Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FISers,

Thanks to Kevin and Joseph for their excellent texts --and to the many 
other responding parties. For my own argumentation purposes I find very 
useful the comments from Stan, Kevin Clark, Koichiro. There are three 
different aspects I would like to deal with. Given my burden of nasty 
complicate tasks, I have to leave them as open questions to try to 
formulate better in the future, or maybe to be kindly dealt with by 
other parties.

About the formalism to deal with entropies: How does the treatment of 
entropies by Michael in his Adaptability Theory --extended by the 
fluctuon model into the microphysical realm-- relate with the 
contemporary quantum information theory, and the qubits stuff? Given 
that it was initially conceived from the ecological perspective, can it 
be connected with Bob Ulanowicz's conceptualization of energy flow and 
diversity (and his tentative variational principle?) The paper by Kevin 
on "Biological adaptibilities and quantum entyropies" (BioSystems 64, 
2002, 33-41) is an excellent portal for this question.

Gravitation and the quantum--and information. There are plenty of 
theories on quantum gravitation to compare with the ideas in the 
fluctuon model, and to try to link with the information discussion. 
Given the curious biological penchant of Lee Smolin ("The Life of the 
Cosmos",1997, "Three roads to Quantum Gravity", 2000) and the relative 
clarity of his discussions on string theory and other approaches, I am 
very tempted to take some of his ideas on Calabi-Yau (manifolds) spaces 
as an ultimate Planckian scenario where energy and information collide 
and only elementary "distinctions" survive. They are communicable in 
some "open" dimensions, but not in the other "closed" ones... the idea 
of information as "distinction on the adjacent" is realized there; also 
in Smolin's discussions on information in black holes, birth of "baby 
universes, etc.   Could this frame of thought be put in agreement with 
the formal underpinnings of the fluctuon model --as far as I know, 
inspired by Josephson "fluxons" or electron solitons in quantum 
tunneling? It goes beyond my reach.

Percolation --and the all pervasive and reverberating circulation of the 
"perpetual disequilibrium" as Koichiro as put. This aspect of Michael's 
thought was fascinating for me, a "vertical" but terribly heterogeneous 
scenario of information flows. Given that Joseph and Stan have made neat 
statements from different angles about a "hierarchical" structure of 
levels, I contend in favor of the general predominance of the 
heterarchical scheme. When we leave the narrow confines of a discipline, 
or the boundaries of an experimental setting, "everything comes together 
again"... Given the limitations of our individual cognition, those 
vagaries in the environment are not accidental, but fundamental--and 
they percolate in our collective cognition and in our social use of the 
sciences. I agree with Joseph (I think) in the need of a more cogent 
logic "for the real" and not only for the formal-theoretical. Part of 
the problem is that this artificial "contention of percolation" has been 
treated differently in each major discipline. See for instance Peter 
Denning views on Computational Science-versus Information Science. 
Echoing McLuhan centennial, couldn't we call this problem as the 
irrenunciable "mosaic" structure of information percolation?

Thanking the patience,

Pedro

-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

 
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Koichiro,

Your "peripheral" remarks were not so to me, but exactly the further grounding 
in physics that I for one feel necessary. I would like to focus on two 
statements I found particularly relevant:

> If information has anything significant in its own right and can stand alone 
> irrespective of  whether or how it may become analytically accessible, on the 
> other hand, one must go beyond  the stipulation of the standard model.

The logical system I am proposing does nothing too far outside the standard 
model. It focuses on the dualities and self-dualities of energy as 
metaphysically significant, with the inherent oppositional relation - 
distinguishable co-existing actualities and potentialities - as the basis for 
information.

>...why not take up carbon chemistry as one more concrete example going beyond 
>the hurdle? So > far as we know, there has been no attempt for determining > 
>both carbon compounds as the building pieces of biology and chemical affinity 
>latent in them in a mutually consistent manner.

