[Fis] R: Re: some notes
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 not about Crick's Central Dogma but about the logic of pathways, circuits, modules, etc. Probably both Torday and Ji have their own ideas about that--
[Fis] R: Re: I do not understand some strange claims
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" Data: 17/11/2017 1.39 A: 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 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 Trismegistus, but, if you are (or you think to be) a scientist, this is si
[Fis] I do not understand some strange claims
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
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
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" Data: 10/10/2017 11.01 A: "dea...@berkeley.edu" Cc: "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 de la part de Terrence W. DEACON Envoyé : lundi 9 octobre 2017 02:30 À : Sungchul Ji Cc : foundationofinformationscience Objet : Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Informa
[Fis] A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION
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 TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Messaggio originale Da: "Christophe Menant" Data: 10/10/2017 11.01 A: "dea...@berkeley.edu" Cc: "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 de la part de Terrence W. DEACON Envoyé : lundi 9 octobre 2017 02:30 À : Sungchul Ji Cc : foundationofinformationscience Objet : Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information Against "meaning" I think that there is a danger of allowing our anthropocentrism to bias the discussion. I worry that the term 'meaning' carries too much of a linguistic bias. By this I mean that it is too attractive to use language as our archtypical model when we talk about information. Language is rather the special case, the most unusual communicative adaptation to ever have evolved, and one that grows out of and depends on informationa/semiotic capacities shared with other species and with biology in general. So I am happy to see efforts to bring in topics like music or natural signs like thunderstorms and would also want to cast the net well beyond humans to include animal calls, scent trails, and molecular signaling by hormones. And it is why I am more attracted to Peirce and worried about the use of Saussurean concepts. Words and sentences can indeed provide meanings (as in Frege's Sinn - "sense" - "intension") and may also provide reference (Frege's Bedeutung - "reference" - "extension"), but I think that it is important to recognize that not all signs fit this model. Moreover, A sneeze is often interpreted as evidence about someone's state of health, and a clap of thunder may indicate an approaching storm. These can also be interpreted differently by my dog, but it is still information about something, even though I would not say that they mean something to that interpreter. Both of these phenomena can be said to provide reference to something other than that sound itself, but when we use such phrases as "it means you have a cold" or "that means that a storm is approaching" we are using the term "means" somewhat metaphorically (most often in place of the more accurate term "indicates"). And it is even more of a stretch to use this term with respect to pictures or diagrams. So no one would say the a specific feature like the ears in a caricatured face mean something. Though if the drawing is employed in a political cartoon e.g. with exaggerated ears and the whole cartoon is assigned a meaning then perhaps the exaggeration of this feature may become meaningful. And yet we would probably agree that every line of the drawing provides information contributing to that meaning. So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many different contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the framing, whether physical, formal, biological, phenomenological, linguistic, etc. For this reason,
[Fis] A PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES
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 1
[Fis] INFORMATION: JUST A MATTER OF MATH
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 social governance. -- ---
[Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?
Dear Lars-Göran, I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last FIS mail for the next days. First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other objects. In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a set of objects or events are being measured. Speaking of an observer is not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not there is a "material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other objects" within the inertial reference frame to witness them. Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a cosmic zone close to the sun. The photon "detects" (and therefore can interact with) a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we humans on the Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun surface. Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same sun, but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange with the sun a different information content. If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite, fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more information with the sun than we humans can. In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the time of the "observer". Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Messaggio originale Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" Data: 24/03/2017 14.50 A: "tozziart...@libero.it" Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important? 24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev 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… An observer is by definition a material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other objects. Since it requires infinite energy to accelerate even a slighest object to the velocity of light, no observer can travel at the speed of light. That means that your thought experiment is based in inconsistent assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be drawn. Lars-Göran Johansson In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a very subjective measure... Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Lars-Göran Johansson lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se 0701-679178 ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Is information truly important?
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?
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?!
