[Fis] R: Re: some notes

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Sungchul, I do not have anything against you, therefore sorry for my 
words, but your propositions gave me the opportunity to demonstrate the 
weirdness of such approaches for science.  
YOU find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly triadic 
process (physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or mental).  YOU 
identify such a triadic process with the Peircean semiosis (or the sign 
process) often represented as the following diagram which is isomorphic with 
the commutative triangle of the category theory.  Thus, to YOU, communication 
is a category.  
I do not agree at all: therefore, could your proposition be kept as science? 
All the scientists agree on the definition (even if operational) of an atom, or 
agree that E=mc^2.  If we are talking of something qualitative, that one agrees 
and another do not, we are not in front of Science.
Sorry, Nothing personal.  

Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Sungchul Ji" 

Data: 17/11/2017 17.12

A: "Pedro C. Marijuan", "fis", 
"Loet Leydesdorff"

Ogg: Re: [Fis] some notes





-->



Hi FISers,





I find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly triadic process 
(physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or mental).  I identify such a 
triadic process with the Peircean semiosis (or the sign
 process) often represented as the following diagram which is isomorphic with 
the
commutative triangle of the category theory.  Thus, to me, communication is a
category:





   fg

A -->  B  ---> C

 |   ^

 |   |

 |__|

  h





Figure 1.  A diagrammatic representation of semiosis, sign process, or 
communication.  The names of the nodes and edges can vary depending on the 
communication system under consideration, which can be chemical reaction 
systems, gene expression mechanisms,
 human communication using symbols, computer systems using electrical signals.  
If applied to the Shannon communication system, A = source, B = signals, C = 
receiver, f = encoding, g = decoding, and h = information transfer/flow.  When 
applied to human symbolic communicatioin,
 A = object, B = sign, C = interpretant, f = sign production, g = 
interpretation, and h = information flow. 





One usefulness of Figure 1 is its ability to distinguish between "interactions" 
(see Steps f and g) and "communication" (see Steps f, g and h); the former is
dyadic and the latter 
triadic.





All the best.





Sung






From: Fis  on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 


Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 8:06 AM

To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis

Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes
 

Dear Pedro and colleagues, 





2. Eigenvectors of communication. Taking the motif from Loet, and continuing 
with the above, could we say that the life cycle itself establishes the 
eigenvectors of communication? It is intriguing that maintenance, persistence, 
self-propagation are the
 essential motives of communication for whatever life entities (from bacteria 
to ourselves). With the complexity increase there appear new, more 
sophisticated directions, but the basic ones probably remain intact. What could 
be these essential directions of
 communication?

I am not so convinced that there is an a priori relation between life and 
communication. Communication is not alive. Non-living systems (e.g., computers, 
robots) also communicate. Perhaps, it matters for the communication whether
 the communicators are living systems; but this needs to be specified.



Communication studies is not biology. Perhaps, there is a specific biological 
communication as Maturana claims: when molecules are exchanged, one can expect 
life. Can one have life without communication? It seems to me that one
 can have communication without life. Communication would then be the broader 
category and life a special case.



Best,
Loet






 
3. About logics in the pre-science, Joseph is quite right demanding that 
discussion to accompany principles or basic problems. Actually principles, 
rules, theories, etc. are interconnected or should be by a logic (or several 
logics?) in order to give validity
 and coherence to the different combinations of elements. For instance, in the 
biomolecular realm there is a fascinating interplay of activation and 
inhibition among the participating molecular partners (enzymes and proteins) as 
active elements.  I am not aware
 that classical ideas from Jacob (La Logique du vivant) have been sufficiently 
continued; it is 

[Fis] R: Re: I do not understand some strange claims

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Jesse, do not think that scientists are so dumb in philosophy and 
epistemological issue as you might imagine...  To quote the relativist and 
strumentalis accounts, I  read the theories of Feyerabend, Kuhn, Popper, van 
Frassen, Benacerraf, Laudan, Brigdman, the same Quine, but also of Roscellinus, 
Occam, Boethius, Abelard.  Therefore, we scientist are perfectly and deeplt 
aware of such positions and concerns.  
Howewer, in a Peircian way, I can state as follows: if I  am a scientist, and I 
am a True Believer of the theory-laden science that you call naive or received, 
and if, based on my experimental observations, I produce an  antibiotic and I 
save the life of my son who got an infection, therefore, despite all the 
beautiful worlds of the above mentioned  relativists and strumentalists and 
yours, he's me that is right.
I admit that somebody like Raymond Lullus might have been helpful in the 
following developments of computation, or Nicholas de Cusa in the study of 
mathematical infinitum, but I cannot do more for your philosophers.   Tell me 
one prevision of Feyerabend, Kuhn, Popper, van Frassen, Benacerraf, Laudan, 
Brigdman, the same Quine, but also of Roscellinus, Occam, Boethius, Abelard, 
but also of Heidegger, Husserl, that has been useful in order to discover a 
drug, or to develop an useful, true scientific concept (based on mathematical 
observables, of course, because anything else is worth to be pursued by 
science).   The only philosopher who, for pure luck, of course, guessed a lot 
of scientific future developments was the despised Diderot
The relationships between NO-VAX, homeopaty (and such nice pseudoscience)  and 
the relativistic positions are self-evident: if I think that science is 
mistaken, i can say all the bollocks I want, and to say I'm doing science.  
Respectfully,
Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Jesse David Dinneen" <jesse.dinn...@vuw.ac.nz>

Data: 17/11/2017 1.39

A: <fis@listas.unizar.es>

Ogg: Re: [Fis] I do not understand some strange claims



Dear Arturo (and greetings to everybody), Just a few more reasons to be wary of 
dismissing concepts and thinking that science is free of them:

The position you are promoting constitutes a pop view (sometimes called the 
received view or naive view) of science, in which empirical items (e.g., 
measurable things) are taken to be unassailable rather than contingently 
defined and conceived of by science, implicitly or otherwise. To call concepts 
like the previously discussed triad 'useless' ignores the fact that they are 
necessary for meaningful scientific discourse (e.g., you cannot talk about 
observables without having a concept of what they are). Scientific discourse is 
inescapably value- and concept-laden (and full of implicit philosophical 
views), especially so when the terms used are implicitly defined or 
dogmatically defended; if you find these claims dubious, the introductory 
philosophers of science, like Kuhn and Popper, might be of interest to you. 
Further, the theories and observables of past scientific discourse have been 
either abandoned or refined beyond recognition despite relative successes in 
their time (e.g., phlogiston), and so it is reasonable to induce that the 
equivalent items of our time will someday meet similar fates -- thus it is 
risky to put too much faith in their objects being somehow more 
epistemologically sound or reliable than the objects of abstract thinking or 
their study free of concepts, philosophical thinking, etc.Your concern that 
discussion of information theories leads to NO-VAX surprises me; I am curious 
to know what harmful social movements you foresee being caused by, say, the 
Bar-Hillel-Carnap Paradox.Finally, it seems to me that by promoting this view 
of science, you are doing philosophy more than doing science, at least by your 
own view of the latter.Here I'm not trying to lower science, but defend 
concepts -- they are useful and necessary for scientific discourse, and seem to 
me very appropriate for this particular venue.Respectfully,Jesse David 
DinneenSchool of Information Management, Victoria University of Wellington

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:11 AM, tozziart...@libero.it <tozziart...@libero.it> 
wrote:
Dear FISers, 
science talks about observables, i.e., quantifiable parameters. 
Therefore, describing the word "information" in terms of philosophers' 
statements, hypothetical useless triads coming from nowhere, the ridicolous 
Rupert Sheldrake's account, mind communication, qualitative subjective issues 
of the mind, inconclusive phenomelogical accounts with an hint of useless 
husserlian claims, and such kind of amenities is simply: NOT scientific.  It 
could be interesting, if you are a magician or a follower of Ermetes 
Trism