Logic in Reality provides a consistent interpretation of the "latent affinity" 
of chemical compounds in terms of residual "unsaturated" potentialities that 
are the resultant of those of the atoms, which result in turn from those at the 
lowest quantum level. This reality is equivalent to the information carried to 
higher levels of complexity that is necessary for the emergence of new forms 
and processes. It is the latent affinity (potentiality) of 
carbon-nitrogen-oxygen-sulfur compounds that enable them to be the building 
blocks of biology.

The reason that I call this approach a logic rather than "just" a restatement 
of the underlying chemical physics is that one maintains its principles when 
entering the epistemological domain, eliminating as far as possible the barrier 
between epistemology and ontology that has been the source of so much , 
well, difficulty.

Koichiro's note talks to the basic question Kevin and I posed, the reality + 
causal efficacy of fluctuons. More evidence for or against will be easier to 
evaluate with this in hand.

Thank you and best wishes,

Joseph   


  - Original Message - 
  From: Koichiro Matsuno 
  To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 5:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model


  Folks, 

   

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

   

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

   

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

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Koichiro Matsuno]

Folks, 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

   Best, 

   Koichiro Matsuno

 

 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

I am not aware of anything in computing or computer science that says that 
recursions must have a bottom.

This whole "it-bit" question appears to me to be a basic category mistake. 
Perhaps someone can clarify for me in more definite terms exactly what an "it" 
is. 

Before you do so, however, let me add the following: The definition "an 'it' an 
implementation of a 'bit'" will not satisfy me. Conversely, telling me that it 
has something to do with units of mass/energy from which bits may arise is not 
helpful either (though I may applaud the constructive nature of the statement). 
No equivalence statement appears to be useful. 

In the end some kind of epistemological statement is necessary, perhaps one 
that says something to the effect that "bits" are ways of speaking about "its." 
But this statement is not an especially useful either, except perhaps to 
observe that bits have their subject of discourse. 

There is little justification to view any current information theory as being 
more than a way of speaking about the unfolding of the world. More 
specifically, despite current fashion, Quantum Theory and the Photo Electric 
Effect, there is no scientific justification for placing bits "into" the 
foundations of the world. 

Hence, I can make no sense of a "Fluctuon." 

With respect,
Steven


--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info







On Sep 25, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> Regarding the very interesting discussion of ”it” from ”bit” and vice versa.
>  
> Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
> implementational) presupposes some “it” in which “bit” is implemented. In 
> computing, recursions must have a bottom.
>  
> Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, “it” and “bit” 
> cannot be distinguished at all?
> They simply are an “it-bit” like in Informational Structural Realism of 
> Floridi who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an 
> informational structure.
>  
> Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual wave-particle 
> nature. 
> Why cannot they be “it-bit” as well?
>  
> Best,
> Gordana
>  
>  
> From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
> Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
> Sent: den 25 september 2010 10:48
> To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model
>  
> Dear Joe,
>  
> Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is, 
> energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
> certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
> same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
> non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
> something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
> material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.
>  
> Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon’s concept of 
> information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the 
> Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.
>  
> One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the 
> biologically inspired concept of information as “a difference which makes a 
> difference” (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can 
> provide meaning to the information.
>  
> I would not call this “anti-realist”, but “anti-positivist”. The 
> specification in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as 
> different from res extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological 
> status. All other science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically 
> prevailing.
>  
> Best wishes,
> Loet
>  
> Loet Leydesdorff 
> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>  
>  
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Rafael,


Ø  Otherwise bits turns into digital metaphysics



Not necessarily if we take that dual nature seriously. They are both waves and 
particles.

I have also written in that sense several times, among others in

http://mdh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:120541/FULLTEXT01


Dear Loet,



Ø  The it-part is in the "structure" which assumes the specification of a 
system of reference.

In evolutionary terms: structure is deterministic/selective; Shannon-type 
information measures only variation/uncertainty.



I agree with you. And complementary part "bit" comes from its dynamics.



