Re: [Fis] Simple amswer: NOT!

2018-03-13 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 8 March 2018 at 8:10 AM, Plamen L. Simeonov wrote:


What do you think about the other more interesting phenomenon recently: the 
blockchain technology・・・?




Yes, that looks lucrative protocols making our current Internet more secured. 
But it has some side effects. The likely introduction of that technology under 
the guise of crypto-currencies into the interlinked network of financial 
institutions regulated by the central banks such as FRB and ECB may induce an 
unexpected fragility in the system. One symptom could be the runaway explosion 
of outstanding accounts because of the P2P (peer-to-peer) nature set free from 
the control of the regulatory agencies by postponing the clearing of unpaid 
debts indefinitely. This fragility could easily flare up in any dialogic 
transactions or discourses unless each participant is sufficiently 
self-restrained. Of course, there should be no such fragility in the 
single-authored discourse by definition, while bilateral transactions are 
inevitable in our everyday life in any case. 


   Koichiro Matsuno





   Yes, that looks a lucrative technology making our current Internet more 
secured. But it also has some unwelcome side effect. The likely introduction of 
that technology under the guise of crypto-currencies into the interlinked 
network of the central banks such as FRB and ECB may induce an unexpected 
fragility to the system. One symptom could be the runaway explosion of 
outstanding accounts because of the P2P (peer-to-peer) nature set free from the 
control of the regulatory agencies by postponing the clearing of unpaid 
deficits indefinitely. This fragility could flare up quite easily in any 
dialogic transactions or discourses unless each participant is sufficiently 
self-restrained. Of course, there should be no such fragility in the 
single-authored discourse by definition. 

   Koichiro Matsuno





From: Fis [] On Behalf Of Dr. Plamen L. 
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:10 AM
To: Krassimir Markov <>
Cc: FIS <>; Alberto J. Schuhmacher <>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Simple amswer: NOT!


Dea FISes,


with respect to this big data and machine learning cults today, which I 
consider as somewhat useful fragments of a much bigger paradigm but not the 
non-plus-ultra tendency in science, let me ask you a bit different question:


What do you think about the other more interesting phenomenon recently: the 
blockchain technology and the chances for a forum like FIS to use it for 
perpetuating knowledge to change the paradigm of conventional thinking towards 
a global intellectual standard currency? Perhaps this is what deserves your 


All the best.






On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Krassimir Markov < 
<> > wrote:

Dear Alberto,


Let imagine that we are at the naturist beach, i.e. naked.


You will see all what I am and I will se the same for you.


Well, will you know what I think or shall I know the same for you?


Simple answer: NOT!


No Data base may contain any data about my current thoughts and feelings.

Yes, the stupid part of humanity may be controlled by big data centers.

But all times it had been controlled. Nothing new.


The pseudo scientists may analyze data and may create tons of papers.

For such “production” there was and will exist corresponded more and more big 

I had edited more than one thousand papers.

Only several was really very important and with great scientific value !!!


Collection of data is important problem and it will be such for ever.

But the greater problem for humanity is collection of money 


And the last cause the former!

And the last is many times more dangerous than former!


Do not worry of Data-ism!

Be worried of the Money-ism!


I will continue next week because this is my second post  ( Thanks to wisdom of 
Pedro who had limited Writing-letter-ism in our list! ).


Friendly greetings








From:  <> Alberto J. Schuhmacher 

Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 10:23 PM

To:  <> fis 

Subject: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and 
the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?


Dear FIS Colleagues,

I very much appreciate this opportunity to discuss with all of you.

My mentors and science teachers taught me that Science had a method, rules and 
procedures that should be followed and pursued rigorously and with 
perseverance. The scientific research needed to be preceded by one or several 
hypotheses that should be subjected to validation or refutation through 
experiments designed and carried out in a laboratory. The Oxford Dictionaries 

Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?

2018-03-01 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 28 Feb 2018 at 10:34 PM, PedroClemente Marijuan Fernadez wrote:

A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the focus... 
 helas, this means a meta-observer or an observer-in-command.

   Pedro, it is of course one thing to conceive of a hierarchy of observers for 
our own sake, but quite another to figure out what the concrete participants 
such as molecules are doing out there. They are doing what would seem 
appropriate for them to do without minding what we are observing. At issue must 
be how something looking like a chain of command could happen to emerge without 
presuming such a chain in the beginning. Prerequisite to its emergence would be 
the well-being of each participant taken care of locally, as a replenishable 
inevitable. That is an issue of the origins of life. The impending agenda is on 
something general universal as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in 
process. The richness resides within the concreteness down to the bottom. 


   Apropos, the communications among the local participants differ from 
computation despite the seemingly concrete outlook of the latter. Computation 
upon the notion of time as the linear sequence of the now points is not 
available to the local participants because of the lack of the physical means 
for guaranteeing the sharing of the same now-point among themselves.


   Koichiro Matsuno




Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Math, math, math!

2017-11-14 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, wrote: 

I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e., testable
mathematical predictions.

[KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone. There is
no doubt about mathematical reality in the eternal present accessible in the
present tense. Also, our folks interested in historical sciences including
biology and communication at large often refer to something not in the
present via the present tense. In any case, we are historical beings. That
must look quite uneasy to mathematicians. One loophole for making it
tolerable to the mathematicians might be to admit that the mathematical
notion of a trajectory of observable parameters does survive in the finished
record but the future trajectories may remain unfathomable at the present.
Despite that, historical sciences can raise the question of what could be
persistent and durable that may be accessible in the present tense, though
somewhat in a more abstract manner compared to the record of concrete

   Koichiro Matsuno

-Original Message-
From: Fis [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:21 AM
Subject: [Fis] Math, math, math!

Dear FISers,

My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable journals,
for a simple reason: I provide what is required by truly scientific
reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions.  

