Hi everyone,
I just want to add my thoughts along the line of Plamen's last comments.
I've been following with great interest some of the exchanges between FIS
members. Unfortunatly as a business person I do not have the time nor the
knowledge to participate actively to such deep philosophical/scientific issues
which are undoubtedly of great importance in order to go beyond current
mechanistic approaches to life. However I just want to point out a few things.
We have, in my view, different (somewhat opposit) constraints to satisfy: (1)
Find one or more theroretical holistic frameworks that at the same time must
support a thourough (reductionist) analysis if we do not want to remain purely
metaphysical ; (2) define some computational/experimental schemes to verify the
scope/contexts of the theories' validity; (3) create value.
I'm a down-to-earth person and I'm certain that the EEC is concerned by all
these issues -including value and wealth/job creation (sorry to speak about
such mercantile issues). In the long run, I'm affraid that the EEC will not
fund research that does'nt cover the three. In short, I think that we have to
come to a point in the futur where a computational framework will have to be
concieved and materialized by, say, a C++ code. Hopefully this code will
contribute to fundamental research, pharmaceutical research, health and
education...
Now, to finish on a more "philosophical" note, perhaps we should not be too
much concerned with the perfect matching between natural language and knowledge
in general (especially when space-time is involved). Zeno's paradox, which I'm
sure is known to everyone, illustrates the case where predictions based on
logic and purely descriptive (natural language) terms is inadequate to overcome
certain paradoxes. We had to wait for the studies of convergent infinite series
to predict that Achilles does indeed overrun the turtoise at some space-time
point (as every ancient Greek could actually acknowledge without being able to
prove it). Once the math had been worked out we could then resort back to
natural language (as I just did) to explain in a "fuzzy way" why...
The last part of my mail may miss the whole point of the recent exchanges and I
apologize if this is the case. However, I believe that the first part needs to
be considered.
My best to all
Pridi
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
To: Joseph Brenner
Cc: fis
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] The Key to Time. Naturalizing Matsuno
Dear Joseph, Koichiro and FIS colleagues,
I have been observing your discussion on biological time for a while now.
May I make a suggestion with your permission.
I think that Koichiro raised an important issue, in particular as
contribution to our INBIOSA project (www.inbiosa.eu)
that deserves more elaborate attention. Therefore, I suggest to move the
discussion from the predominant philosophical
realm (exchange of opinions) to the more pragmatical one.
In INBIOSA we are interested in initiating the development of a new theory of
(internalist) biological time supported by both theoretical
insights/models and experimental evidence. So, why don't you propose specific
examples in support of each one's argument
(perhaps in other living systems except cyanobacteria) along with 1-2
corollaries (extrapolations/predictions) of these arguments
and methods to prove them by experiments. We can get closer to the truth
within a joint project proposal (of disjoint viewpoints)
defined to clear up the horizon. We have provided such facilities for
proposal submission in INBIOSA and I even have 2 specific
EC research programmes that can be addressed to fund this kind of research.
What do you think?
I invite the ones who are interested in this to let me know.
Thank you for your attention,
Best wishes!
Plamen
___ ___ ___
Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
landline: +49.30.38.10.11.25
fax/ums: +49.30.48.49.88.26.4
mobile: +49.15.22.89.02.26.4
email: pla...@simeio.org
URL: www.simeio.org
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>
wrote:
Dear Koichiro,
I share in part Loet’s frustration in trying to understand your complex
constructions. Please let me propose, therefore three strategies that might be
helpful in naturalizing them, that is, converting them into concepts that fit
the science with which we are, or can become, more familiar.
1. Generalization.
If your approach to the time of cyanobacteria is a valid one, it should
apply generally. I, my wife and the system I-and-my-wife must also generate
specific times, as I think we do.
2. Relating Reality and Appearance.
In my extension of logic to complex systems, reality and appearance are
related contradictorially: there is some reality to appearance and some
appearance to reality. Thus, if as you state the “flow of time” is a
“representation” or a “metaphor”, I would say it is primarily an appearance,
albeit a very convincing one, whereas the “material flow-through” is primarily
a reality. In a separate process, we may relate “flow of time on a global
scale” to tenses, but what is important to me is that the two flows are related
as appearance and reality (“time as time retaining its identity”).
This interpretation helps me, at least, clarify the first part of your
hermetic sentence:
Both information and time, once set free from the read-into flow of time,
are common in sharing the similar materialistic and energetic context/ in
incorporating the transitive verbs into themselves as holding the contrast
between the direct and the indirect object of a verb, that is to say, between a
message and its dative.
Time, here, and please correct me if mistaken, is the real “energetic” time
that is generated by real systems. I would welcome your comment on my
formulation of this point in my earlier note. This time winds up being
interpreted (for evolutionary reasons) as “read-into flow of time” and from
which it needs to be distinguished. This reading answers Loet’s first
objection: time is not a construct of language, but “flow-of-time” can be
related to linguistic structures. I see both information-as-process and
time-as-process as probability distributions, but we should come back to this.
As to Loet’s second objection, Koichiro, I think you weakened your argument
by reference to something that looks unreal, namely, “original cyclic motions”.