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" Data: 01/03/2017 13.32 A: 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 stone. Humankind is abl
[Fis] R: Re: WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
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" >Data: 24/02/2017 18.48 >A: "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 intelligent >> life scattered everywhere in the Universe
[Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
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) Sengu
[Fis] Torus-like structures
Dear Howard, your concept of a donut-like Universe is very interesting...In touch with it, we recently published a paper that describes pre-big bang scenarios involving a Monster Group, e.g. a multisymmetric structure describable on a torus: http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/7/4/73 However, I think that the "torus-like" concept can be extended also to biological structures. Indeed, we demonstrated the presence of a functional torus-like structure in the brain: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11571-016-9379-zhttp://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00038/full Furthermore, in a still unpublished paper (under review), we also proposed a torus-like structure, in order to explain living cells functions: http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0021 All this stuff is quite intriguing, and point towards a donut-like structure as a general principle underlying both physical and biological systems... Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Messaggio originale Da: howlbl...@aol.com Data: 15/02/2017 1.04 A: , Ogg: Re: [Fis] Further Discussion . . . brilliant summation, Pedro. we are missing the metaphors with which to explain the difference between death and life or between smart communities like bacterial colonies and consciousness. in The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates, i tell the tale of the origin of the term "emergent property." But, alas, over 140 years after the concept's introduction, we still lack the tools that would help us understand life and consciousness in scientific ways. i suspect the key will come from adding to the bottom up vocabulary of reductionism by looking at top down approaches. and i suspect that certain emergent properties are possibilities of the cosmos waiting for matter to find them. very a la wagner in his Arrival of the Fittest. but if emergent properties exist in an implicit future, in possibility space, how did they get there? a hint: god is not the answer. god is a way of dodging the question. i've hit all these issues in The God Problem. and i ache for the new metaphors. with warmth and oomph--howard -- Howard Bloom Howardbloom.net author of : The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("Impressive, stimulating, and tremendously enjoyable."James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental,epic, glorious literary achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code: How a Desert Prophet Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram--or How Muhammad Invented Jihad (“a terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ Media). Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting Scholar—Graduate Psychology Department, NewYork University Founder: International PaleopsychologyProject; founder and chair, Space Development Steering Committee; Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project; Board Of Governors, National Space Society; Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation. In a message dated 2/13/2017 10:32:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes: Dear Howard, In any extent, your beautiful questions are beyond my reach. I think that the physical characterization of life cannot even provide a whim on your demands; but something of the informational might provide some limited inroads: prokaryots could not achieve any significant progress in morphological or differentiation capabilities within their "colonies". Conversely, eukaryotes developed multicellularity due to their far higher information content (genome), their far improved signaling resources, their endless energy supply in support of the general combinatoric problem-solving tools (mitochondria), and the incorporation of a new locus (cytoskeleton) capable of feeling the force field and reacting to it. A chain of amazing inventions is behind any of the existing branches of complex life... can do they admit a general explanation, not just based on natural selection, but on the improved evolvability that has been obtained by being able to explore any molecular-re
[Fis] MATCHING POINTS AND IDENTITY
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 assess
[Fis] A Curious... but infeasible Story
Dear FISers, Hi! I found precious comments against the possiblility of black holes produced by LHC eating our word:https://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/could-the-lhc-make-an-earth-killing-black-hole-886d9e600c28#.r85rn6h9y Ciao! Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Messaggio originale Da: "PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ" Data: 05/01/2017 12.06 A: "fis@listas.unizar.es" Ogg: [Fis] A Curious Story --> Dear FISers, Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions. I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity. But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and counter-arguments... Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year! --Pedro De: Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51 Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Asunto: NY session -- A Curious Story Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then make it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I can save your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond by saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist bible. It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb about to be planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the other hand, it could also be that you, the manager, are a bit high at the moment so that you don't fully appreciate the offer made to you. How serious is my offer herewith made to you today? I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized proof of danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black holes officially attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two radically new properties: they cannot Hawking evaporate they grow exponentially inside matter If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva means that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and grow there exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after several of undetectable growth. Therefore the current attempt of CERN's to produce them near Geneva is a bit curious. What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one finds it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor informs the candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the following words “You are bound to laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never understood the punchline. I likewise cannot understand why a never refuted proof of the biggest danger of history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an unattended piece of luggage on the airport called Earth? To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof would thus alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are thus my last hope that you might be able to explain the punch line to me: “Why is it that it does not matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I am genuinely curious to learn why attempting planetocide is fun. Are you not? For J.O.R. --- ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Something positive
Dear FISers, it's excruciating...We did not even find an unique definition of information, life, brain activity, consciousness...How could the science improve, if it lacks definitions of what itself is talking about?And the old problem of science: from above, or from below? Which is the best approach? It seems that we depicted a rather dark, hopeless picture... However, there is, I think, a light in front of us. The only way to pursue our common goal, I think, it is to be free. Free from our own beliefs. Enlarge our horizons to other fields of science, apart from our own. Forget metaphysics, of course. Look at other disciplines, such as physics, medicine, engineering, biology, math... Voltaire said: "Il faut cultiver notre jardin" . But he was wrong. We have to take care of more than a garden. Your own garden is too narrow for your beautiful mind. Therefore, TANTI AUGURI!And I hope that, the next year, in the 2017 Christmas time, every one of us will be expert in a scientific field different from his own. 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] Something positive
Dear FISers, it's excruciating...We did not even find an unique definition of information, life, brain activity, consciousness...How could the science improve, if it lacks definitions of what itself is talking about? It seems that we depicted a rather dark, hopeless picture... However, there is, I thing, a light in front of us. I think that the best way to proceed, at least the most useful in the last centuries, is the one pursued by Einstein: to build an abstract, rather geometric , mathematical model, make testable previsions and then to check if it works in the real world.Therefore, I think, we need novel, fresh models and theories, more than experiments aiming to demonstrate theory-laden, pre-cooked, previsions of scientists. It is the old problem of science: from above, or from below? Which is the best approach? The knowledge of the most elementary biological and physical issues is so scarce, as demonstrated by this FIS discussion involving foremost scientists from all over the world, that the right approach, I think, is to start from above... from topology, of course 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] Something positive
Dear FISers, it's excruciating...We did not even find an unique definition of information, life, brain activity, consciousness...How could the science improve, if it lacks definitions of what itself is talking about? It seems that we depicted a rather dark, hopeless picture... However, there is, I thing, a light in front of us. I think that the best way to proceed, at least the most useful in the last centuries, is the one pursued by Einstein: to build an abstract, rather geometric , mathematical model, make testable previsions and then to check if it works in the real world.Therefore, I think, we need novel, fresh models and theories, more than experiments aiming to demonstrate theory-laden, pre-cooked, previsions of scientists. It is the old problem of science: from above, or from below? Which is the best approach? The knowledge of the most elementary biological and physical issues is so scarce, as demonstrated by this FIS discussion involving foremost scientists from all over the world, that the right approach, I think, is to start from above... from topology, of course 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] information & life
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] What is life?
Dear You write: "For living beings, we know that "Life is a tramission and utilistion of information (not only by ADN, but by all the information which is used by them, at all scales for survival)". However, to make an example, also my mobile is able to transmit and utilize information. I found (and I did not look very well, to be honest) at least EIGHT different definitions of life in literature. Therefore, if I ask: "What is life?" I have, apart from yours, other SEVEN different definitions of life. What does it mean? This means that we have no idea at all about what is life. It is the same as if I asked: "What is love?": who knows? 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?
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 req
[Fis] A provocative issue