Sent from Libero Mobile

Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism

2017-11-07 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 6 Nov 2017 at 5:30AM, John Collier wrote:


In fact I would argue that the notion of information as used in physics is 
empirically based just as it is in the cognitive sciences. Our problem is to 
find what underlies both.


   Yes, there have already been serious attempts in this direction, though 
which may not yet have received due attention from the folks interested in the 
issue of information.


   One example is the entropy production fluctuation theorem by Gavin Crooks 
(1999).  The agenda is on the distinction between states and events in 
thermodynamics. An essence is seen in the uniqueness of thermodynamics allowing 
for even the non-state or history-dependent variable such as heat. This 
perspective is powerful enough to precipitate a dependable synthesis out of 
integrating both the state and the process descriptions. 


   When a microscopic system of interest contacts a heat bath, its development 
along an arbitrary trajectory of the state attributes of the system necessarily 
accompanies the associated event of heat flow either to or from the bath. If 
the trajectory is accompanied by the heat flow to the bath over any finite time 
interval, it would be far more likely compared with the reversed trajectory 
absorbing the same amount of heat flow from the bath. This has been a main 
message from Crooks’ fluctuation theorem. One practical implication of the 
theorem is that if the trajectory happens to constitute a loop, the likely loop 
must be the one having the net positive heat flow to the bath. For the reversed 
loop trajectory would have to come to accompany the same amount of heat flow 
from the bath back into the inside of the system, and that would be far less 
likely. Any robust loop trajectory appearing in biochemistry and biology must 
be either clockwise or anti-clockwise, and by no means an undisciplined mix of 
the two.


   A lesson we could learn from this pedagogical example is that thermodynamics 
is a naturalized tool for making macroscopic events out of the state attributes 
on the microscopic level irrespectively of whether or not it may have already 
been called informational. It is quite different from what statistical 
mechanics has accomplished so far. Something called quantum thermodynamics is 
gaining its momentum somewhere these days. 


   Koichiro Matsuno




From: Fis [] On Behalf Of John Collier
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Idealism and Materialism


Loet, I have no disagreement with this. at least in the detailed summary you 
give. In fact I would argue that the notion of information as used in physics 
is empirically based just as it is in the cognitive sciences. Our problem is to 
find what underlies both.

My mention of the Scholastics was to Pierce's version, not the common 
interpretation due to a dep misunderstanding about what they were up to. I 
recommend a serous study of Peirce on te issues of meaning and metaphysics. He 
wa deeply indebted to their work iin logic.

Of course there may be no common ground, but the our project is hopeless. Other 
things you have said on this group lead me to think it is not a dead end of 
confused notions. In that case we are wasting our time.



Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] The two very important operations of Infos

2017-10-27 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 27 Oct 2017 at 3:09 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:


the cogitatum which transcends us is intersubjectivity. It is not physical. The 
physical is res extensa, whereas this remains res cogitans.


   Loet, let me hope this will not merely be a quibble about the terms. We may 
say that the physical is for res extensa in classical physics. However, we are 
not sure whether the same would apply to quantum physics supporting the 
infrastructure of our material world. Some philosophers sympathetic to quantum 
physics are in favor of contrasting res potentia a la Werner Heisenberg with 
res extensa. Once we are determined to face res potentia, that is for those 
individuals as the concrete vehicles carrying uncountable counter-factual 
conditionals. Thus, the inter-individual relationship mediated by emitting and 
absorbing the quantum particles, whether big or small, is in charge of 
revealing the factual conditionals through the measurement internal to the 
participating individuals. One advantage of focusing on internal measurement 
may be the likelihood for approaching persistence or duration as the quality 
directly retrievable from the underlying individual events. The additional 
ontological commitment required here is kept to a bare minimum such as allowing 
for res potentia for the individuals.  


Koichiro Matsuno




From: Fis [] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:09 AM
To: Terrence W. DEACON <>; Foundation of Information Science 
Subject: Re: [Fis] The two very important operations of Infos


Dear Terry and colleagues, 


(...) , there cannot be interminable regress of this displacement to establish 
these norms. At some point normativity requires ontological grounding where the 
grounded normative relation is the preservation of the systemic physical 
properties that produce the norm-preserving dynamic. 

I have problems with the words "ontological" and "physical" here, whereas I 
agree with the need of grounding the normative. Among human beings, this 
grounding of subjective normativity can be found in intersubjectivity. Whereas 
the subjective remains cogitans (in doubt), the intersubjective can be 
considered as cogitatum (the thing about which one remains in doubt). 


For Descartes this cogitatum is the Other of the Cogito. The Cogito knows 
itself to be incomplete, and to be distinguished from what transcends it, the 
Transcendental or, in Descartes' terminology, God. (This is the ontological 
proof of God's presence. Kant showed that this proof does not hold: God cannot 
be proven to exist.) Husserl (1929) steps in on this point in the Cartesian 
Meditations: the cogitatum which transcends us is intersubjectivity. It is not 
physical. The physical is res extensa, whereas this remains res cogitans. It 
cannot be retrieved, but one has reflexive access to it.


Interestingly, this philosophy provides Luhmann's point of departure. The 
intersubjective can be operationalized as (interhuman) communication. The codes 
in the communication can relatively be stabilized. One can use the metaphor of 
eigenvectors of a communication matrix. They remain our constructs, but they 
guide the communication. (Luhmann uses "eigenvalues", but that is a 
misunderstanding.) Using Parsons' idea of symbolic generalization of the codes 
of communication, one can continue this metaphor and consider other than the 
first eigenvector as "functional differentiations" which enable the 
communication to process more complexity. The model is derived from the Trias 
Politica: problems can be solved in one of the branches or the other. The 
normativity of the judiciary is different from the normativity of the 
legislative branch, but they both ground the normativity that guides us.