If you had simply said “observable celestial motions”, the contrast with
incorrect representations of them (e.g., as invariant) I think would be clear.
3. Avoiding Linguistic Structures.
The most difficult bit to “naturalize”, as Loet also felt, is your use of
linguistic structures. Such structures, when used to attempt to explicate the
flow of information in real systems, which is a real, energetic process, become
part of the problem. Real energetic phenomena do not spend their effort and
time (J) on incorporating transitive verbs (into what?), or holding contrasts
between direct and indirect objects (how?).
Thus when you write
The underlying issue is how we can construct the flow of time from the
tenses. When the constant update of the present perfect tense in the present
progressive tense is referred to in the finished record, we can perceive the
flow of time as driven by the transitive verb “update” in the present tense,
though only in retrospect.
you have mentioned together two separate issues that I feel need to be
unpacked: “construction of the flow of time” and “perception of the flow of
time”.
If we agree that “flow of time” is just a metaphor, as noted above, its
construction from linguistics is to me a secondary issue. Perception of the
flow of time, however, is an absolutely essential concept that I have never
seen addressed adequately outside the cosmology of Lusanna and Pauri.
Perception is a real energetic process that is driven by our underlying
dynamics, as primarily 3D creatures in a 4D universe, not by verbs and their
objects. What are “the message” (accusative, direct object) and “to the
message” (dative, indirect object) doing in the first citation in 2. above?
4. My final strategy is simply a suggestion, but perhaps it helps to
explain my critique of the use you make of tense: there should be some relation
made to space and what Lupasco considered the real, contradictorial relation
between time and space. I think behind Loet’s reference to time as possibly a
frequency distribution is a similar desire to move away from linguistic
structures to real structures. Thus Loet’s designation of time as something
that can be communicated fits with the idea of time as something real, always
associated with physical entities. Going even farther out on a limb, we may
consider time as discussed above and information as two perspectives on the
same physical process.
I and I am sure Loet, as well as others would look forward to your replies.
Best wishes,
Joseph
----- Original Message -----
From: Loet Leydesdorff
To: 'Koichiro Matsuno' ; 'Joseph Brenner' ; 'fis'
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: [Fis] replies to several. The Key to Time
Dear Koichiro and colleagues,
Let me try to raise some questions. I find the language sometimes
difficult. Examples might help!
Ø The underlying issue is how can we construct the flow of time from the
tenses.
In other words: time is a construct of language?
When the constant update of the present perfect tense in the present
progressive tense is referred to in the finished record, we can perceive the
flow of time as driven by the transitive verb “update” in the present tense,
though only in retrospect.
This is a description of this construction process: how it works.
This updated version of the flow of time in retrospect exhibits a marked
contrast to the flow of time riding on the intransitive verb “flow” in the
present tense unconditionally, the latter of which is common to the standard
practice of physical sciences even including relativity. The occurrence of the
perfect tense is due to the act of measurement of material origin
distinguishing between the before and after its own act, while its frequent
update in the progressive tense will be necessitated so as to meet various
conservation laws such as material or energy flow continuity to be registered
in the record, e. g., not to leave the failure in meeting the flow continuity
behind. The KaiC hexamers of cyanobacteria are involved in the constant update
of the prefect tense in the progressive tense.
The “various conservation laws” are not a construct of language but
constraints on constructions in language? Have they always been these
constraints or only since the scientific revolution of the 17th century?
Ø The flow of time read by the externalist, say, by Ptolemy-Newton,
into an invariant cyclic motion of the stellar configuration displayed over the
sky is enigmatic in relating a cyclic movement of physical bodies to a linear
movement of something else called time. A less ambitious approach could be to
relate a linear movement of physical bodies to the linear movement of time even
if the latter is an anthropocentric artifact, unless the artifact interferes
with the physical bodies. The flow of time read-into by the physicist implies
no linear flow of time in the absence of the physicist as leaving only the
original cyclic motions behind.
The original cyclic motions predate the reading. They are given? By whom
and in which language? (By God in the revelation of his creation, that is, in
the Bible?)
That must be quite stifling. In contrast, appreciating the material
through-flow keeping the class identity of the supporting material aggregate as
being represented as the flow of time comes to imply that the through-flow is
informational in that it presumes both the message (e.g., the subunits to be
exchanged) and its dative (e.g., the aggregate processing their exchanges).
Both information and time, once set free from the read-into flow of time, are
common in sharing the similar materialistic and energetic context in
incorporating the transitive verbs into themselves as holding the contrast
between the direct and the indirect object of a verb, that is to say, between a
message and its dative. Despite that, I am not quite sure at this moment
whether this synthetic view would merely be one step backward for the sake of
the likely two steps forward to come.
Is the dative of a message different from the third case in the
declension? Please, explain what you mean and provide perhaps an example.
“Both information and time”…? If “information” can be defined in terms of
a probability distribution, would “time” be definable as a frequency
distribution? Is that perhaps how I can understand these two to be juxtaposed
in this sentence?
(I would be inclined to consider time as “what is being communicated”
when frequencies are communicated.)
Best wishes,
Loet
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
