Sorry Louis, but try again, please, for your address was wrong in the list
--Pedro
(I have just discovered, in a trip pause)
BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@
From: Louis H Kauffman
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:56:06 -0500
To: fis
Cc: Pedro C. Marijuan
Subject: Re: [Fis
Sorry Louis, but try again, please, for your address was wrong in the list
--Pedro
(I have just discovered, in a trip pause)
BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@
From: Louis H Kauffman mailto:lou...@gmail.com>>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:56:06 -0500
To: fismail
From: Louis H Kauffman mailto:lou...@gmail.com>>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:56:06 -0500
To: fismailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Cc: Pedro C. Marijuanmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic
Dear Plamen,
It is possible. We are looking
Dear Pedro,
I think that we should assess the role of formal tools that are already in
place.
1. We use the accepted (graph-theoretical + geometry) models of molecules.
These models are very powerful and fundamentally simple, but the complexities
of their application in molecular biology is ver
ngement of arguments of a sentence to cause impossibilities of
> coexistence of commutative arguments of the same sentence.
>
> 7. Summary
>
> The natural numbers are ready and waiting for the user to read results out of
> their multitude. The task is for the human to b
Dear Folks,
I am sending this again, just the quantum part, with typos removed.
Best,
Lou
Quantum Theory in a Nutshell
1. A state of a quantum system is a vector |psi> of unit length in a complex
vector space H.
H is a Hilbert space, but it can be finite dimensional.
Dual vectors are denoted
ry much in molecular geometry.
>
>
> I sincerely believe that the tautomat, the model of which has been presented
> to FIS during the last few years, here reintroduced as a skeleton on which
> one may demonstrate concepts, is a powerful and versatile tool to discuss
> ques
ote:
>
> Dear Lou and Colleagues,
>
>
> On 25 Mar 2016, at 19:51, Louis H Kauffman wrote:
>
>> Dear Karl,
>>
>> Thank you for this very considered letter.
>> I would like to ask you about your entry
>>
>> "6. Quantum information. By kee
This is a reply to Plamen’s comment about autopoeisis. In their paper
Maturana,Uribe and Varela give a working model (computer model) for autopoeisis.
It is very simple, consisting of a subtrate of nodal elements that tend to bond
when in proximity, and a collection of catalytic nodal elements th
m, theology,
> logic and algebra?
>
> All the best,
>
> Plamen
>
> PS. I do not know why my notes appear twice on this list.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Louis H Kauffman <mailto:kauff...@uic.edu>> wrote:
> This is a reply to Plamen’
> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: concluding by beginning (Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Da
fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es>
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es>
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line
Dear Soren and Folks,
I have included some comments inside Soren’s introduction.
Best,
Lou K.
>
> Infobiosemiotics
>
> Søren Brier, CBS
> This discussion aims at contributing to the definition of a universal concept
> of information covering objective as well as subjective experiential and
>
th his view in the
> Emperor’s new mind and Shadows of mind where he argues against AI having the
> same qualities as the human mind.
>
> Thanks
>
> Søren
>
>
>
> Fra: Louis H Kauffman [mailto:kauff...@uic.edu <mailto:kauff...@uic.edu>]
&
will find nothing there
> For that is the discipline I ask
> Not more, not less
>
> Not the world as it is
> Not ought to be –
> Only the precision
> The skeleton of truth
> I do not dabble in emotions
> Hint at implications
> Evoke the ghosts of old forgotten cr
> The manuscript
> So there it is in words
> Precise
> And if you read between the lines
> You will find nothing there
> For that is the discipline I ask
> Not more, not less
>
> Not the world as it is
> Not ought to be –
> Only the precision
> The skeleton of t
Dear Mark,
1. The way we think is part of how Nature works.
2. Thought is not separate from our contact with Nature.
3. Concept arises in the integration of thought and percept.
4. Thought is singular in that thought can be the object of thought and this
becomes a place where subject and object ar
Dear Maxine Sheets-Johnstone,
I would like to make a remark on your comment below.
"(4). References made to Gödel’s theorem to uphold certain theses can be
definitively
questioned. The claim that Gödel makes on behalf of his theorem is inaccurate.