The sciences are then a way of communication; namely, scholarly communication 
about rationalized expectations. Scholarly communication is different from, for 
example, political communication. An agent ("consciousness" in Luhmann's 
terminology) recombines reflexively and has to integrate because of one's 
contingency. The transcendental grounding is in the communication; it remains 
uncertain. Fortunately, because this implies that it can be reconstructed (by 
us albeit not as individuals). 


A non-human does not know oneself to be contingent. Lots of things follow from 
this; for example, that the non-human does not have access to our 
intersubjectivity as systems of expectations.






Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

 <> ;  
Associate Faculty,  <> SPRU, University of Sussex; 

Guest Professor

Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

2017-10-18 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 19 Oct 2017 at 6:42 AM, Alex Hankey wrote:


the actual subject has to be non-reducible and fundamental to our universe.


   This view is also supported by Conway-Kochen’s free will theorem (2006). If 
(a big IF, surely) we admit that our fellows can freely exercise their free 
will, it must be impossible to imagine that the atoms and molecules lack their 
share of the similar capacity. For our bodies eventually consist of those atoms 
and molecules. 


   Moreover, the exercise of free will on the part of the constituent atoms and 
molecules could come to implement the centripetality of Bob Ulanowicz at long 
last under the guise of chemical affinity unless the case would have to 
forcibly be dismissed.


   This has been my second post this week.


   Koichiro Matsuno




From: Fis [] On Behalf Of Alex Hankey
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 6:42 AM
To: Arthur Wist <>; FIS Webinar <>
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?


David Chalmers's analysis made it clear that if agents exist, then they are as 
fundamental to the universe as electrons or gravitational mass. 


Certain kinds of physiological structure support 'agents' - those emphasized by 
complexity biology. But the actual subject has to be non-reducible and 
fundamental to our universe. 





Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

2017-10-16 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 16 Oct 2017 at 8:35 AM, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero wrote:


Most of information processing devices consist of a design of some sort of 
feedback loop.  I don`t know if we could translate this idea to all the kinds 
of systems we all deal with.


  Right. We know a lot of cycles or loops in our profession including 
autocatalytic cycles of various types, semiotic closure (Howard Pattee), 
circular causality (Gregory Bateson) and closure to efficient cause (Robert 
Rosen) just to name only a few. What concerns us at this point is that when we 
call something a loop without referring directly to the material object 
supporting the loop, the chance of being accused of assuming an 
anthropocentrism would be pretty high. How could we avoid this?


   One lesson we have learned from physics is that if one can associate the 
name tag of anything with the state attribute of a given system at any moment, 
the name-calling of anthropocentrism could be waived.  For instance, something 
called entropy could survive insofar as it is associated with the state 
attribute of the system of interest. Despite that, no state assignment of a 
loop could be likely because the state has been static by itself unless it is 
acted upon by something else. Most of us must be familiar with how clumsy it 
would be to describe the operation of a loop in terms of ad hoc state 


One likelihood of approaching a loop descriptively might be to admit any 
elements of interest on the table at any moment without stipulating the 
congruent state assignment globally. That is to say, the environment to any 
element could differ from that to any other. One advantage of this picture 
might be that the environments of each element could  be agential in their 
internal coordination if we can luckily escape from the entrapment by “anything 
goes”. Whether such an internal coordination could be likely must be totally an 
empirical matter. This issue may be most crucial for the origins of life 
anywhere. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. 


Koichiro Matsuno




From: Fis [] On Behalf Of Jose Javier Blanco 
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 8:35 AM
To: Krassimir Markov <>; Fis, <>
Subject: Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?


Dear Krassimir, dear all,

I have noticed that some descriptions of information make use of 
anthropocentric metaphors and that might be misguiding (for instance, 
subjective and objective information (Sung)). Agent is a concept that retains 
some sort of action-theoretic background but at the same time assumes the 
existence of nonhuman agents. Agency would be then a causal relation wherein 
the agent "causes" some sort of effects. 

I don`t feel confortable with this concept. I prefer the the concept of 
observer. But this one is problematic too, for the same reason: it is supposed 
that a human is there watching, feeling, measuring, etc. 

I think we have to get rid of these humanistic assumptions in order to gain 
insight into the issues we want to explore. 

Definitely I don`t think I have the answer, but following D. Hofstadter, H. von 
Foerster, N. Luhmann and others we could think of a agent/observer as a 
self-referential loop. Most of information processing devices consist of a 
design of some sort of feedback loop.  I don`t know if we could translate this 
idea to all the kinds of systems we all deal with. But it would be worth 
finding out. 

An operative loop enables the differentiation of system and environment. The 
system acquires the capacity to control its own behavior. At some point its 
internal states are so many that it biffucartes and grow complex. Subsystems 
can differentiate by the same mechanism. So, that`s my point: one have to look 
for self-referential loops in order to find the observer/agent. 

An intelligent agent would be some kind of loop (strange loop, maybe). It`s 
just a hypothesis anyway...

Best regards,

Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Heretic

2017-10-07 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 4 Oct 2017 at 6:01 AM, <>  


my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.


   This penetrating statement reminds me of another similar one made by John 
Bell in Against Measurement (1990) as saying “On this list of bad words from 
good books, the worst of all is ‘measurement’. … In fact the word has had such 
a damaging effect on the discussion that I think it should now be banned 
altogether in quantum mechanics.” Then, an intriguing sequel to this 
declamation is that most practical physicists have seemed to be immune to such 
a charge while being committed themselves to the measurement business as usual.


   One sympathetic understanding towards those practical physicists comes from 
the recent development of QM distinguishing between quantum coherence and 
quantum correlation. While quantum coherence is about the superposition of the 
states in a given single system on a definite Hilbert space, quantum 
correlation is about the correlation between different systems. Measurement is 
exclusively for the correlation between the two different systems, in which one 
is called a system to be measured and another one is called a measurement 
apparatus. The deed of measurement is practiced by the apparatus absorbing the 
quantum particles such as photons, electrons, atoms and molecules emitted from 
the system in focus.  