[Fis] I do not understand some strange claims

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers, 
science talks about observables, i.e., quantifiable parameters. 
Therefore, describing the word "information" in terms of philosophers' 
statements, hypothetical useless triads coming from nowhere, the ridicolous 
Rupert Sheldrake's account, mind communication, qualitative subjective issues 
of the mind, inconclusive phenomelogical accounts with an hint of useless 
husserlian claims, and such kind of amenities is simply: NOT scientific.  It 
could be interesting, if you are a magician or a follower of Ermetes 
Trismegistus, but, if you are (or you think to be) a  scientist, this is simply 
not science.   Such claims are dangerous, because they are the kind of claims 
that lead to NO-VAX movements, religious stuff in theoretical physics, 
Heideggerian metapyhsics.  Very interesting, but NOT science.That's all: 
'nuff said.  
Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 

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

[Fis] Adding dimensions

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers, 
it is clear (and it has been demonstrated) that what you cal l"agent" is 
something that... increases the dimensions of the discourse. 
For example, our brain, rather than "extract" information from the environment, 
makes exactly the opposite process, by "diluting" and "increasing" it.Starting 
from sensorial inputs from the 3D (plus time) environmental data, our brain 
processes them in 4D plus time (or even more!) dimensions.  This means that, 
when I see a cat in the street, my mind enriches it with other dimensions 
(emotions: "how nice is that cat!"; higher brain activities: "that  cat is a 
feline"; and so on) 

Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 

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

[Fis] R: Re: A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION

[tozziart...@libero.it]

agement of the 
"information flow". In a next message
 I will make suggestions on how the mapping of biological information may 
conduce to a more general approach that includes the other varieties of 
information (anthropocentric, physical, chemical, cosmological, etc). 
Biological information is the most fundamental
 and radical track to unite the different approaches! 



Best--Pedro



Pedro C. Marijuán, Jorge Navarro,
 Raquel del Moral. 

How prokaryotes ‘encode’ their environment: Systemic tools for organizing the 
information flow.


Biosystems.
 October  2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.002




Abstract

An important issue related to code biology concerns the cell’s informational 
relationships with the environment. As an open self-producing system, a great 
variety of inputs and outputs are necessary for the living cell, not only 
consisting of matter and energy
 but also involving information flows. The analysis here of the simplest cells 
will involve two basic aspects. On the one side, the molecular apparatuses of 
the prokaryotic signaling system, with all its variety of environmental signals 
and component pathways
 (which have been called 1–2-3 Component Systems), including the role of a few 
second messengers which have been pointed out in bacteria too. And in the other 
side, the gene transcription system as depending not only on signaling inputs 
but also on a diversity
 of factors. Amidst the continuum of energy, matter, and information flows, 
there seems to be evidence for signaling codes, mostly established around the 
arrangement of life-cycle stages, in large metabolic changes, or in the 
relationships with conspecifics
 (quorum sensing) and within microbial ecosystems. Additionally, and 
considering the complexity growth of signaling systems from prokaryotes to 
eukaryotes, four avenues or “roots” for the advancement of such complexity 
would come out. A comparative will be
 established in between the signaling strategies and organization of both kinds 
of cellular systems. Finally, a new characterization of “informational 
architectures” will be proposed in order to explain the coding spectrum of both 
prokaryotic and eukaryotic
 signaling systems. Among other evolutionary aspects, cellular strategies for 
the construction of novel functional codes via the intermixing of informational 
architectures could be related to the persistence of retro-elements with 
obvious viral ancestry.

---





El 10/10/2017 a las 11:14, 
tozziart...@libero.it escribió:







Dear FISers, 
a proposal: information might stand for free energy.  



Indeed, we know that, for an engine: 
enthalpy = free energy + entropy x temperature.



At a fixed temperature, 
enthalpy = free energy +entropy 



The information detected (from an environmental object) by an observer is not 
the total possible one (the enthalpy encompassed in the object), but just a 
part, i.e., the part that it is not uncertain for him (the free energy).  
Hence, every observer, depending
 on his peculiar features, detects a different amont of free energy and does 
not detect the uncertain part (the entropy).



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 







Messaggio originale

Da: "Christophe Menant" 
<christophe.men...@hotmail.fr>

Data: 10/10/2017 11.01

A: 
"dea...@berkeley.edu"<dea...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: 
"fis@listas.unizar.es"<fis@listas.unizar.es>

Ogg: [Fis] TR: Data - Reflection - Information













Thanks for these comments Terry.

















We should indeed be careful not to focus too much on language because 'meaning' 
is not limited to human communication. And also because starting at basic life 
level allows to address 'meaning' without the burden of complex performances
 like self-consciousness or free will. (The existing bias on language may come 
from analytic philosophy initially dealing with human performances).


Interestingly, a quite similar comment may apply to continental philosophy 
where the 'aboutness' of a mental state was invented for human consciousness. 
And this is of some importance for us because 'intentionality' is close to 
'meaning'. Happily enough 'bio-intentionality'
 is slowly becoming an acceptable entity (https://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2).


Regarding Peirce,  I'm a bit careful about using the triadic approach in FIS 
because non human life was not a key subject for him and also because the 
Interpreter which creates the meaning of the sign (the Interpretant) does not 
seem that much explicited or detailed.

The divisions you propose look interesting  (intrinsic, referential, 
normative). Would it be possible to read more on that (sorry if I have missed 
some of your posts)? 
Best 


Christophe





De : Fis

<fis-boun...@listas.unizar

[Fis] A PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers,
This text is brief is an effort to provide a viable solution for a double 
concern:

a)   1) the proliferation of models, theories and
interpretations that suggest pseudoscientific explanations (e.g., lacking the
even theoretical possibility of empiric testability) for not-observable
quantities, such as “God”, the “quantum brain”, “phenomenalistic” accounts of 
experience,
“holistic” accounts of “Nirvana-like” psychological states, “observer-based
information”, “string theories”, “quantum loop gravity” theories, and so on.

b)2) the attitude of scientists to generalize their results
beyond their own experimental observations. 
For example, it is easy to read, in the CONCLUSIONS of good papers, claims
such as: “we demonstrated that some Primates acquired the vision of the red;
this occurred because this novel ability gave them the evolutionary benefit to
detect red soft fruits in the green bushes’ background”. 

 

In order to avoid the inconsistencies that undermine the (otherwise good)
legitimacy of scientific claims and to make them as accurate as possible, here
we provide a few suggestions concerning the very structure of scientific
propositions.Our formulation of the required language for scientific 
propositions wants
to be as simple as possible and, at the same time, to encompass syntactic,
semantic and pragmatic concerns.  We take
into account the claims of several Authors and sources who tackled the
difficult issue to cope with the structure of scientific language: Galileo,
Mach, Frege, Brower, Carnap, Popper, Quine, Godel, Zermelo and Fraenkel,
Brigdman, Feyerabend, Kellogg and Bourland, Kripke, Gadamer, McGinn, Badiou.

 

We suggest, so as to describe facts and observables of our physical and
social environment, to make use of phrases written or spoken according to the
following rules (provided in sparse order):

 

1)1)   Never use the verb “to be”, including all its
conjugations, contractions and archaic forms.  Indeed, the misuse of this verb 
might give
rise to a “deity mode of speech” that allows people “to transform their
opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things”
(Kellogg and Bourland, 1990-91)

2)2)   Clearly define the universe of discourse in which your
proposition is located.

3)3)  Define your concepts not in abstract terms, but in terms
either of observables, or, if observables are not properly definable, in a
language as closest to observable quantities as possible.

4)4)   Do not compare and mix sets and subsets in the same context
(e.g., cat and feline).

5)5)   Do not use the first order logic (based on universals
described in the very premises of the propositions), rather describe just the
relationships between the observables you are coping with.

6)6)   Use (at least qualitative) terms that indicate the
probability of an event.  

7)7)   Describe events or things that are (at least in
principle) testable.  Otherwise, state
clearly that yours is just a speculation. 


