[Fis] Focused EC Funding Calls on Future and Emerging Technologies

[Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov]

Dear Colleagues,

a former colleague and EC research officer asked me to disseminate the
following information for upcoming EC funding calls that might be of
particular interest for you. Please feel free to forward this information
further in your social networks.

Have a nice weekend.

All the best.

Plamen


__ ___ ___

Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov



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

(note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016)




There is an open call on EC FET Proactive with a couple of themes that seem
very relevant for "adventurous communities":


*Being human in a technological world* see
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/being-human-technological-world

*Intra- and inter-cell bio-technologies* see
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/intra-and-inter-cell-bio-technologies

*Bio-electronic medicines and therapies* see*
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/bio-electronic-medicines-and-therapies
*

*Cognitive neuro-technologies* see
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/bio-electronic-medicines-and-therapies



The full topic description is here: *FET Proactive call
.
*


These can be great and thoroughly interdisciplinary projects that will
serve as a future reference to the field ('lighthouse projects', 4 to 10
Million and up to 5 years, not meaning that they require large consortia).
There are just two months to go the deadline (April 12).
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Fw: Information Conservation in black holes

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Folks,

 

I return following absence due to travel to Bruno’s interesting note of 
February 3. I appreciate the opportunity it provides for discussion and 
comparison of two very different approaches as to what is important in the 
Foundations of Information Science. The A sections below are my understandings 
of Bruno and the B’s my position. Direct quotes from Bruno are so indicated.

 

1. A. Whatever ‘was’ present ‘when’ there was something rather than nothing, 
natural numbers = Shannon information could be assigned to ‘it’, and the 
generation of interpretations of that information by putative universal Turing 
machines ‘became’ possible.

 

B. If this can be taken to mean that information and matter-energy are not 
identical but emerged together from some unknown substrate I have no problem.

 

2. A. One can extend the putative operations of the Turing machines to the 
numerical aspects of natural phenomena, which include the machines themselves, 
and further ascribe their inability to operate in certain areas as a putative 
cognition. This is ‘mathematical reality’.

 

B. We may, as an exercise which reminds one of the science-fiction of Stanislas 
Lem, ascribe a degree of self-reference to the operations we are observing.

 

3. A. “None of the internal logics of the universal machine is classical logic. 
It oscillates between intuitionist logic and quantum logic, with some 
intuitionist quantum logic and quantum intuitionist logic.” In all intuitionist 
logics, the Axiom of absolute Non-Contradiction is retained although that of 
the Excluded Middle is weakened. 

 

B. Such non-classical logics are fine for the universal machines as defined, 
but they remain propositional logics. In my non-propositional logic in and of 
non-arithmetical reality, key Axioms are of Conditional Contradiction and the 
Included Middle. No intuitionist logics can be applied to real, contradictorial 
and emergent processes in the thermodynamic world.

 

4. B I accept the correction that computers work according to data, etc. and 
only interpret like algorithms.

 

5. A. A mechanistic view predicts empirical structures for universal machine 
‘experiences’ = operations. “If we are not machines, this provides the tool to 
measure the degree of (local) non-computationalism. In that case I would bet we 
are in a (physical, in the computationalist sense described above) simulation.”

 

B. SINCE we are not machines, I am not sure that local non-computability can be 
measured this way but it is a fair question. However, SINCE we are not 
machines, I do not see the need for calling our existence a simulation!

 

We thus have available two sets of tools, one for reality and one for 
mathematical reality. The key would seem to me to make sure they are used in 
their proper respective informational domains.

 

Best,

 

Joseph

  - Original Message - 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  To: Joseph Brenner 
  Cc: fis 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 11:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Information Conservation in black holes


  Dear Joseph,




  On 30 Jan 2016, at 19:31, Joseph Brenner wrote:


Dear John,

Sorry you have been ill.

I agree fully with your statement: All of these explanations, and even 
stating the problem, require information notions, not just energy as in 
classical physics.

What I object to are statements or implications that information, whether 
in boundaries or not, is ontologically prior to and/or independent of energy. 


  I beg to differ on this. I consider Shannon information as given freely by 
the numeration of natural numbers in base two or higher, or sequence of them.


  The interesting things is not information/number, but the interpretation of 
such information, and this can be defined at first by what the universal 
machines do when given such information/number.






This is how the positions of people like Lloyd and Tegmark come out, giving 
'computation' an agential, anthropomorphically flavored role at the ground of 
the universe.


  Lloyd and Tegmark seem not really aware of the importance of the discovery of 
the universal machine, by Emil Post, Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, and some 
others. That is mainly a discovery in arithmetic, as a very weak segment of 
arithmetic is already Turing universal, and so emulate all Turing universal 
system.


  This is not anthropomorphically flavored, it is Turing-machine, or universal 
number-morphically flavored. A concept definable in elementary arithmetic. That 
concept generalizes both human, bacteria, and the physical computer.


  It is also a theorem of arithmetic, accessible to the universal machine 
themselves, and once they "believe" in enough induction axiom, they get the 
cognitive ability to deduce their own limitation, and to begin to measure the 
gap between provable and true. A gap which entails many modal nuances in the 
ways the machine can refer to itself, and what she can prove and expect, and 
hope 

[Fis] Shouldn't we talk in FIS about LIGO and Gravitational Waves experimental measures and informational consequences?

