Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re: Verification of the Principle of Information Science--John Torday
I was thinking that these words from A.N. Whitehead's "Science and the modern world" (1926) are highly relevant to our discussions: "When you are criticising the philosophy of an epoch do not chiefly direct your attention to those intellectual positions which its exponents feel it necessary explicitly to defend. There will be some fundamental assumptions which adherents of all the variant systems within the epoch unconsciously presuppose. Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them. With these assumptions a certain limited number of types of philosophic systems are possible, and this group of systems constitutes the philosophy of the epoch" (p.61) What assumptions are we blind to? From my own perspective, we assume an education system and a science system which enables us to talk this kind of talk. We rarely talk about the context which these systems create for us. In order to get another "way of putting things", we should try see more clearly the full gamut of constraints which bind us to our existing ways of putting things. Best wishes, Mark On 19 October 2017 at 14:54, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: > (Message from John Torday --Note: neither the list nor the server do > accept attachments) > > Mensaje reenviado > Asunto: Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science > Fecha: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:45:07 -0700 > De: JOHN TORDAY > Para: Pedro C. Marijuan > > > Dear All, I feel like the beggar at the banquet, having arrived at the FIS > of late in response to Pedro's invitation to participate, having reviewed > our paper on 'ambiguity' in Progress in Biolphyics and Molecular Biology > (see attached). In my deconvolution of evolution as all of biology > (Dobzhansky), I have reduced the problem to the unicellular state as the > arbiter of information and communication, dictated by The First Principles > of Physiology- negative entropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis. I arrived > at that idea by following the process of evolution as ontogeny and > phylogeny backwards from its most complex to its simplest state as a > continuum, aided by the concept that evolution is a series of > pre-adaptations, or exaptations or co-options. With that mind-set, the > formation of the first cell from lipids immersed in water generated > 'ambiguity' by maintaining a negative entropic free energy within itself in > defiance of the external positive energy of the physical environment, and > the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The iterative resolution of that > ambiguous state of being is what we refer to as evolution. For me, > information and communication are the keys, but they are not co-equals. I > say that because in reducing the question of evolution to the single cell, > I have been able to 'connect the dots' between biology and physics, such > elements of Quantum Mechanics as non-localization and the Pauli Exclusion > Principle being the basis for pleiotropy, the distribution of genetics > throughout the organism, and The First Principles of Physiology, > respectively. So now, thinking about the continuum from physics to biology, > literally, the Big Bang generated the magnitude and direction of both the > Cosmos and subsequently biology, i.e. life is a verb not a noun, a process, > not a thing. For these reasons I place communication hierarchically 'above' > information. Moreover, this perspective offers answers to the perennial > questions as to how and why life is 'emergent and contingent'. The > emergence is due to the pleiotropic property, the organism having the > ability to retrieve 'historic' genetic traits for novel purposes. And the > contingence is on The First Principles of Physiology. So we exist between > the boundaries of both deterministic Principles of Physiology and the Free > Will conferred by homoestatic control, offering a range of set-points that > may/not evolve when necessary, depending on the prevailing environmental > conditions. > > And by the way, this way of thinking plays into Pedro's comments about the > impact of such thinking on society because in conceiving of the cell as the > first Niche Construction (see attached), all that I have said above plays > out as the way in which organisms interact with one another and with their > environment based on self-referential self-organization, which is the basis > for consciousness, all emanating from the Big Bang as their point source. > So with all due respect, Information is the medium, but communication is in > my opinion the message, not the other way around. I see this as a potential > way of organize information in a contextually relevant way that is not > anthropocentric, but objective, approximating David Bohm's 'implicate > order'. Ciao for now, I hopeJohn Torday > > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> After Xueshan clarion
[Fis] Fwd: Re: Verification of the Principle of Information Science--John Torday
(Message from John Torday --Note: neither the list nor the server do accept attachments) Mensaje reenviado Asunto: Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science Fecha: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:45:07 -0700 De: JOHN TORDAY Para: Pedro C. Marijuan Dear All, I feel like the beggar at the banquet, having arrived at the FIS of late in response to Pedro's invitation to participate, having reviewed our paper on 'ambiguity' in Progress in Biolphyics and Molecular Biology (see attached). In my deconvolution of evolution as all of biology (Dobzhansky), I have reduced the problem to the unicellular state as the arbiter of information and communication, dictated by The First Principles of Physiology- negative entropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis. I arrived at that idea by following the process of evolution as ontogeny and phylogeny backwards from its most complex to its simplest state as a continuum, aided by the concept that evolution is a series of pre-adaptations, or exaptations or co-options. With that mind-set, the formation of the first cell from lipids immersed in water generated 'ambiguity' by maintaining a negative entropic free energy within itself in defiance of the external positive energy of the physical environment, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The iterative resolution of that ambiguous state of being is what we refer to as evolution. For me, information and communication are the keys, but they are not co-equals. I say that because in reducing the question of evolution to the single cell, I have been able to 'connect the dots' between biology and physics, such elements of Quantum Mechanics as non-localization and the Pauli Exclusion Principle being the basis for pleiotropy, the distribution of genetics throughout the organism, and The First Principles of Physiology, respectively. So now, thinking about the continuum from physics to biology, literally, the Big Bang generated the magnitude and direction of both the Cosmos and subsequently biology, i.e. life is a verb not a noun, a process, not a thing. For these reasons I place communication hierarchically 'above' information. Moreover, this perspective offers answers to the perennial questions as to how and why life is 'emergent and contingent'. The emergence is due to the pleiotropic property, the organism having the ability to retrieve 'historic' genetic traits for novel purposes. And the contingence is on The First Principles of Physiology. So we exist between the boundaries of both deterministic Principles of Physiology and the Free Will conferred by homoestatic control, offering a range of set-points that may/not evolve when necessary, depending on the prevailing environmental conditions. And by the way, this way of thinking plays into Pedro's comments about the impact of such thinking on society because in conceiving of the cell as the first Niche Construction (see attached), all that I have said above plays out as the way in which organisms interact with one another and with their environment based on self-referential self-organization, which is the basis for consciousness, all emanating from the Big Bang as their point source. So with all due respect, Information is the medium, but communication is in my opinion the message, not the other way around. I see this as a potential way of organize information in a contextually relevant way that is not anthropocentric, but objective, approximating David Bohm's 'implicate order'. Ciao for now, I hopeJohn Torday On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote: Dear All, After Xueshan clarion call, I partially change what I was writing. Of course I have to thank him for his support of the 10 principles. Actually, in connection with the recent exchanges, particularly with Gordana's and John (Torday) posts, I was working in some ideas further related to the principles. On the one side the general view on the "new kind of natural science/philosophy" around information, and on the other side the transcendentalism of life... I think they also connect with Xueshan call of synthesis between info disciplines in his last paragraph. Trying to be concise I present herewith three points: First. "There is Life--and Information." Second. "We contemplate the World." Third. "The society around us." 1. Life and Information: In biology, information is the new mantra. All kinds of scientific-technological-entrepreneurial gurus have proclaimed it, based on the revolutionary discoveries and gigantic bio-data accumulations. But scientifically, few people are trying to accommodate a new central theory of biology that could incorporate that new empirical reality of amazing complexity. In my own preliminary approach I describe how the simplest cells confront "the information flows" of their environment