Best,

Gordana




Best wishes,
Gordana

From: Rafael Capurro [mailto:raf...@capurro.de]
Sent: den 25 september 2010 11:55
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Cc: Loet Leydesdorff; 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

dear Gordana

just because the bit-view of reality one possible view is. Otherwise bits turns 
into digital metaphysics.
Floridi: he is contradictory. He says/said that the infosphere is not the 
cybetspace, then yes, then no... Then he says that forms are on a "higher level 
of abstraction" that bit-forms... which is what Plato would say and said (but 
much better than Floridi), the digital infosphere being only one possibility of 
forms, then he says...

best

Rafael


Dear all,

Regarding the very interesting discussion of "it" from "bit" and vice versa.

Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
implementational) presupposes some "it" in which "bit" is implemented. In 
computing, recursions must have a bottom.

Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, "it" and "bit" cannot 
be distinguished at all?
They simply are an "it-bit" like in Informational Structural Realism of Floridi 
who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an informational 
structure.

Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual wave-particle 
nature.
Why cannot they be "it-bit" as well?

Best,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 25 september 2010 10:48
To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; 
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

Dear Joe,

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is, 
energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.

Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept of 
information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the 
Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.

One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the 
biologically inspired concept of information as "a difference which makes a 
difference" (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can 
provide meaning to the information.

I would not call this "anti-realist", but "anti-positivist". The specification 
in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as different from res 
extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological status. All other 
science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically prevailing.

Best wishes,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/







___

fis mailing list

fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis




--

Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro

Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany

Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics 
(http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)

Director, Steinbeis-Transfer-Institute Information Ethics (STI-IE), Karlsruhe, 
Germany (http://sti-ie.de)

Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of Information Studies, 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA

President, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) 
(http://icie.zkm.de)

Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) 
(http://www.i-r-i-e.net)

Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany

E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de<mail

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Loet Leydesdorff]

They simply are an "it-bit" like in Informational Structural Realism of
Floridi who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an
informational structure.

 

The it-part is in the "structure" which assumes the specification of a
system of reference. 

In evolutionary terms: structure is deterministic/selective; Shannon-type
information measures only variation/uncertainty.

 

Best wishes,

Loet

 

 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Rafael Capurro]

 dear Gordana

just because the bit-view of reality one possible view is. Otherwise 
bits turns into digital metaphysics.
Floridi: he is contradictory. He says/said that the infosphere is not 
the cybetspace, then yes, then no... Then he says that forms are on a 
"higher level of abstraction" that bit-forms... which is what Plato 
would say and said (but much better than Floridi), the digital 
infosphere being only one possibility of forms, then he says...


best

Rafael


Dear all,

Regarding the very interesting discussion of "it" from "bit" and vice 
versa.


Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
implementational) presupposes some "it" in which "bit" is implemented. 
In computing, recursions must have a bottom.


Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, "it" and 
"bit" cannot be distinguished at all?


They simply are an "it-bit" like in Informational Structural Realism 
of Floridi who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an 
informational structure.


Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual 
wave-particle nature.

Why cannot they be "it-bit" as well?

Best,

Gordana

*From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es 
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Loet Leydesdorff

*Sent:* den 25 september 2010 10:48
*To:* 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

Dear Joe,

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", 
that is, energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is 
anti-realist, this is certainly not what I would consider Conrad's 
theory to be. Stan comes to the same conclusion, that fluctuons are 
its, but this suggests to him a non-materialist conception of 
information. This is a first place where something like another logic 
is needed that can incorporate the material-energetic and non-material 
aspects of information.


Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept 
of information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, 
the Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.


One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with 
the biologically inspired concept of information as "a difference 
which makes a difference" (Bateson). This is observed information by a 
system which can provide meaning to the information.


I would not call this "anti-realist", but "anti-positivist". The 
specification in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as 
different from res extensa). All of physics also has this 
epistemological status. All other science, too, but sometimes 
positivism is ideologically prevailing.