Three articles that demonstrate the inaccuracy, o
yzing his
>> theory development to his 70 years festschrift: “The construction of
>> information and communication: A cybersemiotic reentry into Heinz von
>> Foerster's metaphysical construction of second-order cybernetics” it can be
>> downloaded here
>> http
On Pedro’s recommendation, I am forwarding this exchange to the list.
Best,
Lou
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Louis H Kauffman
> Subject: Re: Vol 25, #32, Nature of Self
> Date: April 29, 2016 at 12:12:26 PM EDT
> To: Alex Hankey
> Cc: "Pedro C. Marijuan&
> Dear Professor Sheets-Johnstone,
> It would be best if we keep our discussion to the contents of our letters
> rather than assume that we each have read all of the other’s work.
> In my case I was banned from this forum for two weeks for too many mailings.
> Right now I am at a conference and
Dear Folks
I realize in replying to this I surely reach the end of possible comments that
I can make for a week. But nevertheless …
I want to comment on Terrence Deacon’s remarks below and also on Professor
Johnstone’s remark from another email:
"This may look like a silly peculiarity of spoken
says something in
> fact true in that it says that the self-referential statement is not
> provable.
>
> What you say about consistency is true, but to my mind where Gödel
> goes wrong is both in assuming that the interpreted Gödel sentence has
> a single meaning, and in allowing hi
Dear Alex,
Thank you for this very balanced viewpoint about this part of the debate.
You write "Although formal systems are designed to apply to concepts within the
world of thought i.e. the world of (abstract) phenomenal experience, they are
not intended to have semantic application, but only s
Dear Dai,
Consider the pattern
.142857142857142857142857142857142857142857…
In our world of observers and technology, this pattern is constructed so that
it can be transmitted verbatim by this computer system to you.
No meaning is transmitted, just the list of numbers. Even the fact that the
pat
Dear Steve,
You write
"But in later years he eventually recognized that the possibility of relating
propositions in language to facts concerning the world could not in itself be
proved. Without proof, the house of cards collapses. Once the validity of using
language to describe the world ini a r
Dear Pedro,
Ok. Can we have the text of Professor Rossler’s proof that these mini-black
holes
> cannot Hawking evaporate
> grow exponentially inside matter?
It would be very interesting to debate the details.
I find on the web:
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.
Dear Folks,
It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning Professor
Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or false.
It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is correctly
alligned to physical p
Dear Krassimir,
Thank you!!
Yours is the most creative resolution of the Barber Paradox that I have
encountered.
Perhaps we can apply it also to the Russell Paradox.
I do not know. Let us think about it.
Another paradox that is resolved in the human realm is the card that reads
##
Dear Terrence,
Condsider the Russell paradox.
Russell set is R = { x a set | x is not a member of itself}.
If instead we define
R = { x a set | x is not a member of itself, and x is defined PRIOR TO THE
APPLICATION OF THIS DEFINITION}
then R is not a member of itself since it occurs AFTER the
Dear Pedro,
Thank you. This brings back happy memories of a ten week mathematical visit to
Zaragoza in 1982.
I toured in Southern Spain (saw the Alhambra and more) and lectured to Jose
Montesinos and his colleagues and students on knot theory for most of the ten
weeks, daily.
Jose took me north
Dear Mark,
Thank you for suggesting this topic.
I concur wholeheartedly with your stand on this matter.
Information in the sense that you indicate
is pattern that is independent of the particular substrate on which it is
‘carried’.
There is a persistent myth in popular scientific culture that ma
Dear Krassimir and Mark,
Let us not forget the intermediate question:
How is information independent of the choice of carrier?
This is the fruitful question in my opinion, and it avoids the problem of
assigning existence to that which is relational.
The same problem exists for numbers and other m
proofs or testable clues.
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
> venerdì, 27 aprile 2018, 10:10AM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
>
> Hi Lou, Colleagues,
>
>
>> On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:55, Louis H Kauffman
Dai,
I start down a road toward attempting to understand information by first
understanding number and form.
|
||
|||
|
…
Is a number a thing?
Is 2 a thing?
Cannot say that this 2, this || “is” two. Rather it partakes in being a couple.
2 is relational. We say that there are 2 signs in t
35 matches
Mail list logo