   On the other hand, any theoretical enterprise may be inclined to take the 
stance making whatever closed system contrast with a theoretician external to 
the system. One exaggerated example is the dichotomy of TOE (theory of 
everything) and a committed theoretician sitting outside of the universe (then, 
where?). The externalist stance is the rule of conduct adopted for setting only 
one system, no matter how big or small it may be, against the concerned 
theoretician. No measurement is in need there.


There is no difference between quantum correlation and coherence to the strict 
externalist because only one system is allowed there. In contrast, the 
difference between the two would become a serious matter to the practicing 
physicists paying due attention to the act of measurement. Which stance to take 
out of the two of the externalist’s and the internalist’s would be our choice. 
Information may also follow suit.


   Koichiro Matsuno




From: Fis [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:01 AM
To: fis <>
Subject: [Fis] Heretic


Dear FISers,
After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term 
"information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique 
definition of information.

Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) 
empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".  
For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense.  

Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.  Therefore, 
my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that is so 
vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is 
information, if nobody knows what does it mean.  

Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

Fis mailing list


2017-09-19 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
On 19 Sept 2017 at 1:26 AM Terrence W. DEACON wrote:


the science of information is still at an early stage and could be potentially 
held back by the hubris of certainty.


   Although I do not want to muddy the waters further, the distinction between 
information (to whom; or only to the statistician?) and physical sciences as we 
know them today may be in need of clarifying the nature of space and time 
underlying both the issues. So, suppose a fair coin toss game. If the tossing 
is repeated, the probability of heads or tails up would be just fifty-fifty. 
However, the outcome of each individual tossing-up would be either head or 
tail, and by no means in between like the fifty-fifty. What is more, the coin 
in focus assumes participation of a durable agent for repeating its toss-up.


   The statistician takes for granted the participation of the ordinary space 
and time or the static spacetime exclusive to the block-universe when the 
fifty-fifty probability is addressed. On the other hand, the agent involved in 
tossing the coin up is uncertain about the outcome of the next toss-up while 
the results of the preceding attempts already done remain definite. The future 
toward the capricious agent of tossing it up is open, while the content of the 
past has already been definitively fixed. The spacetime to such a playful agent 
is dynamically variable in distinguishing between the definite past and the 
indefinite future. The nature of the content of time differs between the past 
and the future. Information as an identifier of the distinction between the 
definite past and the indefinite future goes beyond the scope exclusive to the 
standard physics limited to the static block-universe, in the latter of which 
both the past and the future are definitively determinate at the present in a 
static manner. Nonetheless, there seems to be some hope in quantum mechanics in 
circumventing the present stalemate inflicting a heavy body blow on the stymied 
block-universe physics.   


   If both the occurrence of a pure quantum state and its measurement could 
happen to be likely in a natural or experimental setting, such a pure state may 
obtain its duration with probability unity under the conditions that the 
frequency of repeated measurements can be enhanced without facing any limit, 
thanks to the quantum Zeno effect. The quantum player underlying such a quantum 
toss-up game could turn out to be quite steady and durable rather than merely 
being capricious. Biology upholding a durable organization of a concrete 
particular nature seems to take full advantage of durable individual events of 
QM origin. 


   Although information seems to be quite a newbie in the 
philosopher-dominating time-honored discipline addressing the hard issue of 
what both space and time may look like, it might be able to enjoy some chance 
of bringing in something new empirically there.  


   Koichiro Matsuno




From: Fis [] On Behalf Of Terrence W. DEACON
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:26 AM
To: Foundations of Information Science Information Science 


All of these claims and counter-claims are null hypotheses - hypothetical 
axioms yet to be tested, both for logical coherence and empirical usefulness. 
Place your bets. Mine are on contrary assumptions: i.e. non-Turing 
computability, fundamental incompleteness, and a deep entanglement between 
information (including reference and functional value) and its necessary 
physical substrates. Of course for this to be science all need to eventually 
yield testable hypotheses. This level of controversy over basic issues 
indicates to me that the science of information is still at an early stage and 
could be potentially held back by the hubris of certainty.


— Terry


Fis mailing list

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

2016-01-18 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:


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


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






From: Fis [] On Behalf Of Jerry LR
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks


Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:


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


 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


The perplexity of chemical information theory is such that it is not
understandable in any one meta-language or any pair of meta-languages.  In
order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language must go far
beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction among forces, such
as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.  


The early metalanguage of chemistry was merely terms within ordinary
language, such as the names of elements. Or, the common names for oils from
various sources. Around the turn of the 19 th Century, the metalanguage of
chemistry started it century-long journey to become a meta-language of
mathematics with the development of the concepts of atomic weights for each
singular elements and molecular weight, and molecular formula for each
different molecule. 


The critical distinction that separates the meta-language of chemistry from
other metalanguages is the absolute requirement for specification of the
name of any object on the basis of it's distinction from other signs or
collections of signs. 


Thus, chemical information theory, in terms of metalanguages, requires the
exact usage of the meta-languages of both physics and mathematics in order
to define the origin of its symbolic logic, as well as the natural
metalanguage of ordinary human communication. 


Biological information theory is grounded on chemical information theory,
using a particular encoding of meaning within dynamical systems, to

Re: [Fis] The Measurement Problem from the Perspective of an Information-Theoretic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

2015-11-26 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
At 4:28 AM 11/27/2015, John C. wrote:


A paper by my former graduate advisor, Jeff Bub, who was a student of David


The Measurement Problem from the Perspective of an Information-Theoretic
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics


   Yes, Bub's insistence on the absolute randomness would remain invincible
as far as third-person probabilities are taken for granted from the outset
in comprehending what messages would QM convey to us. On the other hand,
once one may happen to feel at ease with the first-person probabilities
(see, for instance,  James Hartle's "Living in a superposition" ), the first-person probability of the
occurrence of such an agent assuming the first-person status would come to
approach unity even within the framework of the decoherent-histories
interpretation of QM.   






Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] life cycles

2015-10-06 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
At 4:38 AM 10/6/2015, Stan wrote:


Then we need to consider which life cycle we are going to investigate.  One 
conversation? The duration of conference?, etc.

  Cycles are really enigmatic. Listening to the same old story repeating itself 
may sound tedious. However, there is one exception. If each turn of repetition 
is affinitive in recruiting something new from the outside while replacing some 
of the predecessor already there, the cycle can constantly be updated. The 
whole enterprise is empirically structural. In addition,  repeating oneself can 
be guaranteed even on the thermodynamic ground alone. If adiabatic processes 
are allowed to intervene, they can assume two roles at the same time. One is to 
feed upon the available resources as fast as possible. One more is to install a 
highly complicated pathway of energy flow full of cycles to dissipate the 
intake at the similar fast rate so as to make both ends of the inlet and outlet 
to meet. While the intake of the resources proceeds through the surface of the 
organized whole of those cycles, the dissipation takes place in the entire 
volume of the organization. Thus, enhancing the volume of the organized web of 
those cycles may be a natural consequence for meeting the greater rate of 
resource intake. Of course, chemistry can provide a lot of material hardware to 
implement such a prescient web of cycles. 





Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Information Foundation of the Act--F.Flores L.deMarcos

2015-07-26 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
At 4:13 AM 07/27/2015, Luis de Marcos Ortega wrote:


a) cycles can imply infinite loops that in our opinion are not appropriate
to model human actions

b) even considering cycles a set of actions can still be modeled a as a
tree, so we consider that loops add unnecessary complexity to the model


Loops are clumsy, to be sure. Nonetheless, loops look indispensable in
implementing the cohesion for making an organization. An organization
maintaining itself through the exchange of component elements has recourse
to the cohesion acting between the individual elements incumbent in the
organized body and the de novo individuals to be recruited from nearby for
replacemt. In fact, a loop can be the cohesive factor of a structural nature
emerging from the participating individuals. 






Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

2015-06-27 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
At 4:00 AM 06/27/2015, John Collier wrote:


I also see no reason that Bateson’s difference that makes a difference needs to 
involve meaning at either end.


[KM] Right.  The phrase saying “a difference that makes a difference” must be a 
prototypical example of second-order logic in that the difference appearing 
both in the subject and predicate can accept quantification. Most statements 
framed in second-order logic  are not decidable. In order to make them 
decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must definitely be needed. A popular 
example of such a qualifier is a subjective observer. However, the point is 
that the subjective observer is not limited to Alice or Bob in the QBist 






Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .

2015-06-17 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
At 9:36 PM 06/17/2015, Pedro wrote:

... What if information belongs to action,

[KM] This is a good remark suggesting that information may go beyond the 
standard stipulation of first-order logic. A great advantage of mathematics 
grounded upon first-order logic is to enjoy the provability or computability of 
an inductive judgement with use of the few axiomatic primitives. This scheme, 
however, does not work for information at large, though notably except for 
Shannon's information bits. If one faces a statement like information is 
probabilistic, it would go beyond first-order logic when the predicate to be 
probabilistic admits its quantification as revealed in the context-dependent 
probabilities in QM. Once we enter the higher stage of second-order logic, it 
could be possible to form an opinion of course while its provability may be out 
of reach in most cases. Nonetheless, if one wants to save something good with 
saying information is probabilistic, a likely makeshift might be to relate 
information to action, for instance, as appealing to conditiona!
 l probabilities which are quite at home with the action of setting and 
detecting such conditions. 


Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Informational Bookkeeping

2014-09-10 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
At 9:14 PM 09/05/2014, Pedro wrote:

Who knows, focusing on varieties of bookkeeping might be quite productive!

[KM] Pedro, your kick was loud enough to waken me up from my long
hibernation. Suppose there are many things popping up here and there
concurrently with no synchronization among them on the spot. Then, we would
be totally at a loss what to do when asked to tell what is going on there.
One plan as a last resort would be to make an appeal to a scheme of
synchronization even if conceivable out of the blue. One candidate would be
Bob U's energy, in reference to which we can safely say which are
synchronized and which are sequential. One more candidate of this sort might
be a reaction cycle of a natural origin, since any component reaction going
round the cycle is ipso facto made synchronous with the occurrence of the
cycle itself.


Fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] The Information Flow

2012-11-02 Thread Koichiro Matsuno

   Bob U said The foundations, they are trembling! I have taken it to imply 
that propositional
calculus itself is also in a bad shape. This observation reminds me of the 
hanging paradox first
invented by an American logician Arthur Prior more than 60 years ago. It goes 
like this:

   On a certain Saturday a judge sentenced a man to be hanged on Sunday or 
Monday at noon,
stipulating at the same time that the man would not know the day of his hanging 
until the morning of
the day itself. The condemned man argued that if he were hanged on Monday, he 
would be aware of the
fact by noon on Sunday, and this would contravene the judge's stipulation. So 
the date of his
hanging would have to be Sunday. Since, however, he had worked this out on 
Saturday, and so knew the
date of his hanging the day before, the judge's stipulation was again 
contravened. The date,
therefore, could not be Sunday either. The prisoner concluded that he would not 
be hanged at all.
However, the official gazette issued on Tuesday reported that the man was 
hanged on last Sunday. 

   The logician-prisoner (the externalist) was right in his deduction upon the 
trusted propositional
calculus, while the judge (the internalist) was also right in faithfully 
executing the sentence. But
both cannot be right at the same time. Despite that, the internalist could 
finally come to preside
over this empirical world. I had a hard time to convince myself of it. Strange?

   Koichiro Matsuno

fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] FW: [Fwd: Re: Physics of computing]--Plamen S.

