I'm sorry, but the UCLA finding does not put an end to any question. Indeed,
this paper about memory transfer has been highly criticized:
You state that:
"When poll are done at congress in cosmology or quantum computing, about half
of the physicists endorse the non collapse theory, as it is covariant, and has
no “measurement problem”.
This means that the main tenet of your account, your "First Principle", is not
You talk about "some non mechanical super-entities (which exist also in the
This way of reasoning throws us into the realm of the philosophy of
mathematics, in which you clearly pursue a neo-platonism in the traces of
Tegmark, Godel, Husserl, Tiles, against
as far as you wrote and I understood, your Mechanistic framework requires the
tenet that quantum wave collapse does not exist.
In order to prove that, you invoke the authority of Everett.
I want to provide a simple, very rough explanation (excuse me!), for the FISers
first of all, sorry for the previous private communication, but for a mistake,
I did not add the FIS list in the CC.
Concerning your Faith, i.e., arithmetic, this appraoch... simply does not work
for the description of physical and biological issues. It is just in our mind.
Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be Cc:
firstname.lastname@example.org Data: giovedì, 10 maggio 2018, 03:23PM +02:00
Oggetto: Re: [Fis] [FIS] Is information physical?
>"IF indexical digital mechanism is
"IF indexical digital mechanism is correct in the cognitive science,
THEN “physical” has to be defined entirely in arithmetical term, i.e.
“physical” becomes a mathematical notion.
...Indexical digital mechanism is the hypothesis that there is a level of
You claim: "all computations exists independently of the existence of anything
I never heard, apart probably from Berkeley and Tegmark, a more untestable,
metaphyisical, a-scientific, unquantifiable claim.
Dear FISers, we NEED to deal with something testable and
information is a measurable physical quantity.
Indeed, it has been claimed that the physical world is made up of information
itself (Bekenstein 2003), so that our Universe is assessable in pure terms of
information. The idea that information is the fundamental physical
the named set theory does not solve the Russell paradox.
Therefore it would be better to use, in such approaches, the best theory
available, i.e., the Fraenkel-Zermelo sets.
In turn, the latter displays some limits: for example, the need of a set with
I agree with you.
In our framework, your second type (deductive) exists only at the high
DIMENSIONAL level of the brain.
When I see a three-dimensional cat, my mind adds to the 3D picture other
features (we call them dimensions), such as: I start to think that its name is
Dear FISers, Welcome, Dataism!Apart from the suggested "metaphysical" and sociological implications, Dataism, born officially in 2013, provides novel tools and opportunities to an otherwise frustrating landscape. Indeed, despite the progresses in the very last years, we do not have still the
> head>Il 23 febbraio 2018 alle 20.47 PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
> ha scritto:
> Dear Krassimir and FIS colleagues,
> Many thanks for your message & effort to prepare the compilation to be
> published soon. It is good counting with
Dear, prominent Authors,
You write in this paper: " Several posts are not included in the text below due
to lack of permission from their authors".
I think that several post were not included in the text just because they were
too critical against the loose, flabby concepts of information
your analysis about Wittgenstein does not take into account the second
Wittgenstein, who repudiated his own idea from the Tractatus.
I think, in touch with Carnap on other issues, that the use of the terms
"symbol", "signal", "marker", "information" into scientific sentences does
your words are so intriguing, that I will shamelessy quote them (and you, of
course!), in my next papers. I like very much your concept of sequential as
well as commutative symbols in a biological context.
Concerning your very interesting issue of the possible working principle
Dear Karl and Pedro,
A unifying principle underlies the organization of physical and biological
systems. It relates to a well-known topological theorem which succinctly states
that an activity on a planar circumference projects to two activities with
“matching description” into a sphere. Here
gamechanging? Look at here:
> Il 22 gennaio 2018 alle 13.01 "Pedro C. Marijuan"
> ha scritto:
> Dear FISers,
> Going to the extreme, I think this year opening lecture can be
My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable journals, for a
simple reason: I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e.,
testable mathematical predictions.
Sent from Libero Mobile___
I'm sorry, but the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" still holds
Forget philosophical concepts like Yin and Yang, because, in some cases and
contexts , entropy is negative.
Just to make an example,
"Since the entropy H(S|O) can now become negative, erasing a
Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: Alex Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com Data:
mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM +02:00
Oggetto: Re: [Fis] Heretic
>Dear Prof. Hankey,
>I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in
>particular if his
I will never use anymore in my papers the useless term "information".
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android___
Fis mailing list
After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term
"information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique
definition of information.
Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!)
...a very hot discussion...
I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y
Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not
scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a purely
scientific issue such
Thanks for your nice and kind comments!
I'm honoured that you got through my manuscript.
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android lunedì, 25 settembre 2017, 07:47PM +02:00 da
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be :
>On 24 Sep 2017, at 21:35, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:
"The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but
in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly
considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any
concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and
thanks for your comment.
A true "medieval scholar and innovator, in touch with the interdisciplinary
school of Salamanca", needs to put together different issues from a wide range
Therefore, I suggest to read:
HEIDEGGER’S BEING AND QUANTUM VACUUM
A dialogue between
Dear “germane” Pedro,
Thanks a lot for your comments.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda. It’s the Occam razor:
it’s better to use the simplest explanation, rather than more complicated
descriptions of facts and events.
You talked about metabolic cellular networks, cellular life cycle, abstract
Da: James Peters james.pete...@umanitoba.ca A: tozziart...@libero.it Cc:
James Peters james.pete...@umanitoba.ca Data: mercoledì, 07 dicembre 2016,
Oggetto: about consciousness an Euclidean n-space
>Dear Arturo and All in this great
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android Messaggio inoltrato
Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Data: mercoledì, 30
novembre 2016, 09:52AM +01:00
Oggetto: Response to Jerry LR Chandler
>>here you are!
>>I tried 4 times to submit this
Thanks for your wise comment.
You say: "It is vital to be aware under which assumption model/theory has
It is an old statement, that reminds me the axiomatic fundations of Hilbert and
the linguistic jokes of the second Wittgenstein: neuroscientists start from a
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.
Thanks for the nice paper!
Concerning the use of topology in hippocampus assessment, I suggest another
paper, with a topological approach rather different from ours:
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android___
Mail list logo