Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

2010-09-28 Thread 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 discontinuity (quantum) and at the same time to reach 
discontinuity as starting from continuity even

Re: [Fis] Revisiting the Fluctuon Model

2010-09-28 Thread 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

2010-09-27 Thread 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

2010-09-25 Thread 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
 mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ;
http://www.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

2010-09-25 Thread 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

2010-09-25 Thread 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.esmailto: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.esmailto: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.esmailto: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.demailto:raf...@capurro.de

Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)

Homepage: www.capurro.dehttp://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

2010-09-24 Thread 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/anti-quark sea. Gravitons were chains that arose from all massive