8)8)   Do not generalize your descriptions, but take into
account just the specific content of what you are assessing.  

9)9)   Be as vague as possible about cause/effect
relationships. 

1010)  10)   Do not make inferences not supported by your
data.  

11)11)Do not use too formal or specialized languages.

12)  12)Try you hidden your own theory-laden approach and your
personal considerations.   

 


Here we provide a few practical examples.


John is nice.

A lot of people state that John looks pleasant. 

 

E=mc2 


In our Universe, it has been demonstrated that a given experimentally
measured value of energy corresponds to a experimentally measured value of mass
at rest, multiplied for the fixed value of the speed light constant.

The brain is equipped with a functional and anatomical
network consisting of edges and nodes, termed the connectome.

When researchers experimentally assess brain activity and anatomy in
terms of network theory, they find anatomical and functional structures that
fully fit their theoretical framework and that they term the “connectome”. 

 

John is ill, because he took the flu.

John suffers an alteration of his statistically normal biological
parameters, because his Medical Doctor diagnosed, based on clinical and
epidemiological findings, the highly-probable occurrence of an infection due to
the Influenza virus.

 

Scientific studies of the brain must take into account
the first-person, epistemological phenomenalistic standpoint, because the
latter is the only way to gain sure knowledge.

Some scientists and philosophers believe, in touch with the accounts of
the philosophical mainstream of the “phenomenalism”, that the better way to
gain knowledge from neuroscientific experimental procedures is to assess the 
subjective
first-person account, rather than the individual-unrelated experimental
findings detectable by objective operational procedures.

 




REFERENCES

[Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers, I'm sorry for bothering you, but I start not to agree from the 
very first principles.
The only language able to describe and quantify scientific issues is 
mathematics.Without math, you do not have observables, and information is 
observable. Therefore, information IS energy or matter, and can be examined 
through entropies (such as., e.g., the Bekenstein-Hawking one).
And, please, colleagues, do not start to write that information is subjective 
and it depends on the observer's mind. This issue has been already tackled by 
the math of physics: science already predicts that information can be 
"subjective", in the MATHEMATICAL frameworks of both relativity and quantum 
dynamics' Copenhagen interpretation.  Therefore, the subjectivity of 
information is clearly framed in a TOTALLY physical context of matter and 
energy.  
Sorry for my polemic ideas, but, if you continue to define information on the 
basis of qualitative (and not quantitative) science, information becomes 
metaphysics, or sociology, or psychology (i.e., branches with doubtful 
possibility of achieving knowledge, due to their current lack of math). 

Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 

Data: 15/09/2017 14.13

A: "fis"

Ogg: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS




  
  
Dear FIS Colleagues,



As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A
couple of previous comments may be in order. 

First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was
motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset,
"The idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive
theory" (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information
science seems to be very different from other sciences, rather
multifarious in appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from
scale to scale. What could be the specific role of principles
herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms for conceptual
development, these information principles would appear as a sort of
"portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines in
the different organization layers, but at the same time they should
try to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision
of the information world.

And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too
optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a
first glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would
be very interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask
John Collier, Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial
comments / criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies,
Koichiro Matsuno and Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable
voices to put a perspectival end to this info principles discussion
(both attended the Madrid bygone FIS 1994 conference)... 

But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and
the chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his
own, with the only customary limitation of two messages per week.



Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro



10 PRINCIPLES
  OF INFORMATION SCIENCE

1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.

2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns,
  messages, or flows.

3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be 
  processed (either computationally or non-computationally).

4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's
  self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up
  with the accompanying energy flows.

5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles
  underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.

6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential
  communication exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the
  core of its "social nature." 

7. Human information may be systematically converted into
  efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and
  further up by applying rigorous methodologies.

8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are
  partially overcome via the social organization of "knowledge
  ecologies." 



9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous
  actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and
  disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna. 



10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the
  information and knowledge flows that support individual lives,
  with profound consequences for scientific-philosophical practice
  and for 

[Fis] Is information truly important?

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Fisers, a big doubt...
We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D 
horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations.
However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who watches a black 
hole at rest) detects a very large black hole horizon, due to Einstein's 
equations.Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than an 
observer at rest, who sees a smaller horizon...
In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a very 
subjective measure...

Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 

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

[Fis] Does a toy shadow encompass more information than the toy itself?

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Fisers, a novel, provocative issue...
An observed two-dimensional shadow might encompass more information than its 
corresponding three-dimensional object.  By changing the orientation of a 
three-dimensional object or the observer’s position, we detect different 
shadows from diverse perspectives, therefore increasing our available 
information.  Starting from this simple observation and extending it to the 
Einstein’s four-dimensional spacetime and to Bekenstein and Hawking equations, 
it can be shown how, in terms of special and general relativity, information 
content is not a stationary and fixed quantity as currently believed, but 
rather depends on the observer’s standpoint. This has deep implications in 
digital physics, information theory, computer vision, shape theory and 
cosmology.
Read more (and look at the nice Figure!): http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0060


Arturo Tozzi
AA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, 
ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 









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

[Fis] I: Re: WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers, Thanks for your interest!I'm honoured.  
I'm sorry, but I almost finished my magic FIS weekly bullets, therefore I have 
to answer to more than a question in this mail. 
This is my comment to the issues raised by Otto, Francesco, Dave, Gyuri, 
Why there were so many symmetries at the beginning, and why our Universe 
displays symmetry breaks, and therefore a loss of symmetries?We need to start 
from a fully accepted tenet of cosmology: the Universe took place with the big 
bang, an highly energetic state.  The more the energy, the more the 
information, the more the symmetries.  Therefore, at the cosmic start, we 
require a highly symmetrical structure.  What is the known structure equipped 
with the highest number of symmetries? It is the mathematical Monster sporadic 
group,  where 10^54 symmetries occur in about 200.000 dimensions.  
Astonishingly, this pure mathematical structure displays numbers that seem to 
correlate it with a physical counterpart, i.e., some string theories.  
Therefore, it is possible to hypothesize that the Monster (title for the press: 
the manifold of God), loosing some symmetries, gave rise to the big bang.  
But... what is this Monster?  Is it a Spinozian, timeless structure, or is it 
equipped with movements? How is it correlated with spacetime? How much is the 
energy of the Monster? How did the Monster give rise to our Universe?  We 
elucidate the whole stuff (and make testable previsions) in our recently 
published 
http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/7/4/73
I hope to provide further comments in the next days, in particular to Robert 
and Pedro's comments
Ciao a tutti!And thanks again!
Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Gyorgy Darvas" <darv...@iif.hu>

Data: 01/03/2017 13.32

A: <fis@listas.unizar.es>

Ogg: Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!




  
  

David:

The nature of evolution is
  such that symmetries emerge and disappear (change).

Gyuri

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieDarv.htm

http://epistemologia.zoomblog.com/archivo/2007/11/28/symmetry-breaking-in-a-philosophical-c.html


  Darvas, G. (1998) Laws of
symmetry breaking, Symmetry: Culture and Science,
9, 2-4, 119-127 
http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/content-pages/volume-9-numbers-2-4-pages-113-464-1998/
; 

  Darvas, G, (2015)
The unreasonable effectiveness of symmetry in the sciences, Symmetry:
  Culture and Science, 26, 1, 39-82.
http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/content-pages/volume-26-number-1-pages-001-128-2015/
; http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/purchase/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284341950_THE_UNREASONABLE_EFFECTIVENESS_OF_SYMMETRY_IN_THE_SCIENCES






On 2017.02.28. 19:01, Dave Kirkland
  wrote:



  
  Dear Arturo Tozzi and FISers
  Thank you for your very interesting ideas. For
me they raise more questions:
  Why did the number of cosmic symmetries ever start diminishing?
  Could the whole process be eternally cyclical?
  I like your respectful use of capital letters.
  My mind boggles.
  Best rgds
  David
  

  
  
On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:24, tozziart...@libero.it
  wrote:


  
Dear FISers, 
hi!  
A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of
course!): 


  
A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND
EVOLUTION


After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in
thermodynamic entropy is occurring in our Universe
(Ellwanger, 2012).  Because of the relationships between
entropy
and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), the
number of cosmic symmetries, the highest possible at the
very start, is declining
as time passes.  Here the evolution of
living beings comes into play.  Life is a
space-limited increase of energy and complexity, and
therefore of
symmetries.  The evolution proceeds
towards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until
more advanced forms of
life able to artificially increase the symmetries of the
world.  Indeed, the human brains’ cognitive abilities
not just think objects and events more complex than the
physical ones existing
in Nature, but build highly symmetric crafts too.  For
example, human beings can watch a rough
stone, imagine an amygdala and build it from the same
   

[Fis] R: Re: WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Prof. Ulanowicz, 
thanks for you nice words, and for the amazing material you sent me!
There is a 2005, seminal paper that seems to be the "smoking gun" confirming 
your hypothesis that life increases the entropy production.  
But the key, is rather strangely... the time! 