Best wishes,

Loet



Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



--
Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics 
(http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)
Director, Steinbeis-Transfer-Institute Information Ethics (STI-IE), Karlsruhe, 
Germany (http://sti-ie.de)
Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of Information Studies, 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA
President, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) 
(http://icie.zkm.de)
Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) 
(http://www.i-r-i-e.net)
Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de
Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: www.capurro.de

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear all,

Regarding the very interesting discussion of "it" from "bit" and vice versa.

Usually each level of information processing (semantic, algorithmic, 
implementational) presupposes some "it" in which "bit" is implemented. In 
computing, recursions must have a bottom.

Could it be the case that on the very fundamental level, "it" and "bit" cannot 
be distinguished at all?
They simply are an "it-bit" like in Informational Structural Realism of Floridi 
who (using different reasoning) argues that reality is an informational 
structure.

Fluctuons being quantum-mechanical phenomena have already dual wave-particle 
nature.
Why cannot they be "it-bit" as well?

Best,
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: den 25 september 2010 10:48
To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Stanley N Salthe'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

Dear Joe,

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is, 
energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.

Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept of 
information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the 
Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality.

One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the 
biologically inspired concept of information as "a difference which makes a 
difference" (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can 
provide meaning to the information.

I would not call this "anti-realist", but "anti-positivist". The specification 
in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as different from res 
extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological status. All other 
science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically prevailing.

Best wishes,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Joe, 

 

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is,
energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is
certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the
same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a
non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where
something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the
material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.

 

Can this issue not simply be solved by returning to Shannon's concept of
information. Bits of information are dimensionless. In S = k(B) H, the
Boltzmann constant provides the dimensionality. 

 

One should not confuse this mathematical concept of information with the
biologically inspired concept of information as "a difference which makes a
difference" (Bateson). This is observed information by a system which can
provide meaning to the information. 

 

I would not call this "anti-realist", but "anti-positivist". The
specification in the mathematical discourse remains res cogitans (as
different from res extensa). All of physics also has this epistemological
status. All other science, too, but sometimes positivism is ideologically
prevailing. 

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
  l...@leydesdorff.net ;
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Stan and All,

Please let me start by repeating my idea that fluctuons are "its", that is, 
energy in some form. If (mathematical) idealism is anti-realist, this is 
certainly not what I would consider Conrad's theory to be. Stan comes to the 
same conclusion, that fluctuons are its, but this suggests to him a 
non-materialist conception of information. This is a first place where 
something like another logic is needed that can incorporate the 
material-energetic and non-material aspects of information.

Stan wrote:
>That these unmanifest communications are “not susceptible to being washed out 
>by thermal >fluctuations”, I suppose follows from the definition of 
>‘unmanifest’, but organisms seem to be >manifest.  What are we reaching for 
>here?  Transcendence of material limitations as the world >goes sour on us?

This is a very pertinent comment, and I have also speculated that Conrad was 
reaching for something like this, which is of course not the evidence for it we 
would like. But we are looking for something beyond bits; no one is arguing 
that they are vague; they are too crisp.

If the principle of scale hierarchy says that information flows are not 
possible across scales, perhaps we need to take another look at that principle 
;-). If there is no exchange between the unmanifest world and the manifest one, 
and change, randomness, etc. are totally different in the unmanifest world, 
this might tend to confirm it. However, I feel the differences between the two 
are not only of scale.

Seems to me we are off to a good start,

Joseph




  - Original Message - 
  From: Stanley N Salthe 
  To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
  Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:26 PM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model


  Folks --


  Comments upon Kirby’s & Brenner’s ‘Opening Remarks’



  (1) I used Conrad’s early information-based work in developing my conception 
of the scale/compositional hierarchy as applied to material systems.  As a 
materialist, I may have ‘mis-read’ his work.  I think this now, upon glimpsing 
this ‘fluctuon theory’, which is clearly not a materialist construct.  Rather, 
it seems to lie in the realm of mathematical idealism.  