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

Dear FISers.

Yesterday LIGO ( Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory)
announced, for the first time, the detection of Gravitational Waves
predicted by Einstein 100 years ago.
Wouldn't be Gravitational Waves a good discussion in FIS?
We all know that regular waves can carry information. Can gravitational
waves carry  information? Which kind?
Panelists (I saw some videos) say that "gravitational waves carry
information about astronomical phenomena never before observed by human".
The question is: is it possible to "modulate" some information in
gravitational waves?
I found at Scopus 17 articles containing "information" and "gravitational
waves" in title, so I think that people are working around this...
I think that it is a very important moment in history of science and it is
extremely related with 'information'.

Surely we  have colleagues (specialists) in FIS that can share interesting
thoughts about this theme.
I talked with Pedro about, and he agree we may have a discussion about
after two that are scheduled.
So, this message is not for starting a discussion. It is only to register
this fabulous new way that, we have now, to 'listen' the universe.

Links:
http://www.ligo.org/news/media-advisory.php
https://ligo.caltech.edu/
https://www.advancedligo.mit.edu/
http://www.ligo.org/
https://www.ligo.org/partners.php

Um abraço!
Moisés

-- 
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Rio de Janeiro
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Fw: Information Conservation in black holes

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Joseph,

Thanks you for your comment.

On 12 Feb 2016, at 18:29, Joseph Brenner wrote:


Dear Folks,

I return following absence due to travel to Bruno’s interesting  
note of February 3. I appreciate the opportunity it provides for  
discussion and comparison of two very different approaches as to  
what is important in the Foundations of Information Science. The A  
sections below are my understandings of Bruno and the B’s my  
position. Direct quotes from Bruno are so indicated.


1. A. Whatever ‘was’ present ‘when’ there was something  
rather than nothing, natural numbers = Shannon information could be  
assigned to ‘it’, and the generation of interpretations of that  
information by putative universal Turing machines ‘became’  
possible.


As a logician, I know that I can derive my starting assumption,  
elementary arithmetic(*) RA (Robinson arithmetic) from just logic.


(*) RA is classical predicate logic + the non logical axiom:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x


But to be sure I could take any first-order logical Turing complete  
theory, it happens that the theory above is taught in high school, so  
I use it for the basic ontology and laws.


I will define an observer by someone who believe (or assert) that  
theory, together with the induction axioms (like Peano Arithmetic):


(F(0) & For all x (F(x) -> F(s(x))) -> For all x F(x)

I "interview" in RA the machine/number emulating those believers in RA.

As a mathematician, I simplify things maximally, of course. But the  
fact that we have to proceed like to explain the relation between  
first person subjectivity and stable appearances, did not depend on  
the simplification made to get the constructive part of the reasoning.





B. If this can be taken to mean that information and matter-energy  
are not identical but emerged together from some unknown substrate I  
have no problem.


Yes, except there is no substrate, only the additive+multiplicative  
number structure. It is Turing complete, and that is enough for the  
base ontology. With less than that, we don't have universal machine,  
and their computations.







2. A. One can extend the putative operations of the Turing machines  
to the numerical aspects of natural phenomena, which include the  
machines themselves, and further ascribe their inability to operate  
in certain areas as a putative cognition. This is ‘mathematical  
reality’.


I prefer to not assume natural phenomena, as I have to explain the  
*appearances* of them from a statistics on all computations going from  
a relative state of a universal machine to another one.







B. We may, as an exercise which reminds one of the science-fiction  
of Stanislas Lem, ascribe a degree of self-reference to the  
operations we are observing.


Yes, but in arithmetic, incompleteness introduces to type of nuances:  
the distinction between Reason and Truth, and the distinction between  
belief, knowledge, observability and sensibility. They all are based  
on the same accessible arithmetical relations, but they obey very  
different logic, from intuitionist to quantum, each inheriting the  
splitting between reason-communicable/true-non-communicable. The  
quanta, in that setting are communicable and sharable qualia, somehow.







3. A. “None of the internal logics of the universal machine is  
classical logic. It oscillates between intuitionist logic and  
quantum logic, with some intuitionist quantum logic and quantum  
intuitionist logic.” In all intuitionist logics, the Axiom of  
absolute Non-Contradiction is retained although that of the Excluded  
Middle is weakened.


Indeed, I keep the absolute non-contradiction principle on the base  
propositions (the arithmetical propositions). I derive the weakening  
of the logic of knowledge and matter from the nuances brought by  
incompleteness. No machine introspecting itself can miss them, if she  
believe in the induction axioms.






B. Such non-classical logics are fine for the universal machines as  
defined, but they remain propositional logics.


Well, the extension in first order logic exists, and some have been  
studied. The russian logicians have proved that they are highly  
undecidable.






In my non-propositional logic in and of non-arithmetical reality,


The arithmetical reality seen from inside by the arithmetical creature  
is NOT arithmetical, in fact it is not even analytical, and with  
mechanism not even purely mathematical. The inside is not entirely  
captured by the outside.






key Axioms are of Conditional Contradiction and the Included Middle.  
No intuitionist logics can be applied to real, contradictorial and  
emergent processes in the thermodynamic world.


I am not sure why. Obviously, I study an ideal case, but to derive the  
laws of physics, that is the simplest way. Machines in real time have  
to develop a non monotonic layer of beliefs, and paraconsistent