2012-03-19 Thread Koichiro Matsuno

   A nice thing about the dichotomies such as the actual-potential (Peirce),
einselection-superposition (Schroedinger), figure-background (Merleau-Ponty), 
filling-up - void
(Marijuan), presence-absence (Deacon) and the like is the appraisal of the 
dichotomy even if an exhaustive list of the individuals constituting the class 
is not available. The
price we have to pay for this, however, is that first person descriptions would 
have to be employed
for appreciating the presence of some individuals that are currently absent on 
the spot for whatever
reasons. In contrast, the individual-class dichotomy accessible to third person 
descriptions such as
the dichotomy of each probabilistic event and its distribution would have to be 
explicit and
definite with regard to both the individuals and the class from the outset.

   Koichiro Matsuno

fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] replies to several. The Key to Time

2011-05-26 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
Dear Loet, Joseph and All,


   Let me just clarify the difference making a difference between both of you 
and me. 


First, to Loet;


 In other words: time is a construct of language?


   The answer will be yes if the physicist accepts time when preparing an 
authentic user’s manual on how to set up and read each clock. But, the answer 
will be no if somebody claims that time exists prior to the existence of our 
languages. These two attitudes are necessarily mixed up in our practice of 
doing empirical sciences as revealed in the contrast between evolutionary and 
developmental biology. That is the strength of empirical sciences.


 The “various conservation laws” are not a construct of language but 
 constraints on constructions in language? 


   Any empirical law, once established and framed in human languages, is very 
peculiar compared to the case of nomological laws in general in claiming its 
validity whenever or wherever in the empirical world unless our faith on the 
empirical regularity perceivable in the record is lost. Needless to say, some 
empirical laws mingled with something going beyond our experiences such as a 
wishful thinking might turn out to be wrong as in the case of Einstein’s big 


 The original cyclic motions predate the reading. They are given? By whom and 
 in which language? 


   Some of our remote ancestors full of curiosity may have happened to notice 
the look-alike cyclic stellar movement as looking up into the sky every night 
and to report the astonishing observations to the folks in the neighborhood. 
This must have been the beginning of the whole story.


 Is the dative of a message different from the third case in the declension? 


   The dative as the indirect object of a verb corresponds to the third case in 
the declension of a noun in German. Suppose the sentence like “He gives her a 
ring.” Of course, the “her” is the dative of the direct object “a ring”. 
Nonetheless, a proper interpretation of the sentence framed in the present 
tense is pretty difficult. “He” might want to make “a ring” to be a message of 
something else, while “she” might refuse to accept it. The dative is reactively 
active or passively synthetic and is by no means reactively passive. The dative 
can metamorphose into a subject in the next round. Moreover, the actual 
exchange of giving and refusing can be revealed as referring to the update of 
the perfect tense in the progressive tense. 


 If “information” can be defined in terms of a probability distribution, would 
 “time” be definable as a frequency distribution?


   This is really a Big “If”. If both the distributions are available, I could 
follow the argument. If such distributions are not available in advance for 
whatever reasons, the second best would be to rely upon conditional 
probabilities as the distributions further qualified by the explicit 
participation of measurement. In the latter, the relationship between 
information and time is more convoluted and interwoven. Bob Ulanowicz knows it 



Then, to Joseph;


In my extension of logic to complex systems, reality and appearance are 
related contradictorially:


   Your distinction between reality and appearance reminds me of the notorious 
distinction between things-in-themselves and their phenomenology. I wish I 
could grasp the distinction. What I cannot speak about I have to pass over in 


Perception is a real energetic process that is driven by our underlying 
dynamics,… not by verbs and their objects.


Perhaps, this must be the take-home message you gave me. At issue is how to 
verbally respond to the question of what does “a real energetic process” look 
like. We are then required to employ some verbs to meet the assignment. (I do 
know the situation would be far more eased in the wet lab., less 
confrontational.) In fact, you have already provided us with a sound response 
to this question as saying “ … is driven by our underlying dynamics”. In short, 
perception of a perception of the flow of time ad infinitum eventually 
precipitates the construction of the flow of time.


I think behind Loet’s reference to time as possibly a frequency distribution 
is a similar desire to move away from linguistic structures to real structures.


   Referring to and relying upon linguistic vehicles is unavoidable. Otherwise, 
we have to shut our mouths. The next big hurdle to jump over must be how to 
secure a passable correspondence between the linguistic vehicles and the object 
in the target as Jerry Chandler repeatedly emphasized on this list.



Third, to Ted;


We bridge that today with the two paradigms on which we build science: 
measurement and theories of cause. The notion of tense touches on both, one 
from one world, the other from the second. I ask your opinions on this third 


   The third flow is for the binding agency of a novel type. The cohesion 
acting between the 

Re: [Fis] replies to several. The Key to Time

2011-05-23 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
Dear Joseph,


 I feel that in point 3. of your note you describe a key to time but you do 
 not use it! 


Right. The last time, I skipped over something. The issue is how to 
descriptively approach phenomenological time via the interplay between real, 
physical systems without prior reference to the flow of time on the global 
scale. My intended entry for this endeavor has been to pay attention to some 
physical body remaining invariant while being constantly involved in exchanging 
its constituent subunits. That is to say, once a molecular aggregate happens to 
appear whose class identity is kept intact while the constituent subunits 
constantly come and go, the through-flow maintaining the class identity of the 
aggregate can superficially be associated with the flow of time as we know of 
it in the contradictory sense that while passing away constantly, time remains 
as time as keeping its identity. The flow of time here is only taken as “a 
representation”, or an anthropocentric metaphor at best, of the material 
through-flow as a decisive factor for keeping the class identity of a physical 
body at the cost of the vicissitude of the individual identities of the 
constituent subunits. The cyanobacterial circadian clocks are just an empirical 
example of keeping the class identity of a KaiC hexamer while constantly 
exchanging or shuffling the monomeric KaiC subunits. 


The objective, as you have written well earlier, is to better understand the 
interplay of what we call the tenses in language.