Dear FISers, I know that some of you are going to kill me, but there’s something that I must confess. I notice, from the nice issued raised by Francesco Rizzo, Joseph Brenner, John Collier, that the main concerns are always energetic/informational arguments and accounts. Indeed, the current tenets state that all is information, information being a real quantity that can be measured through informational entropies. But… I ask to myself, is such a tenet true? When I cook the pasta, I realize that, by my point of view, the cooked pasta encompasses more information than the not-cooked one, because it acquires the role of something that I can eat in order to increase my possibility to preserve myself in the hostile environment that wants to destroy me. However, by the point of view of the bug who eats the non-cooked pasta, my cooked pasta displays less information for sure. Therefore, information is a very subjective measure that, apart from its relationship with the observer, does not mean very much… Who can state that an event or a fact displays more information than another one? And, please, do not counteract that information is a quantifiable, objective reality, because it can be measured through informational entropy… Informational entropy, in its original Shannon’s formulation, stands for an ergodic process (page 8 of the original 1948 Shannon’s seminal paper), i.e.: every sequence produced by the processes is the same in statistical properties, or, in other words, a traveling particle always crosses all the points of its phase space. However, in physics and biology, the facts and events are never ergodic. Statistical homogeneity is just a fiction, if we evaluate the world around us and our brain/mind. Therefore, the role of information could not be as fundamental as currently believed. P.S.: topology analyzes information by another point of view, but it’s an issue for the next time, I think… 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] Brenner and Lupasco logic
Dear Joseph, Hi! I quote your 2010 manuscript (by the way, compliments! yours is a noteworthy paper! Furthermore, you were also able to make the unreadable Lupasco very clear!) that the FISers can find here: http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/LLP/article/viewFile/LLP.2010.009/967 "The key postulate, as formulated by Lupasco, is that every real phenomenon, element or event e is always associated with an anti-phenomenon, anti-element or anti-event non-e, such that the actualization of e entails the potentialization of non-e and vice versa, alternatively, without either ever disappearing completely. The logic is a logic of an included middle, consisting of axioms and rules of inference for determining the state of the three dynamic elements involved in a phenomenon (“dynamic” in the physical sense, related to real rather than to formal change, e.g. of conclusions). 4.2. Axioms The three fundamental axioms of classical logic, in one version, are the following: 1. The axiom of identity: A is (or =) A. 2. The axiom of non-contradiction: A is not (or 6=) non-A. 3. The axiom of the excluded middle: there exists no third term ‘T’ (‘T’ from third) that is at the same time A and non-A. Based on his “antagonistic” worldview, according to Basarab Nicolescu (see Nicolescu 1996), Lupasco “rewrote” the three major axioms of classical logic as follows: 1. (Physical) Non-Identity: There is no A at a given time that is identical to A at another time. 2. Conditional Contradiction: A and non-A both exist at the same time, but only in the sense that when A is actual, non-A is potential, reciprocally and alternatively, but never to the limit of 100%. 3. Included Middle: An included or additional third element or T-state (‘T’ for ‘tiers inclus’, included third). The evolution of real processes is therefore asymptotically toward a non-contradiction of identity or diversity, or toward contradiction. The mid-point of semi-actualization and semi-potentialization of both is a point of maximum contradiction, a “T-state” resolving the contradiction (or “counter-action”) at a higher level of reality or complexity. Lupasco deserves the historical credit for having shown that a logic of the included middle is a valid multivalent logic, with the indicated terms. At a single level of reality, the second and third axioms are essentially equivalent. In Nicolescu’s extension of the logic, the T-state emerges from the point of maximum contradiction at which A and non-A are equally actualized and potentialized, but at a higher level of reality or complexity, at which the contradiction is resolved. His paradigm example is the unification in the quanton (T) of the apparently contradictory elements of particle (A) and wave (non-A). In contrast to the Hegelian triad, the three terms here coexist at the same moment of time. The logic of the included middle does not abolish that of the excluded middle, which remains valid for simple, consistent situations. However, the former is the privileged logic of complexity, of the real mental, social and political world. The logic of the included middle is capable of describing the coherence between levels of reality. A given T-state (which operates the unification of A and non-A) is associated with another couple of contradictory terms at its higher level (A^1, non-A^1), which are in turn resolved at another level by T^1. According to Nicolescu, the action of the logic of the included middle induces an open structure of the set of all possible levels of reality, similar to that defined by Gödel for formal systems" Lupasco’s “linguistic joke” (forgive me this expression, but, in this context, is something positive, not negative!) is very intriguing and well done, but the problem is always the same, as every kind of logic (…including maths, to be honest…) is based on axioms that stand just for who believe they are true. I give you an example, by examining Luparsco’s postulates. 1. (Physical) Non-Identity: There is no A at a given time that is identical to A at another time. It is not true: an atom of hydrogen today is identical to an atom of hydrogen tomorrow. I would also say that a square is always a square, or in my mind a centaur is always a centaur, but I suppose that you are talking in a physical, not mathematical or psychological sense, therefore I prefer the example of the atom. And do not say that the hydrogen atoms of today and of tomorrow are two different atoms, because, according the definition of hydrogen atom, I cannot distinguish the one from the other! 2. Conditional Contradiction: A and non-A both exist at the same time, but only in the sense that when A is actual, non-A is potential, reciprocally and alternatively, but never to the limit of 100%. Actual and potential reminds too much the scientifically untenable Aristotle… How can you say what is potential and what is actual? Actual and potential compared to what
[Fis] R: [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
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 rules may be hard to detect, because, as Wittgenstei
[Fis] R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???