You can find a summary, more details and the proper references here: 
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/products/a-link-between-time-reversal-asymmetry-
and-fainting-of-memories-/

Thanks again for your kind response!

P.S.: I go to read better your fantastic, already historical papers!


Arturo Tozzi
AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 



>Messaggio originale
>Da: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" <u...@umces.edu>
>Data: 24/02/2017 18.48
>A: "tozziart...@libero.it"<tozziart...@libero.it>
>Ogg: Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
>
>Dear Arturo!
>
>Most interesting thesis!
>
>Two paper of mine that touch on this subject:
>
><http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Prodent.pdf>
>
><http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/Harmony.pdf>
>
>All the best,
>Bob
>
>> Dear FISers, hi!  A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of
>> course!):
>> A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION
>> After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in
>> thermodynamic entropy is occurring in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012).
>> Because of the relationships between entropy
>> and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), the
>> number of cosmic symmetries, the highest possible at the very start, is
>> declining
>> as time passes.  Here the evolution of
>> living beings comes into play.  Life is a
>> space-limited increase of energy and complexity, and therefore of
>> symmetries.  The evolution proceeds
>> towards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced forms
>> of
>> life able to artificially increase the symmetries of the world.  Indeed,
>> the human brains’ cognitive abilities
>> not just think objects and events more complex than the physical ones
>> existing
>> in Nature, but build highly symmetric crafts too.  For example, human
>> beings can watch a rough
>> stone, imagine an amygdala and build it from the same stone.  Humankind is
>> able, through its ability to manipulate
>> tools and technology, to produce objects (and ideas, i.e., equations) with
>> complexity
>> levels higher than the objects and systems encompassed in the pre-existing
>> physical world.  Therefore, human beings
>> are naturally built by evolution in order to increase the number of
>> environmental
>> symmetries.  This is in touch with recent
>> claims, suggesting that the brain is equipped with a number of functional
>> and anatomical
>> dimensions higher than the 3D environment (Peters et al., 2017).
>> Intentionality, typical of the living beings
>> and in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able to
>> increase symmetries.  As Dante Alighieri
>> stated (Hell, XXVI, 118-120), “you were not
>> made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge�.
>>
>> In touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881)
>> claims, it looks like evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in
>> environmental
>> complexity, and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017).  Life is
>> produced in our Universe in order to
>> restore the initial lost symmetries.  At
>> the beginning of life, increases in symmetries are just local, e.g., they
>> are
>> related to the environmental niches where the living beings are placed.
>> However, in long timescales, they might be
>> extended to the whole Universe.  For
>> example, Homo sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to build the
>> Large Hadron
>> Collider, where artificial physical processes make an effort to
>> approximate the
>> initial symmetric state of the Universe.
>> Therefore, life is a sort of gauge field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g.,
>> a combination of forces and fields that try to counterbalance and restore,
>> in
>> very long timescales, the original cosmic symmetries, lost after the Big
>> Bang.  Due to physical issues, the “homeostatic� cosmic
>> gauge field must be continuous, e.g., life must stand, proliferate and
>> increase
>> in complexity over very long timescales.
>> This is the reason why every living being has an innate tendency towards
>> self-preservation and proliferation.
>> With the death, continuity is broken. This talks in favor of intellige

[Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers, hi!  A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!): 
A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION
After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in
thermodynamic entropy is occurring in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012).  Because 
of the relationships between entropy
and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), the
number of cosmic symmetries, the highest possible at the very start, is 
declining
as time passes.  Here the evolution of
living beings comes into play.  Life is a
space-limited increase of energy and complexity, and therefore of
symmetries.  The evolution proceeds
towards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced forms of
life able to artificially increase the symmetries of the world.  Indeed, the 
human brains’ cognitive abilities
not just think objects and events more complex than the physical ones existing
in Nature, but build highly symmetric crafts too.  For example, human beings 
can watch a rough
stone, imagine an amygdala and build it from the same stone.  Humankind is 
able, through its ability to manipulate
tools and technology, to produce objects (and ideas, i.e., equations) with 
complexity
levels higher than the objects and systems encompassed in the pre-existing
physical world.  Therefore, human beings
are naturally built by evolution in order to increase the number of 
environmental
symmetries.  This is in touch with recent
claims, suggesting that the brain is equipped with a number of functional and 
anatomical
dimensions higher than the 3D environment (Peters et al., 2017).  
Intentionality, typical of the living beings
and in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able to
increase symmetries.  As Dante Alighieri
stated (Hell, XXVI, 118-120), “you were not
made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge”.  

In touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881)
claims, it looks like evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in 
environmental
complexity, and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017).  Life is 
produced in our Universe in order to
restore the initial lost symmetries.  At
the beginning of life, increases in symmetries are just local, e.g., they are
related to the environmental niches where the living beings are placed.  
However, in long timescales, they might be
extended to the whole Universe.  For
example, Homo sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to build the Large 
Hadron
Collider, where artificial physical processes make an effort to approximate the
initial symmetric state of the Universe. 
Therefore, life is a sort of gauge field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g.,
a combination of forces and fields that try to counterbalance and restore, in
very long timescales, the original cosmic symmetries, lost after the Big Bang.  
Due to physical issues, the “homeostatic” cosmic
gauge field must be continuous, e.g., life must stand, proliferate and increase
in complexity over very long timescales. 
This is the reason why every living being has an innate tendency towards
self-preservation and proliferation. 
With the death, continuity is broken. This talks in favor of intelligent
life scattered everywhere in the Universe: if a few species get extinct, others
might continue to proliferate and evolve in remote planets, in order to pursue
the goal of the final symmetric restoration.   In touch with long timescales’ 
requirements,
it must be kept into account that life has been set up after a long gestation:
a childbearing which encompasses the cosmic birth of fermions, then atoms, then
stars able to produce the more sophisticated matter (metals) required for
molecular life.   

A symmetry-based framework gives rise to two opposite
feelings, by our standpoint of human beings. 
On one side, we achieve the final answer to long-standing questions: “why are 
we here?”, “Why does the evolution act in such a way?”, an answer that reliefs
our most important concerns and gives us a sense;
on the other side, however, this framework does not give us any hope: we are
just micro-systems programmed in order to contribute to restore a partially
“broken” macro-system.  And, in case we
succeed in restoring, through our mathematical abstract thoughts and
craftsmanship, the initial symmetries, we are nevertheless doomed to die:
indeed, the environment equipped with the starting symmetries does not allow
the presence of life.

 

REFERENCES

1)  
Chaisson EJ. 2010. 
Energy Rate Density as a Complexity Metric and Evolutionary Driver.  
Complexity, v 16, p 27, 2011; DOI:
10.1002/cplx.20323.