   The underlying issue is how can we construct the flow of time from the 
tenses. When the constant update of the present perfect tense in the present 
progressive tense is referred to in the finished record,  we can perceive the 
flow of time as driven by the transitive verb “update” in the present tense, 
though only in retrospect. This updated version of the flow of time in 
retrospect exhibits a marked contrast to the flow of time riding on the 
intransitive verb “flow” in the present tense unconditionally, the latter of 
which is common to the standard practice of physical sciences even including 
relativity.  The occurrence of the perfect tense is due to the act of 
measurement of material origin distinguishing between the before and after its 
own act, while its frequent update in the progressive tense will be 
necessitated so as to meet various conservation laws such as  material or 
energy flow continuity to be registered in the record, e. g., not to leave the 
failure in meeting the flow continuity behind. The KaiC hexamers of 
cyanobacteria are involved in the constant update of the prefect tense in the 
progressive tense. 


How is that for using time as a synthetic construction rather than as an 
analytical tool?!


   The flow of time read by the externalist, say, by Ptolemy-Newton, into an 
invariant cyclic motion of the stellar configuration displayed over the sky is 
enigmatic in relating a cyclic movement of physical bodies to a linear movement 
of something else called time. A less ambitious approach could be to relate a 
linear movement of physical bodies to the linear movement of time even if the 
latter is an anthropocentric artifact, unless the artifact interferes with the 
physical bodies. The flow of time read-into by the physicist implies no linear 
flow of time in the absence of the physicist as leaving only the original 
cyclic motions behind. That must be quite stifling.  In contrast, appreciating 
the material through-flow keeping the class identity of the supporting material 
aggregate as being represented as the flow of time comes to imply that the 
through-flow is informational in that it presumes both the message (e.g., the 
subunits to be exchanged) and its dative (e.g., the aggregate processing their 
exchanges). Both information and time, once set free from the read-into flow of 
time,  are common in sharing the similar materialistic and energetic context in 
incorporating the transitive verbs into themselves as holding the contrast 
between the direct and the indirect object of a verb, that is to say, between a 
message and its dative. Despite that, I am not quite sure at this moment 
whether this synthetic view would merely be one step backward for the sake of 
the likely two steps forward to come. 






fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] replies to several

2011-05-09 Thread Koichiro Matsuno


   Joseph wrote:


Two aspects of the exchange between Koichiro and Loet merit attention: 1) Loet 
said that his point of replacing “why” with “what” did not seem necessary to 
him. In my mind, however, when Koichiro refers to “what is communicated by 
what”, he is insisting on not losing the qualitative components of the 
information involved.


Let me make my points a little bit clearer.


1. Being empirical is not necessarily rational (e.g., Galilei’s empirical 
inertia v.s. Aristotle’s rational telos).

2. Linear progression of time, say time (t+1) following time t, is already 
a consequence of synchronization among the clocks available to us. A point of 
clarification is that synchronization in the making as a necessary condition 
for a meaningful integration into whatever context is not sure about whether it 
could also proceed upon a linear progression of time. Suppose everybody asks 
the nearest neighbor “what time do you have?”. The outcome might be somewhere 
in between the two extremes of a successful synchronization in the end among 
all of them on one hand and a total mess on the other. 

3. Linguistic or theoretical access to synchronization in the making would 
be hard to imagine when it is prohibited to refer to time as a comprehensible 
analytical tool in advance. This does not however mean the end of the whole 
issue. Empirical access to synchronization in the making is totally different. 
Cyanobacteria as the first photosynthetic bacteria appeared on Earth could have 
been quite successful in synchronizing their circadian clocks among them 
without asking the help of our languages. 

4. Addressing the theoretical question of what kinds of material means are 
employed for the job of synchronization and why, goes far beyond our present 
rational comprehension. Although the cyanobacterial circadian clocks employ 
three different kinds of protein called KaiA, B and C for the job, we cannot 
say for sure at this moment why these particular proteins would come to be 
focused upon. This has been an irrevocable empirical fact. 

5. Neuronal dynamics is full of synchronization in the making by means of 
exchanging an extremely wide variety of chemical messengers, including for 
instance acetylcholine, available empirically.  

6. Even if we take a pause for a while for addressing the grandiose 
why-questions, there may still remain some room for tailoring time for a 
comprehensible analytical tool. Time is further qualified in terms of its 
tense. There remains a likelihood of addressing how the actual dynamics would 
proceed through the interplay between the different tenses, especially between 
the present progressive and the present perfect tense.

7. Put it bluntly, information synthesizes the flow of time from scratch.





fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] The world of singularities, beyond language. Necessity and Sufficiency

2011-05-07 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
Dear Loet and All,


   Your remark “what is communicated and why?” sounds suggestive in many 
respects. If the question is paraphrased into “what is communicated by what?”, 
the perennially perplexing issue of what is time would come up to the surface 
once again since the temporality of communication is already there. The time 
involved in this question is certainly different from another time pertinent to 
one more question of “what is moved by what?” as entertained in physics in 
general and in mechanics in particular. At issue is the nature of time unique 
to the exchange of a message, whether it may be an atom, molecule or whatever 
else for that matter.







fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Our condolences to Japan colleagues for the earth quake tragedy in Japan --K.Markov

2011-03-12 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
Dear Kassimir, Pedro and FIS Colleagues,


   Many thanks for your concerns to the natural disaster hitting the northern 
part of Japan during
the past few days. Please let us have some time to survive this hard fact of 



   Koichiro Matsuno (now near Tokyo)



From: [] On 
Behalf Of Pedro Clemente
Marijuan Fernandez
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Our condolences to Japan colleagues for the earth quake 
tragedy in Japan


We all join Krassimir's message of solidarity and condolences with our FIS 
colleagues of Japan. Such
a tragic event... ---Pedro

- Mensaje original -
Krassimir Markov
Saturday 12 March 2011, 11:33 am
Our condolences to Japan colleagues for the earth quake tragedy in Japan

Dear FIS Colleagues from Japan,


Please receive our condolences for the earth quake tragedy in Japan!