  Admittedly, materialism may turn out to have been a ‘wrong turn’ in our 
attempts to understand the universe.  Information itself may not be a 
materialist proposition!  My own thinking is really ‘bit’ from ‘it’!  Then, 
fluctuons may really be ‘its’, and not ‘bits’!  Surely ‘bits’ emerged into the 
world with information theory, crisp as that is.  I argue that any development 
must go from vaguer to more definite, as with any embryo.  Bits ain’t vague.  
Or, tell me HOW they are vague.  Fluctuons as limned here seem pretty vague to 
me – perhaps because language cannot reach their mathematical crispness!



  We do not yet have a fuzzy version of cosmology, I suppose.



  “Vertical flows” directly “up and down” the scale hierarchy contradicts one 
of the principles of that hierarchy in application, which requires transduction 
of information in order to cross scales (example: a higher level constructs 
statistical representations of lower level dynamics).  That, of course would be 
in the ‘manifest, material world’.  And it is precisely ‘information flows’ 
that would be interdicted at scale changes.



  “Percolation networks” to foster a “logical approach” to information flows 
across hierarchically organized compartments may seem OK in math.



  “Interaction” between manifest organisms and the “unmanifest vacuum” is 
tantalizing, but… in information theory?  “Fascinating and rich”, yes.



  That these unmanifest communications are “not susceptible to being washed out 
by thermal fluctuations”, I suppose follows from the definition of 
‘unmanifest’, but organisms seem to be manifest.  What are we reaching for 
here?  Transcendence of material limitations as the world goes sour on us?



  STAN

  Let me add that in my evening musings, I do entertain thoughts that might 
well be more crisply informed by fluctuon theory!



  On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
 wrote:

(The previous message was truncated, sorry. I am sending it again. ---P.)





THE NATURE OF MICROPHYSICAL INFORMATION:

REVISITING THE FLUCTUON MODEL
 

Kevin G. Kirby 
Department of Computer Science 
Northern Kentucky University (US)

Joseph Brenner 
International Center for Transdisciplinary Research 
Paris (France)



1. OPENING REMARKS 
(Kevin Kirby)

 In the standard view, taken for granted so completely it is rarely 
articulated, the fundamental physics of particles and fields is a mere 
"platform" for life. Physics and biology are surely deeply different: the 
extreme ends of the scales simply don't match up.  For example, the notion that 
somehow the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum physics has some 
relevance for life s

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Stanley N Salthe]

Folks --

Comments upon Kirby’s & Brenner’s ‘Opening Remarks’



(1) I used Conrad’s early information-based work in developing my conception
of the scale/compositional hierarchy as applied to material systems.  As a
materialist, I may have ‘mis-read’ his work.  I think this now, upon
glimpsing this ‘fluctuon theory’, which is clearly not a materialist
construct.  Rather, it seems to lie in the realm of mathematical idealism.



Admittedly, materialism may turn out to have been a ‘wrong turn’ in our
attempts to understand the universe.  Information itself may not be a
materialist proposition!  My own thinking is really ‘bit’ from ‘it’!  Then,
fluctuons may really be ‘its’, and not ‘bits’!  Surely ‘bits’ emerged into
the world with information theory, crisp as that is.  I argue that any
development must go from vaguer to more definite, as with any embryo.  Bits
ain’t vague.  Or, tell me HOW they are vague.  Fluctuons as limned here seem
pretty vague to me – perhaps because language cannot reach their
mathematical crispness!



We do not yet have a fuzzy version of cosmology, I suppose.



“Vertical flows” directly “up and down” the scale hierarchy contradicts one
of the principles of that hierarchy in application, which requires
transduction of information in order to cross scales (example: a higher
level constructs statistical representations of lower level dynamics).  That,
of course would be in the ‘manifest, material world’.  And it is precisely
‘information flows’ that would be interdicted at scale changes.



“Percolation networks” to foster a “logical approach” to information flows
across hierarchically organized compartments may seem OK in math.