2)  
Ellwanger U. 
2012.  From the Universe to the
Elementary Particles.  A First
Introduction to Cosmology and the Fundamental Interactions.  Springer-Verlag 
Berlin Heidelberg.  ISBN 978-3-642-24374-5.

3)  
Peters JF, Ramanna S, Tozzi A, Inan E.  2017. 
Frontiers Hum Neurosci. 
BOLD-independent computational entropy assesses functional donut-like
structures in brain fMRI image.  doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2017.00038.  

4)  

[Fis] MATCHING POINTS AND IDENTITY

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers:
Recently introduced versions of the Borsuk-Ulam theorem (BUT) state that
a feature on a n-manifold projects to two features with matching description
onto a n+1 manifold (Peters, 2016; Peters and Tozzi, 2016a, 2016b; Tozzi, 2016;
Tozzi and Peters, 2016a, 2016b). 
Starting from this rather simple “abstract” claim, a fruitful general
framework has been built, able to elucidate disparate “real” physical and
biological phenomena, from quantum entanglement (Peters and Tozzi, 2016c), to
brain activity (Peters et al., 2016, 2017; Tozzi and Peters, 2016a, 2016b,
2017), from gauge theories (Tozzi et al., 2017) to pre- big bang scenarios
(Tozzi and Peters, 2016c).  Summarizing
this novel topological approach, we may state what follows: if you take into
account projections among functional or real dimensions, you achieve a system
of mappings that fit very well with experimental results and are able to assess
countless systems in far-flung scientific branches. 

One of the main concerns of such a topological approach to systems
features is that it talks in rather general terms, leaving apart the peculiar
features of individuals and of single physical and biological processes. 


In order to tackle this issue, here we ask: what does it mean “matching
description”? In a topological framework, matching descriptions are termed
"descriptively near sets", i.e., two (or more) features that lie on
the same manifold, but that have no points in common.  In a semantic matching 
framework, a matching
description encompasses all information about the matching process.  

Then we ask: has matching description anything to do with “identity”?  In the 
“classical” BUT, the matching features
are just points, therefore a point is equal to another, and we might easily
state that the two points are “identical”. On the other hand, in the novel BUT
variants, the matching features stand not just for simple topological points,
but also for for more complicated structures, such as shapes of space (spatial
patterns), of shapes of time (temporal patterns), vectors or tensors,
functions, or signals, thermodynamic parameters, movements, trajectories, or
lexical structures (either syntactic or semantic), or general symmetries.  

Therefore, we ask: are two matching features identical? Do they stand
for the same feature, of for two different features with something in
common?  In order to solve the issue, we
“steal” the Martin Heidegger's noteworthy account of the “principle of identity”
(Heidegger, 1957), one of the three tenets of the classical logic.

 

The principle of identity states that A=A.  The formula expresses, in its usual
description, an equality of A and A.  One
A is equal to another A.  A is therefore
the same of A, because “identical” (from Greek and Latin) means: “the same”.  

  

However, in another possible version, the formula A=A speaks of “equality”.  A 
is A. 
It does not say that A is the same, but that every A is itself the
same.  Or, in other words, each thing
itself is the same for itself with itself. 


 

It can also be stated that matching description “belongs to” an
identity.  In this case, sameness is
interpreted as a “belonging together”.  This
means that two interpretations are feasible: a) matching description is
determined by an identity as a feature of that identity; b) identity is
represented as a feature of matching description.   

In “belonging together”, the world “together” means: to be assigned and
placed into the order of a together, to be established in the unity of a
manifold, to be combined into the unity of a system.  Such assignement and 
placing occur thanks to
connexions and mappings of the one with the other. 

However, “belonging together” can also mean: the together is now
determined by the belonging.  

Therefore, the possibilities here are two: a) representing belonging in
terms of the unit of together; b) experiencing this together in terms of
belonging. 

 

The issue b) leads us into the psychological standpoint of the
observer.  Indeed, “thinking” and
matching description can also be thought as the same, so that thinking and
matching description belong together in the same, and by virtue of the
same.  If we attempt to represent
together of thinking and matching description as a coordination, we can
establish and explain this coordination either in terms of thinking and
matching description.  

If thinking and matching description belong to each other, matching
description belongs with thinking to an identity, whose active essence stems
from that “letting belong together” which we call “mental representation”.  
Identity becomes, in this version, a
functional property of the event of mental representation. 

 

In sum,  identity can be
presupposed as a feature of the matching description, or as a spring that
departs from matching description. In this second account, the principle of
identity becomes a spring into the psychological origin of identity.  We can 
therefore 

[Fis] information & life

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Krassimir, 
After the hot discussion about the elusive meaning of the term "information", 
we are allowed to use the first order predicate logic: 
a) The definition of information is not univocal. b) The definition of life is 
information.c) Therefore, the definition of life is not univocal.

Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 

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

[Fis] Is information a matter of... dimensions and symmetries?

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear FISers, 

In touch with Ludwig Wittgenstein's favourite example, let's play a chess game. 
 Imagine that the chessboard is the
information.  

We have the whites, e.g., Jaynes, Logan, Kauffmann, Marijuan (more or less!), 
Loet, Chu-Hsi (Zhu Xi), Susskind's account of loss of information in black 
holes.  (I also side with the whites, but I did not dare to put my name 
together with the great scientists I quoted!).  

And the blacks, e.g. Brillouin, Collier, Wheeler, Murray Gell-Mann,
Lloyd, Layzer, Muller,  Rizzo, Leydesdorff, Hawkins' account of absence of  
loss of  information in black holes.   They are all first-rank scientists.

Whites do not believe very much in the foremost role of information in our 
world,
blacks do.  

Who wins the game? Nobody wins. 
The two players are too strong and well-grounded to be defeated, and, weirdly, 
both logical and experimental results were not decisive in order to produce the 
winner.   

There is just a possibility to tackle the issue and see who wins: to change the 
rules of the chess game and the shape of the chessboard.  The 2D chessboard 
must become… a
3D chessboard.  Equipped with symmetries.

 

The following text comes from our most important (according to me, of course) 
published (topological) paper.  You can find the whole manuscript (with the
mentioned references and the proper mathematical treatment) here: 

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/products/a-topological-approach-unveils-system-invariancesand-broken-symmetries-in-the-brain/

Symmetry is a type of invariance occurring when a structured object does
not change under a set of transformations (Weyl).  Symmetries hold the key
to understanding many of nature’s intimate secrets, because they are the most
general feature of countless types of systems. Huge swathes of mathematics,
physics and biology, including the brain, can be explained in terms of the
underlying invariance of the structures under investigation.  In physics, 
symmetries can be “broken”.  Symmetry breaking consists of sudden change
in the set of available states: the whole phase space is partitioned into 
non-overlapping
regions (Roldàn, 2014), so that small fluctuations acting on a system cross a
critical point and decide which branch of a bifurcation is taken. In
particular, in spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB), the underlying laws are
invariant under a symmetry transformation, but the system as a whole changes.
SSB is a process which allows a system cast in a symmetrical state to end up in
an asymmetrical one.   SSB describes
systems where the equations of motion or the Lagrangian obey certain
invariances, but the lowest-energy solutions do not exhibit them.  “Hidden” is 
perhaps a better term than
“broken”, because the symmetry is always there in such equations (Higgs). In
case of finite systems with metastable states, the confinement is not strict:
the system can “jump” from a region to another (Roldàn). Concerning the brain,
that is the main issue of our FIS discussion, its activity is an example of an 
open system, partly
stochastic due to intrinsic fluctuations, but containing islands at the edge of
the chaos, which maintains homoeostasis
or allostasis in the face of environmental fluctuations (Friston 2010).   The 
brain
retains the characteristics of a complex, non-linear system with
non-equilibrium dynamics (Fraiman et. al., 2012), equipped with random walks
(Afraimovich et.al., 2013); it operates at the edge of chaos (Tognoli et.al.,
2014;) and lives near a metastable state of second-order phase transition,
between micro- and macro-levels (Beggs
et.al., 2012), characterized by infinite correlation
length, countless dimensions, slight non-ergodicity, attractors (Deco et.al., 
2012) and universal power laws,
testified by the presence of spontaneous neuronal avalanches (De
Arcangelis).  