It is really great loss for all of us!


Please do not hesitate to ask us for support and help in this sorrow 




fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Recapping the discussion? Joseph's Recap

2010-10-13 Thread Koichiro Matsuno

   Joseph wrote:

my and Kevin K.'s basic question of whether /new evidence exists of any 
interaction between the
world modeled by fluctuons and the thermodynamic world/ has in my opinion not 
been answered.

   Evidence is very old.  

   In a nutshell, mechanics is about the equality of quantities of the same 
quality, e.g., three
laws of motion in Newtonian mechanics. The quality of motion remains invariable 
in mechanics. In
contrast, thermodynamics is about the equality of quantities of the different 
qualities, as revealed
in the first law of thermodynamics presiding over the conservation of energy 
while allowing for the
transformation of its quality. What is unique to thermodynamics is the 
participation of an internal
agency being capable of identifying and processing the difference of qualities. 

   The apparatus James Prescott Joule reported in 1843 demonstrated that the 
gravitational potential
energy lost by the weight attached to a string causing a paddle immersed in 
water to rotate was
equal to the heat energy gained by the water by friction with the paddle. It 
was not the physicist
(or former brewer) Joule himself, but was the internal agency of material 
origin that was
responsible for keeping the relationship between heat, the current, which 
generates it, and the
conductor through which it passes. Somewhere right in the middle of the energy 
changing its quality from the potential to the heat energy, some ambivalent 
situation would
inevitably arise such that a residual amount of energy is not clear whether it 
may belong to the
potential or to the heat energy, or to neither. Nonetheless, the conservation 
of energy must be
observed in the finished record. Thermodynamics leaves conservation laws as 
being consequential upon
the more fundamental motion of material origin, though such a feat is totally 
inconceivable in

   It was regrettable to see that the subsequent takeover of thermodynamics by 
atomic physics which
duly and triumphantly dismissed any chances for an agency of material origin 
other than the
physicists themselves. However, a mere dismissal by a decree is not all that 
powerful. A touchstone
is to see any likelihood of the motion of material origin for the sake of the 
conservation of
energy, rather than on the conservation already guaranteed. The Fluctuon model 
of Michael Conrad is
one attempt for appreciating the motion for the sake of meeting the 
conservation laws from within
like thermodynamics does. 


fis mailing list

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

2010-09-27 Thread Koichiro Matsuno


   Kevin Kirby's opening remark on the Fluctuon model of Michael Conrad shed 
light on the role of
information in physics and beyond. Here is some peripheral remark of my own, 
though a bit lengthy. 


1)  Practicing physics may look informational in exercising its own 
specification without saying
so explicitly. A case in point is the renormalization scheme as demonstrated in 
electrodynamics (QED). QED is quite self-consistent in specifying and 
determining the values of both
the electric charge of an electron and its mass. Tomonaga-Schwinger have 
successfully set up a
descriptive scheme of synchronizing the multiple times presiding over the 
virtual processes which
might violate conservation laws in between in the light of the uncertainty 
principle in energy and
time. The synchronization that is faithful to observing all the relevant 
conservation laws is an act
of making both determinations of the mass under the influence of the electric 
charge and of its
reversal coincidental, that is, the act of making both ends meet. A neat 
expression of the
synchronization is seen in Dyson's equation in terms of Feynman's diagram. In 
short, the physical
parameter called a mass or an electric charge is internally specified, 
determined and measured as
such in the renormalization scheme of QED. So far, so good.


2)  Michael felt some uneasiness with the renormalization scheme since the 
notion of information
remains redundant and secondary at best there. Although the definitive values 
of the mass and the
electric charge might seem informational to the experimentalist who intends to 
measure them
externally, an electron in QED can already be seen to measure and fix them 
internally on its own. In
the physical world describable in one form of renormalized scheme or another, 
that is to say, in the
standard model of physics, information is merely a derivative from something 
more fundamental. The
standard physicist has a good excuse for marginalizing information. If 
information has anything
significant in its own right and can stand alone irrespective of whether or how 
it may become
analytically accessible, on the other hand, one must go beyond the stipulation 
of the standard
model. A notorious case that has strenuously kept defying the renormalization 
project of whatever
kind attempted so far is quantum gravity, which was Michael's primary concern. 
scheme of justifying quantum gravity is required to reach continuity (gravity) 
as starting from
discontinuity (quantum) and at the same time to reach discontinuity as starting 
from continuity even
on an experimental basis. 


3)  The analytical tool Michael employed was conservation laws paraphrased 
in terms of
elementary perturbation theory as Kevin noted. While the standard model is 
grounded upon the
likelihood that all the relevant conservation laws could eventually be met 
insofar as one is lucky
enough to encounter a specific form of synchronization, the Fluctuon model 
squarely faces up to the
situation that there is no chance of expecting such a fortunate synchronous 
Substantiating each conservation law on energy or momentum is a must in any 
case, while asking
simultaneous fulfillment of all the relevant conservation laws is too much. 
What is unique to the
Fluctuon model is its emphasis on the participation of persistent and itinerant 
disequilibrium or a
Fluctuon in implementing conservation laws internally, though there is no room 
for it in the mind of
the standard physicist. This perpetual disequilibrium is all pervasive and 
reverberating up and down
and from left to right and back. 



4)  Once I asked Michael that while graviton is nice in its ambition of 
going beyond the
standard model of physics, why not take up carbon chemistry as one more 
concrete example going
beyond the hurdle? So far as we know, there has been no attempt for determining 
both carbon
compounds as the building pieces of biology and chemical affinity latent in 
them in a mutually
consistent manner. His reply was this. Right, but I want to cover more even 
though it may look
crazy to many. That is an issue of quantum gravity and life. Anyway, life is 
short. Granted. 



   Koichiro Matsuno



fis mailing list