“Interaction” between manifest organisms and the “unmanifest vacuum” is
tantalizing, but… in information theory?  “Fascinating and rich”, yes.



That these unmanifest communications are “not susceptible to being washed
out by thermal fluctuations”, I suppose follows from the definition of
‘unmanifest’, but organisms seem to be manifest.  What are we reaching for
here?  Transcendence of material limitations as the world goes sour on us?



STAN

Let me add that in my evening musings, I do entertain thoughts that might
well be more crisply informed by fluctuon theory!

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:

> (The previous message was truncated, sorry. I am sending it again. ---P.)
>
>
>
>
> *THE NATURE OF MICROPHYSICAL INFORMATION:*
>
> *REVISITING THE FLUCTUON MODEL*
>
>
> *Kevin G. Kirby
> *Department of Computer Science
> Northern Kentucky University (US)
>
> *Joseph Brenner*
> International Center for Transdisciplinary Research
> Paris (France)
>
>
>
> 1. OPENING REMARKS
> (Kevin Kirby)
>
>  In the standard view, taken for granted so completely it is rarely
> articulated, the fundamental physics of particles and fields is a mere
> "platform" for life. Physics and biology are surely deeply different: the
> extreme ends of the scales simply don't match up.  For example, the notion
> that somehow the incompatibility of general relativity with quantum physics
> has some relevance for life seems nonsensical.
>
> But is it? In a series of papers published throughout the 1990s, Michael
> Conrad put together a theory in which life was, as he often put it, an image
> of the underlying physics of the universe. The mere title of one of the
> final papers in the series, and the title of the book he wanted to write,
> "Quantum Gravity and Life," seems almost like a non sequitur. And indeed,
> the theory he put forth was difficult. But the claim I would like to put
> forward is that there are deep ideas here that -- even if the full details
> of the theory are not correct or not well-defined-- help us reach a more
> satisfying theory of information in the natural world.
>
> Tragically, Conrad passed away in 2001, and was unable to complete his
> book. Yet a very thorough description remains of his ideas in a series of
> sixteen papers from 1989 through 1998.  This work centered on what he
> called fluctuon theory. The main exposition was in a series of papers
> "Fluctuons I,II, III" published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals during
> 1993-1996.  For the purposes of this discussion, two briefer papers can be
> recommended as providing good summaries of his ideas here:
>
> * Conrad, M., 1995, Multiscale synergy in biological information
> processing. Optical Memory and Neural Networks 4(2), 89-98.
>
> * Conrad, M., 1998, Quantum gravity and life, BioSystems 46, 29-39.
>
> The fluctuon theory asserts that the universe is a kind of giant homeostat,
> but one in which the ground state is always in flight. The universe slides
> in and out of consistency.  His starting point was the Dirac sea of
> negative energy particles: his vacuum was a plenum.  There was more than
> one sea. One was of electrons and positrons, where photons are chains of
> such pairs. The gluons of the strong nuclear force were to be chains in a
> quark

[Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

(The previous message was truncated, sorry. I am sending it again. ---P.)



*THE NATURE OF MICROPHYSICAL INFORMATION:*

*REVISITING THE FLUCTUON MODEL*


*Kevin G. Kirby
*Department of Computer Science
Northern Kentucky University (US)

*Joseph Brenner*
International Center for Transdisciplinary Research
Paris (France)



1. OPENING REMARKS
(Kevin Kirby)

In the standard view, taken for granted so completely it is rarely 
articulated, the fundamental physics of particles and fields is a mere 
"platform" for life. Physics and biology are surely deeply different: 
the extreme ends of the scales simply don't match up.  For example, the 
notion that somehow the incompatibility of general relativity with 
quantum physics has some relevance for life seems nonsensical.