In such a multifaceted framework, the Borsuk-Ulam theorem is
useful.  This theorem tells us that, if a sphere is mapped continuously into a 
plane set,
there is at least one pair of antipodal points having the same image; that is,
they are mapped in the same point of the plane (Beyer and
Zardecki, 2004).  Bain
symmetries can be studied in a topological fashion, i.e. in terms of antipodal
points on a hypersphere.  If we enclose symmetries, equipped with antipodal 
self-similar points, into the abstract spaces
of n-spheres, they can be evaluated
in guise of projections on Sn-1,
where they stand for the broken symmetry.  This means that brain symmetries, 
hidden at a
lower level, are detectable at a higher level of analysis, and vice versa.  In 
other words, a symmetry break occurs when
the symmetry is present at one level of observation, but “hidden” at another
level.  

It must be emphasized that the symmetries are widespread at every level of
organization and may be regarded as the most general feature of systems, perhaps
more general than free-energy and entropy constraints too.  Indeed, recent data 
suggest that thermodynamic

[Fis] Brenner and Lupasco logic

[tozziart...@libero.it]

l compared to what? 
The bullet that killed John Kennedy is actual when you think that it
reached Kennedy, but is potential if you think that it did not kill Jaqueline… 
Therefore,
your concept of actual and potential requires a subjective observer who states
what is actual and what is potential.  You
may argue that you are talking about Lagrangian and Hamiltonians, but it does
not help, in this case.  Indeed, the
concept of energetic gradient descent, for example in Fokker-Planck equations,
this time, cannot help you, because they do not talk of the EXISTENCE of  
potentiality of actuality, but just of an
energetic path of a random walk towards lesser energetic levels (on the other
side, at which low energetic level can you say that potentiality finish and
actuality is present?).  

 

3. Included Middle: An included or additional third element or T-state (‘T’
for ‘tiers inclus’, included third).

 

This axiom reminds me… the Borsuk-Ulam theorem!  Two antipodal points (call it 
A and non-A)
become a point T, when projected in a different dimension… The only difference
is that, according Lupasco,  A and non-A
become T in a dimension higher, while, according the Borsuk-Ulam theorem, A and
non-A become T in a dimension lower…

 

 
Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Joseph Brenner" <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>

Data: 07/12/2016 15.15

A: "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es>

Cc: <tozziart...@libero.it>

Ogg: Fw: [Fis] Fwd: R: Re:  Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean 
n-space ??? Logic






Dear Folks,
 
Arturo wrote:
 
"therefore logic, in general, cannot be anymore useful in the 
description of our world. I'm sad about that, but that's 
all."  
 
The answer is to change logic from one of 
propositions (Lesniewski-Tarski) or 
mathematics (Zermelo-Fraenkel) to one of the states of real processes (Lupasco; 
Logic in Reality). Why this is not even considered as an option for serious 
discussion is a great mystery to me.
 
Arturo also said:
 
"The concepts of locality and of cause/effect disappear in front of the 
puzzling phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is intractable in terms of 
logic."
 
Here, I fully agree; Logic in Reality also does not apply to quantum 
phenomena. It is limited to description of processes involving thermodynamic 
change in which there is a mutual interaction between elements as 
individuals, including people. I do not claim it allows causal prediction, 
but logical inference. 
 
Arturo:
 
"The same stands for nonlinear chaotic phenomena, widespread in nature, 
from pile sands, to bird flocks and  to brain function. When biforcations 
occur in logistic plots and chaotic behaviours take place, the final systems' 
ouputs are not anymore causally predictable."
 
Here, I agree with Arturo but for a different 
reason. The non-linear phenomena mentioned are too simple. In crowd 
behavior, individual interactions are absent or meaningless - 
information_as_data. Brain behavior of this kind is of lower complexity and 
interest, involving mostly lower level functionalities, although they they may 
accompany higher 
level cognitive functions.  
 
I look forward to point by point refutation 
of or agreement with the above.
 
Best wishes,
 
Joseph
 







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





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

[Fis] R: [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Karl, 

Your noteworthy account is a typical example of a well-built scientific
theory: by putting together different bricks from several influential sources
(Piaget, Gibson, dynamic systems theory), you create a solid, concrete building
that sounds very logic, and also in touch with common sense.  

However… sometimes it takes just a single, novel experimental data, in
order to destroy the pillars of the most perfect logical buildings.  Your 
account is false, because your premises do
not hold. 

You stated that: “The ability to be oriented in space predates the
ability to build abstract concepts. Animals remain at a level of intellectual
capacity that allows them to navigate their surroundings and match place and
quality attributes, that is: animals know how to match what and where. Children
acquire during maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the
perception of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that
represent alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the fingers of
the hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start there.  What 
children and animals have and use before
they learn to abstract into enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no
small complexity. They create an inner map, in which they know their position.
They also know the position of an attractor, be it food, entertaintment or
partner. The toposcopic level of brain functions determines the configuration
of a spatial map and furnishes it with objects, movables and stables, and the
position of the own perspective (the ego).   This archaic, instinctive, 
pre-mathematical
level of thinking must have its rules, otherwise it would not function. These
rules must be simple, self-evident and applicable in all fields of Physics and
Chemistry, where life is possible.  The
rules are detectable, because they root in logic and reason.”

The problem is that… “Bees Can Count to Four, Display Emotions, and
Teach Each Other New Skills” (PLOS Biology 2016).  
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bees-can-count-to-four-display-emotions-and-teach-each-other-new-skills

 

Therefore, pay attention to the truth of logic explanations!

  

 
Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Karl Javorszky" 

Data: 06/12/2016 11.29

A: "fis"

Ogg: [Fis] [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN



Toposcopy
Thank you for the excellent 
discussion on a central issue of epistemology. The assertion that 
topology is a primitive ancestor to mathematics needs to be clarified.

The
 assertion maintains, that animals possess an ability of spatial 
orientation which they use intelligently. This ability is shown also by 
human children, e.g. as they play hide-and-seek. The child hiding 
considers the perspective from which the seeker will be seeing him, and 
hides behind something that obstructs the view from that angle. This 
shows that the child has a well-functioning set of algorithms which 
point out in a mental map his position and the path of the seeker. The 
child has a knowledge of places, in Greek "topos" and "logos", for 
"space" and "study".

As a parallel usage of the established
 word "topology" appears inconvenient, one may speak of "toposcopy" when
 watching the places of things. The child has a toposcopic knowledge of 
the world as it finds home from a discovery around the garden. This 
ability predates its ability to count. 

The ability to be 
oriented in space predates the ability to build abstract concepts. 
Animals remain at a level of intellectual capacity that allows them to 
navigate their surroundings and match place and quality attributes, that
 is: animals know how to match what and where. Children acquire during 
maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the 
perception of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that
 represent alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the 
fingers of the hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start 
there.

What children and animals have and use before they 
learn to abstract into enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no 
small complexity. They create an inner map, in which they know their 
position. They also know the position of an attractor, be it food, 
entertaintment or partner. The toposcopic level of brain functions 
determines the configuration of a spatial map and furnishes it with 
objects, movables and stables, and the position of the own perspective 
(the ego). 