hilosophers Mortimer AdlerRogers AlbrittonAlexander of AphrodisiasSamuel AlexanderWilliam AlstonG.E.M.AnscombeAnselmLouise AntonyThomas AquinasAristotleDavid ArmstrongHarald AtmanspacherRobert AudiAugustineJ.L.AustinA.J.AyerAlexander BainMark BalaguerJeffrey BarrettWilliam BelshamHenri BergsonIsaiah BerlinBernard BerofskyRobert BishopMax BlackSusanne BobzienEmil du Bois-ReymondHilary BokLaurence BonJourGeorge BooleÉmile BoutrouxF.H.BradleyC.D.BroadMichael BurkeC.A.CampbellJoseph Keim CampbellRudolf CarnapCarneadesErnst CassirerDavid ChalmersRoderick ChisholmChrysippusCiceroRandolph ClarkeSamuel ClarkeAnthony CollinsAntonella CorradiniDiodorus CronusJonathan DancyDonald DavidsonMario De CaroDemocritusDaniel DennettJacques DerridaRené DescartesRichard DoubleFred DretskeJohn DupréJohn EarmanLaura Waddell EkstromEpictetusEpicurusHerbert FeiglJohn Martin FischerOwen FlanaganLuciano FloridiPhilippa FootAlfred FouilleéHarry FrankfurtRichard L. FranklinMichael FredeGottlob FregePeter GeachEdmund GettierCarl GinetAlvin GoldmanGorgiasNicholas St. John GreenH.Paul GriceIan HackingIshtiyaque HajiStuart HampshireW.F.R.HardieSam HarrisWilliam HaskerR.M.HareGeorg W.F. HegelMartin HeideggerR.E.HobartThomas HobbesDavid HodgsonShadsworth HodgsonBaron d'HolbachTed HonderichPamela HubyDavid HumeFerenc HuoranszkiWilliam JamesLord KamesRobert KaneImmanuel KantTomis KapitanJaegwon KimWilliam KingHilary KornblithChristine KorsgaardSaul KripkeAndrea LavazzaKeith LehrerGottfried LeibnizLeucippusMichael LevinGeorge Henry LewesC.I.LewisDavid LewisPeter LiptonJohn LockeMichael LockwoodE. Jonathan LoweJohn R. LucasLucretiusRuth Barcan MarcusJames MartineauStorrs McCallHugh McCannColin McGinnMichael McKennaBrian McLaughlinPaul E. MeehlUwe MeixnerAlfred MeleTrenton MerricksJohn Stuart MillDickinson MillerG.E.MooreC. Lloyd MorganThomas NagelFriedrich NietzscheJohn NortonP.H.Nowell-SmithRobert NozickWilliam of OckhamTimothy O'ConnorDavid F. PearsCharles Sanders PeirceDerk PereboomSteven PinkerPlatoKarl PopperPorphyryHuw PriceH.A.PrichardHilary PutnamWillard van Orman QuineFrank RamseyAyn RandMichael ReaThomas ReidCharles RenouvierNicholas RescherC.W.RietdijkRichard RortyJosiah RoyceBertrand RussellPaul RussellGilbert RyleJean-Paul SartreKenneth SayreT.M.ScanlonMoritz SchlickArthur SchopenhauerJohn SearleWilfrid SellarsAlan SidelleTed SiderHenry SidgwickWalter Sinnott-ArmstrongJ.J.C.SmartSaul SmilanskyMichael SmithBaruch SpinozaL. Susan StebbingGeorge F. StoutGalen StrawsonPeter StrawsonEleonore StumpFrancisco SuárezRichard TaylorKevin TimpeMark TwainPeter UngerPeter van InwagenManuel VargasJohn VennKadri VihvelinVoltaireG.H. von WrightDavid Foster WallaceR. Jay WallaceW.G.WardTed WarfieldRoy WeatherfordWilliam WhewellAlfred North WhiteheadDavid WiderkerDavid WigginsBernard WilliamsTimothy WilliamsonLudwig WittgensteinSusan WolfScientists On Nov 26, 2016, at 12:06 PM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: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.1002400When 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=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=Therefore, even if you think that brain and biological functions are trajectories moving on concave structures towards lesser energetic levels, as suggested by, e.g., Fokker-Planck equations, it does not matter: you may always find the antipodal points with matching description predicted by BUT. Ciao!--Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidsabato, 26 novembre 2016, 06:23PM +01:00 da Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com:Dear FIS colleagues,I think, it is needed to put discussion on mathematical foundation. Let me remember that: The Borsuk–Ulam theorem (BUT), states that every continuous function from an n-sphere into Euclidean n-space maps some pair of antipodal points to the same point. Here, two points on a sphere are called antipodal if they are in exactly opposite directions from the sphere's center.Formally: if is continuous then there exists an such that: .[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsuk%E2%80%93Ulam_theorem ] Who may proof that consciousness is a continuous
[Fis] I: Response to Karl Javorszky
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 numbe
[Fis] R: further analysing: A TOPOLOGICAL/ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO PERCEPTION
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" Data: 27/11/2016 23.58 A: , "FIS" 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 Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com: Dear Arturo, Gord
[Fis] R: Re: Who may prove that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???