But is it? In a series of papers published throughout the 1990s, Michael 
Conrad put together a theory in which life was, as he often put it, an 
image of the underlying physics of the universe. The mere title of one 
of the final papers in the series, and the title of the book he wanted 
to write, "Quantum Gravity and Life," seems almost like a non sequitur. 
And indeed, the theory he put forth was difficult. But the claim I would 
like to put forward is that there are deep ideas here that -- even if 
the full details of the theory are not correct or not well-defined-- 
help us reach a more satisfying theory of information in the natural world.


Tragically, Conrad passed away in 2001, and was unable to complete his 
book. Yet a very thorough description remains of his ideas in a series 
of sixteen papers from 1989 through 1998.  This work centered on what he 
called fluctuon theory. The main exposition was in a series of papers 
"Fluctuons I,II, III" published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals during 
1993-1996.  For the purposes of this discussion, two briefer papers can 
be recommended as providing good summaries of his ideas here:


* Conrad, M., 1995, Multiscale synergy in biological information 
processing. Optical Memory and Neural Networks 4(2), 89-98.


* Conrad, M., 1998, Quantum gravity and life, BioSystems 46, 29-39.

The fluctuon theory asserts that the universe is a kind of giant 
homeostat, but one in which the ground state is always in flight. The 
universe slides in and out of consistency.  His starting point was the 
Dirac sea of negative energy particles: his vacuum was a plenum.  There 
was more than one sea. One was of electrons and positrons, where photons 
are chains of such pairs. The gluons of the strong nuclear force were to 
be chains in a quark/anti-quark sea. Gravitons were chains that arose 
from all massive particles in these seas. Viewed this way, these chains 
of virtual particles, disturbances in the sea --which as a class he 
called "fluctuons" --  are responsible for all fundamental forces. He 
described fluctuons as skipping along the energy surface of the vacuum 
sea as analogous to a stone skipping along the surface of a pond.


This theory is daunting not because it is mathematically complex; in 
fact, its mathematics mostly resembles elementary perturbation theory. 
It is daunting because it is so discontinuous with the standard model of 
particles and fields.  For example, even though gluons play a role, 
there is no use of group theory or symmetry principles.


What the fluctuon theory does have, however, is a mechanism for seeing 
the "lifelike" in the "un-lifelike".   Central to the theory is that 
there are vertical flows, up and down, across microscopic, mesoscopic, 
and macroscopic levels.  In particular microscopic decorrelation and 
recorrelation processes are amplified up the scale, and this is 
characteristic of life. These flows in fact are information flows.  
(Information also plays a role in the fluctuon theory through the notion 
of anti-entropy.)


How does logic connect to this? None of Conrad's work dealt with logic 
per se. But the fluctuon theory allowed Conrad to talk systematically 
about percolation networks, and the nested, hierarchical, compartmental 
structure of interactions is one way a logical approach could take hold 
here. To what extent can we see this as "ontological levels of 
reality"?  In fact, could the dynamic oppositions discussed by Joseph 
Brenner in his LiR theory be aligned with the 
decorrelation/recorrelation concept in the fluctuon theory as it reaches 
across scales?


Overall, within fluctuon theory "the interaction between the manifest 
organism and its unmanifest vacuum sea image abets the evolution, 
persistence, and maintenance of this unique complexity [of life]".  This 
is a fascinating and rich notion.  What can we unfold from this notion 
now in 2010? 



2. IMPLICATIONS FOR LOGICS IN REALITY
(Joseph Brenner)

In a Wheeler model of the universe, information as an abstract entity 
(bit) is ontologically prior to any material-energetic entity (it). If, 
however, energy or its effective quantum field or string equivalent is 
primitive, as I believe, in

[Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

*THE NATURE OF MICROPHYSICAL INFORMATION:*

*REVISITING THE FLUCTUON MODEL*


*Kevin G. Kirby
*Department of Computer Science
Northern Kentucky University (US)

*Joseph Brenner*
International Center for Transdisciplinary Research
Paris (France)



1. OPENING REMARKS
(Kevin Kirby)

In the standard view, taken for granted so completely it is rarely 
articulated, the fundamental physics of particles and fields is a mere 
"platform" for life. Physics and biology are surely deeply different: 
the extreme ends of the scales simply don't match up.  For example, the 
notion that somehow the incompatibility of general relativity with 
quantum physics has some relevance for life seems nonsensical.