This archaic, instinctive, pre-mathematical level of 
thinking must have its rules, otherwise it would not function. These 
rules must be simple, self-evident and applicable in all fields of 
Physics and Chemistry, where life is possible.  The rules are 
detectable, because they root in logic and reason. The 

[Fis] R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Jerry, thanks a lot for your interesting comments. I like very much the 
logical approach, a topic that is generally dispised by scientists for its 
intrinsic difficulty.  We also published something about logic and brain 
(currently under review), therefore we keep it in high consideration: 
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/11/15/087874
However, there is a severe problem that prevents logic in order to be useful in 
the description of scientific theories, explanans/explanandum, and so on.  The 
severe problem has been raised by three foremost discoveries in the last 
century: quantum entanglement, nonlinear dynamics and quantistic vacuum.  
Quantum entanglement, although experimentally proofed by countless scientific 
procedures,  is against any common sense and any possibliity of logical 
inquiry.  The concepts of locality and of cause/effect disappear in front of 
the puzzling phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is intractable in terms 
of logic, neither using the successful and advanced approaches of Lesniewski- 
Tarski, nor Zermelo-Fraenkel's.   The same stands for nonlinear chaotic 
phenomena, widespread in nature, from pile sands, to bird flocks and  to brain 
function. When biforcations occur in logistic plots and chaotic behaviours take 
place, the final systems' ouputs are not anymore causally predictable.  
Quantistic vacuum predicts particles or fields interactions occurring through 
breaks in CPT symmetries: this means that, illogically,  the arrow of the time 
can be reverted (!) in quantistic systems.   
Therefore (and I'm sorry for that), the explanatory role of logic in scientific 
theories is definitely lost.Here we are talking about brain: pay attention, I'm 
not saying that the brain function obeys to quantum behaviours (I do not agree 
with the accounts by, for example, Roger Penrose or Vitiello/Freeman).  I'm 
just saying that, because basic phenomena underlying our physical and 
biological environment display chaotic behaviours and quantistic mechanisms 
that go against logic, therefore the logic, in general, cannot be anymore 
useful in the description of our world. I'm sad about that, but that's all.  
P.S.: A topological approach talks instead of projections and mappings from one 
level to another, therefore it does not talk about causality or time and 
displays a more general explanatory power.   But this is another topic...
  

Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>

Data: 05/12/2016 0.50

A: "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es>

Cc: <tozziart...@libero.it>

Ogg: Re: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???



FISers:This is just a short note to communicate about two matters of 
substantial importance with respect to foundational issues.Several contributors 
to this list serve have proposed a relationship between phenomena and 
biological structures / processes and mathematics. Perhaps of greatest interest 
have been the informational assertions seeking to relate mind / consciousness / 
brain to either traditional mathematical forms and/or Shannon information 
theory (with barely a mention of either the semiotic or empirical 
necessities).A common scientific flaw inhabits these several proposals. In my 
view, this common flaw is the absence of the relationships between scientific 
causality and mathematical symbols that are necessary to meet the logic of 
Lesniewski / Tarski, that is, a method to valid the proposed methods of 
representations. (Krassimir’s post touched these concerns lightly.)While it is 
possible to cite hundreds (if not thousands) of texts that seek to relate 
scientific phenomenon with causality, one  well-written account  addresses the 
logical relations between scientific laws and the antecedent causes that 
generate consequences of importance for the study of the information sciences.  
see:



Studies in the Logic of Explanation





Carl G. Hempel; Paul Oppenheim 
http://www.sfu.ca/~jillmc/Hempel%20and%20Oppenheim.pdf


 I would like to emphasis that scientific inquiry necessarily 
requires the use of multiple symbol systems and hence intrinsically depends on 
the symbols used to express scientific laws. The second issue is relates to the 
various philosophical perspectives that are related to information theory.The 
web site 
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bois-reymond/present
 the views on numerous philosophers (see list below) AS WELL AS critical 
perspectives from a physical viewpoint.If time permits, I wil

[Fis] I: Response to Karl Javorszky

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Karl, 
Thanks for your wise
comments.  
 
You wrote: "The session so far has raised the
points: meta-communication, subject-matter, order, spaces.
a.) Meta-communication
Gordana’s summary explicates the need to have a system of references
that FIS can use to discuss whatever it wishes to discuss, be it the
equivalence between energy and information or the concept of space in the human
brain. Whatever the personal background, interests or intellectual creations of
the members of FIS, we each have been taught addition, multiplication, division
and the like. We also know how to read a map and remember well where we had put
a thing as we are going to retrieve it. When discussing the intricate,
philosophical points which are common to all formulations of this session, it
may be helpful to use such words and procedures that are well-known to each one
of us, while describing what we do while we use topology".
I agree with you.  I will try to follow this rule.  …however, read my response 
to your fourth
point…  
 
b.)Subject-matter
Topology is managed by much older structures of the central
nervous system than those that manage speech, counting, abstract ideas. Animals
and small children remember their way to food and other attractions. Children
discover and use topology far before they can count. Topology is a primitive
ancestor to mathematics; its ideas and methods are archaic and may appear as
lacking in refinement and intelligence.
This time, of course, I cannot
agree.  Topology is not a primitive
ancestor that stands just for the older 
brain structures, and is not tenable that children discover topology far
before  they can do other activities: nobody
knows that, and the literature is controversial.  Rather, topology is a sort of 
meta-scientific
tool: because its abstractness  and ability
to describe very general features of structures and objects, it allows the 
assessment
of almost all the physical and biological phenomena.  The trick is just to find 
the proper way to
transfer such matematical concepts from an abstract phase space to a real,
experimentally assessable one, the one where biological/physical activities
take place.  
Look at my very brief movie on Youtube (just one minute!): 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxfqraR1bIg
If you change the described 2D circle and the 3D sphere with other structures 
(for example, the 2D flattened cortex and the 3D whole brain), the trick is 
easier to understand.   
Therefore, topology is able
to give novel insights in countless contexts, from pre-Big Bang scenarios, to
quantum entanglement, from biological gauge fields, to semantics, and, of
course, to brain activity.  The standpoint
of topology, e.g., mappings and projections between levels equipped with
different dimensions (either spatial, or temporal, or abstract dimensions), is
a tenet that can be used in the assessment of every scientific activity.  


c.) Order
There is no need to discuss whether Nature is well-ordered or not.
Our brain is surely extremely well ordered, otherwise we had seizures, tics,
disintegrative features. In discussing topology we can make use of the
condition that everything we investigate is extremely well ordered. We may not
be able to understand Nature, but we may get an idea about how our brain
functions, in its capacity as an extremely well ordered system. We can make a
half-step towards modelling artificial intelligence by understanding at first,
how artificial instincts, and their conflicts, can be modelled. Animals
apparently utilise a different layer of reality of the world while building up
their orientation in it to that which humans perceive as important. The path of
understanding how primitive instincts work begins with a half-step of dumbing
down. It is no more interesting, how many they are, now we only look at where
it is relative to how it appears, compared with the others.  
The differences in complexity and
in building up of perceptions in different animals can be easily framed in a
topological context that explains them in terms of different (functional, not
spatial!) dimensions.  The higher the
number of dimensions, the higher the complexity and the stored
information.  Primitive istincts, in a
topological framework, are not very different from higher brain activities: the
only difference lies in the dimension we are evaluating them.  We 
"anthropocentrically" take into account just
the dimensions we prefer: therefore, looking by a given level, we believe that
the others are less interesting.  It is
not true: all the levels display the same content, even if with different 
“quantity”
of information.  We see things from our
standpoint (we can say: from a single topological dimension).  

d.)Spaces
Out of sequences, planes naturally evolve. Whether out of the
planes spaces can be constructed, depends on the kinds of planes and of common
axes. Now the natural numbers come in handy, as we can demonstrate to each
other on natural 

[Fis] R: further analysing: A TOPOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO PERCEPTION

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Krassimir, the main problem with our theory is that it is... too 
young!Indeed, I met James Peters for the first time on August 2015.By then, we 
published quite a lot papers together, but the most of them are still under 
review.Therefore, the (published) general picture is still incomplete.  
Our starting point is the recently published Springer-book by 
Peters:http://www.springer.com/in/book/9783319302607This book illustrates the 
concepts of topological proximity and closeness, that are the mathematical 
fundations of our ideas. The common features you are talking about are the 
"proximities" among parts lying on a manifold.  We transferred such concepts in 
the realm of biology and physics.  Being aware of their abstract mathematical 
nouance, we always tried to make empirically testable previsions.
While Newton said: "hypotesis non fingo" (even if he did exaclty that, to be 
honest...), we cleary state: "hypothesis fingo"!However, the pure theory and 
mathematics, in our framework, is never left in a pure speculative sky: we 
always try to chain our ideas with the ground!  The novel variants of BUT 
have been partially published.  See, for example, the one that I consider our 
best one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23720/abstract
Other variants can be found here: 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04031https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02987
Thanks a lot for your attention!

Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Krassimir Markov" <mar...@foibg.com>

Data: 27/11/2016 23.58

A: <tozziart...@libero.it>, "FIS"<fis@listas.unizar.es>

Ogg: [Fis] further analysing: A TOPOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO  
PERCEPTION

























Dear  Arturo,
 
1. In your letter you 
wrote: BUT does not describe just POINTS with matching description, but 
COUNTLESS other types of matching descriptions! 
I 
have read your paper again. 
I looked for proofs of the NOVEL VARIANTS of BUT you have pointed. 

Sorry, but I could not find any.
Please, be so kind to give me links to publications 
which contain (preferably - mathematical) proofs of these Novel variants 
of BUT. 
 
 
2.  In your letter you pointed the class 
“Single 
descriptions”.  

>From the examples you have given, I conclude that this class 
contains many quite different sub-classes – from “points” up to “signals” and 
“strings”.

I could not find any common features which define 
this class. 
Only what I can imagine is that all subclasses 
maybe are “mental structures”, it it true?
If yes, than is this class is the same as 
“gestalt” (see http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~kbroom/Lectures/gestalt.htm) 
or as “reflection” (see http://marxistphilosophy.org/pavlov.htm)?
 
 
Friendly regards


Krassimir
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

From: tozziart...@libero.it 
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 12:49 AM
To: fis 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Let analyse: A TOPOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO 
PERCEPTION
 

Dear Krassimir,
first of all, thanks for 
reading all the paragraphs of our most difficult paper!
We are grateful to 
you!
Concerning the BUT (AND ITS NOVEL VARIANTS!) let's recapitulate:
Every feature is embedded in a structure. 
The structure displays 
n-dimensions. 
We call this feature: single description. 
Single 
descriptions are points, or lines. 
Single descriptions are perimeters, or 
areas. 
Single descriptions are single points. 
Single descriptions are 
functions, or vectors, or tensors. 
Single descriptions are algorithms, or 
parameters. 
Single descriptions are spatial patterns, or images. 
An 
illumined surface is a single description. 
Single descriptions are groups, 
or range of data. 
Single descriptions are symbols, or signs. 
Single 
descriptions are temporal patterns, or movements. 
Single descriptions are 
particle trajectories, or paths. 
Single descriptions are syntactic, or 
semantic, constructions. 
Single descriptions are thermodynamic parameters, 
or signals. 
A region is single description. 
Single descriptions are 
strings.
Single descriptions project onto a n+1 structure. 
Single 
descriptions stand for two descriptions with matching features on the n+1 

structure.
I call the two above matching features: matching 
description.


What does it mean? This means that the BUT does not describe just 
POINTS with matching description, but COUNTLESS other types of matching 
descriptions! 
Therefore, it also describes a visual and an auditory inputs, 
if they come from the same environmental source (e.g., in the case of 
multisensory integration): this occurs for a MATHEMATICAL concept (not a 
qualitative, nor inaccurate, nor a metaphysical concept) coming from 
computational proximity, which is a branch of algebraic topology.  

--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidsabato, 26 novembre 
2016, 10:12PM +01:00 da 

[Fis] R: Re: Who may prove that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Joseph, thanks a lot for the support!  I appreciate it very much, now that 
I'm under fire!
I agree with you, with a sole difference, when you say "within the same high 
overall energy level".  Indeed, our approach predicts different energetic 
levels in different brain functional dimensions.  A BUT topological approach, 
which states that mappings among every brain
signal and energetic information have the potential to be operationalized in 
fMRI and EEG studies.  We will provide a proof-of
concept example, in order to demonstrate the feasibility of a BUT topological 
approach and its aptitude of providing very accurate testable
previsions.  We have two mental states,
one standing for a symmetry, and another for a broken symmetry. Imagine that
the brain at rest displays a preserved symmetry, while the brain during a
visual task displays a broken symmetry. Our model sharply predicts the energetic
values for both the cases, either in EEG and fMRI series. Indeed, according to 
BUT, a single microarea with
symmetry breaking (e.g., a primary visual area), necessarily
projects to TWO areas with preserved symmetry (e.g., a default mode network's  
area). The single area in lower dimensions and the two areas with matching 
description
need to display the same values of entropy. This allows us to recognize which
zones of the brain are correlated during symmetry breaks, e.g., during the
projective steps from higher to lower level of complexity, and vice versa.
Therefore, our framework is able to
predict the following hypothetical results: if we find, during a visual task,
say, three microareas with an entropy 1.08, we expect to find, during rest, six
or more microareas with entropy=1.08.  In
sum, by knowing just the entropy values for each BOLD-activated or EEG brain 
subarea,
we are allowed to correlate two different brain states, e.g., a
lower-dimensional state with symmetry breaking 
and a higher-dimensional state with preserved symmetries. 

 You can find further details in our manuscript (under review): 
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/products/a-topological-approach-assesses-brain-enthalpy-fre-energy-and-entropy/

Ciao, and thanks again!
Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Joseph Brenner" <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>

Data: 26/11/2016 21.05

A: <tozziart...@libero.it>, "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es>

Ogg: Re: [Fis] Who may prove that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???






Dear FISers,
 
At the risk of attracting the anger of all the 
mathematicians in the group, I will agree with Arturo, contra 
Krassimir. For a non-mathematician like me, a description of complex 
dynamic processes such as consciousness and information can be partly 
mathematical but need not involve proofs and their reduced logic.
 
The question I have is whether the field 
description is itself necessary and sufficient and if incomplete, what is 
missing. Perhaps it is my intuition that consciousness is both continuous and 
discontinuous, and so is its opposite, unconsciousness, which still 
involves high-level nervous functions. In my picture, antipodal points are 
of little relevance compared to the 
non-Euclidean multi-dimensionality of this dynamic opposition, 
moving between identity and diversity, presence 
and absence, clarity and vagueness, symmetry and dissymetry, within the same 
high overall energy level. In any case, perhaps we can agree that everything 
that is moving here is information!
 
Thank you and best wishes,
 
Joseph

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  tozziart...@libero.it 
  To: fis 
  Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 7:06 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Who may prove that 
  consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???
  

  Dear Krassimir, 
Thanks a lot for your 
  question, now the discussion will become hotter!
  First of all, we never stated that consciousness lies either on a 
  n-sphere or on an Euclidean n-space.
Indeed, in our framework, 
  consciousness IS the continuous function. 
Such function stands for a gauge 
  field that restores the brain symmetries, broken by sensations. 
Concerning 
  brain and gauge fields, see my PLOS biology paper: 
  
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002400
  When consciousness lacks, the inter-dimensional projections are 
  broken, and the nervous higher functions temporarily disappear.  
  Concerning the question about which are the manifolds where brain 
  functions lie, it does not matter whether they are spheres, or circles, or 
  concave, or flat structures: we demonstrated that the BUT is valid not just 
  for convex manifolds, but for all the kinds of manifolds.  
See our: 
  
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23720/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=falsedeniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

  Therefore, even 

[Fis] R: Brenner Publication

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Joseph, Hi!I will go through your papers and your logical apprach in the 
very next days.
In the meantime, you can find the full texts of the published manuscripts by 
Peters/Tozzi here: 
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/products/topology-of-the-brain-function-a-summary-of-our-published-and-unpublished-papers/

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/products/topological-investigations-in-physics-an-assembly-of-our-published-and-unpublished-papers/

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