction par excellence,
remains unchanged after the interchange of the two particles twice, i.e.,
the replacement of #1 by #2 and #2 by #1, and then, followed by the return
back to the original. The quality of indistinguishability depends upon the
nature of an abstraction adopted by the participating internal observer.
This has been my second for this week. 

   Koichiro



-Original Message-
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Robert E.
Ulanowicz
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
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 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 commu

[Fis] Free Promotional Access to all articles in the 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics

[Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov]

Dear All,

I have some good news for you. Elsevier allowed us to disseminate *the link
to all articles* of the 2015 JPBMB special issue for *free promotional
access* in our social community networks that will be available for 6
months *until July 19th 2016*. Please feel free to distribute this link

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics
and Phenomenological Philosophy


and enjoy your reading!


With my best wishes for 2016!

Yours,

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

Re: [Fis] Communication between quarks – pragmatical point of view

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

Dear FISers

A naïve view of hardrons interaction (Wikipedia animation below) would
convince us that Quarks yes communicate.
Animation:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Nuclear_Force_anim.gif

The merriam-webster definition of Communication is: “an act or instance of
transmitting”, “information transmitted or conveyed”

Therefore, the definition of ‘communication’ depends on definition of
‘information’ that, I agree with Bob Logan, is context dependent.

In my opinion, in a ‘Physics research’ context, Quarks will communicate if
this approach is useful to solve problems. If the language and tools of
theory of communication is useful to solve physics problems, that’s ok,
they communicate.

Remember the concept of ‘Energy’ only was defined when it was useful to
solve thermal machines problems. The same approach was used by Tom Stonier:
“Operationally -just as energy is defined in terms of its capacity to
perform work - so is information defined in terms of its capacity to
organize a system” (STONIER, 1996)

He used the Shannon’s information Theory as starting point to redefine
information to be useful to solve problems.

In the same way, one could define (if it is useful) a ‘new’ type of
communication that can help us understand the concept of ‘force’ as
exchanging particles. However, as Stonier said, “Acceptance of the theory
would require paradigm shifts in a number of interrelated areas”.

Reference:
STONIER, T. [Stonier] Information as a basic property of the universe.PDF.
Biosystems, v. 38, p. 135–140, 1996.




2016-01-22 5:46 GMT-02:00 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