But is it? In a series of papers published throughout the 1990s, Michael 
Conrad put together a theory in which life was, as he often put it, an 
image of the underlying physics of the universe. The mere title of one 
of the final papers in the series, and the title of the book he wanted 
to write, "Quantum Gravity and Life," seems almost like a non sequitur. 
And indeed, the theory he put forth was difficult. But the claim I would 
like to put forward is that there are deep ideas here that -- even if 
the full details of the theory are not correct or not well-defined-- 
help us reach a more satisfying theory of information in the natural world.


Tragically, Conrad passed away in 2001, and was unable to complete his 
book. Yet a very thorough description remains of his ideas in a series 
of sixteen papers from 1989 through 1998.  This work centered on what he 
called fluctuon theory. The main exposition was in a series of papers 
"Fluctuons I,II, III" published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals during 
1993-1996.  For the purposes of this discussion, two briefer papers can 
be recommended as providing good summaries of his ideas here:


* Conrad, M., 1995, Multiscale synergy in biological information 
processing. Optical Memory and Neural Networks 4(2), 89-98.


* Conrad, M., 1998, Quantum gravity and life, BioSystems 46, 29-39.

The fluctuon theory asserts that the universe is a kind of giant 
homeostat, but one in which the ground state is always in flight. The 
universe slides in and out of consistency.  His starting point was the 
Dirac sea of negative energy particles: his vacuum was a plenum.  There 
was more than one sea. One was of electrons and positrons, where photons 
are chains of such pairs. The gluons of the strong nuclear force were to 
be chains in a quark/anti-quark sea. Gravitons were chains that arose 
from all massive particles in these seas. Viewed this way, these chains 
of virtual particles, disturbances in the sea --which as a class he 
called "fluctuons" --  are responsible for all fundamental forces. He 
described fluctuons as skipping along the energy surface of the vacuum 
sea as analogous to a stone skipping along the surface of a pond.


This theory is daunting not because it is mathematically complex; in 
fact, its mathematics mostly resembles elementary perturbation theory. 
It is daunting because it is so discontinuous with the standard model of 
particles and fields.  For example, even though gluons play a role, 
there is no use of group theory or symmetry principles.


What the fluctuon theory does have, however, is a mechanism for seeing 
the "lifelike" in the "un-lifelike".   Central to the theory is that 
there are vertical flows, up and down, across microscopic, mesoscopic, 
and macroscopic levels.  In particular microscopic decorrelation and 
recorrelation processes are amplified up the scale, and this is 
characteristic of life. These flows in fact are information flows.  
(Information also plays a role in the fluctuon theory through the notion 
of anti-entropy.)


How does logic connect to this? None of Conrad's work dealt with logic 
per se. But the fluctuon theory allowed Conrad to talk systematically 
about percolation networks, and the nested, hierarchical, compartmental 
structure of interactions is one way a logical approach could take hold 
here. To what extent can we see this as "ontological levels of 
reality"?  In fact, could the dynamic oppositions discussed by Joseph 
Brenner in his LiR theory be aligned with the 
decorrelation/recorrelation concept in the fluctuon theory as it reaches 
across scales?


Overall, within fluctuon theory "the interaction between the manifest 
organism and its unmanifest vacuum sea image abets the evolution, 
persistence, and maintenance of this unique complexity [of life]".  This 
is a fascinating and rich notion.  What can we unfold from this notion 
now in 2010? 



2. IMPLICATIONS FOR LOGICS IN REALITY
(Joseph Brenner)

In a Wheeler model of the universe, information as an abstract entity 
(bit) is ontologically prior to any material-energetic entity (it). If, 
however, energy or its effective quantum field or string equivalent is 
primitive, as I believe, interpretations of information in terms of 
energy become much more plausible