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" Data: 26/11/2016 21.05 A: , "fis" 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=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= Therefore, even if you think that brain and biological functions are trajectories
[Fis] R: Brenner Publication
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
[Fis] R: Re: Fw: NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN. Off-Line
Dear Joseph, gotcha... In a framework dating back to Whitehead, Kurt Lewin and, in particular Richard Avenarius (1888), and going through Gestalt, phenomenalism, behaviourism, functionalism and cybernetics, autopoiesis, dynamical systems theory, embedded/embodied approaches, every human individual originally accepts over him: a) an ever-changing spatial environment composed of manifold parts dependent on one another; b) other human individuals making manifold describable statements and c) these statements are dependent upon the environment (Avenarius, 1888). When an individual becomes aware of some of the manifold parts of the environment outside or inside him, he states he is having an experience. In a topological framework, the environment, the cortical layers and the describable statements can be embedded in different structures of various complexity dimensions, encompassing a different qualitative content and linked by projections. The object and its verbal counterpart stand for two antipodal points each one located in a different sphere, while their matching description is achieved in the brain of the concrete human individual. It is noteworthy that the topological relationships among such three entities do not exist out of the triad: we cannot perceive the thoughts and the sensations of other people, but just project to them thoughts, statements and sensations analogous to ours. This is perfectly in touch with your ideas... For further details see our (unded advanced review): http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/products/the-neuroscientific-mechanisms-of-knowledge-a-topological-approach/ By the way, where I can find your logical system? ... the next time we will talk about the die-hard philosophers... Ciao! Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Messaggio originale Da: "Joseph Brenner" Data: 25/11/2016 17.56 A: Ogg: Re: [Fis] Fw: NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN. Off-Line Good message, Arturo. Thank you. In my logical system, dual theories themselves are dynamic (cognitive) structures and can interact in the brain. The theories are not just 'interchangable' in an abstract sense. One 'moves back and forth' between them, one explanation/description is predominant (actualized) at one time and the other at another time. I agree with your view of quantum entanglement, but here is what might be a new idea for you: what about entanglement at a macro level, even, as a relation between two people?! In my logic, again, such entanglement is not just metaphorical but real-energetic. The relational words used are 'energy' words: ties, breaking, etc. I would be interested in your comment. Apparently, you have been lucky enough not to have had to deal with die-hard philosophers who refuse to accept anything except spatial position as fundamental. Cheers, Joseph - Original Message - From: tozziart...@libero.it To: fis Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN Dear Joseph, The Borsuk-Ulam theorem looks like a translucent glass sphere between a light source and our eyes: we watch two lights on the sphere surface instead of one. But the two lights are not just images, they are also real with observable properties, such as intensity and diameter. Until the sphere lies between your eyes and the light source, the lights you can see are two (and it is valid also for every objective observer), it's not just a trick of your imagination or a Kantian a priori. Therefore, the link between topology and energy/information is very strong. If we just think the facts and the events of the world in terms of projections, we are able to quantitatively elucidate puzzling and counterintuitive phenomena, such as, for example, quantum entanglement https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-016-2998-7 Therefore, the 'eternal' discussion of whether geometry or energy (call it dynamics, informational entropy, or whatsoever) is more fundamental in the universe, does not stand anymore: both geometry and energy describe the same phenomena, although with different languages. In physical terms, we could say that geometry and energy are 'dual' theories, e.g., they are interchangeable in the description of real facts and events. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidvenerdì, 25 novembre 2016, 00:28PM +01:00 da Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch: Dear All, Pedro should be thanked already for this new Session, even as we welcome Andrew and Alexander. The depth of your work facilitates rigorous discussion of serious philosophical as well as scientific issues.