[Fis] Five Momenta
steven at iase.us
Wed Oct 21 01:44:30 CEST 2015
Dear Pedro and List,
A note to add that the momenta in Pedro's question of disciplinary scope is very much on my mind as I undertake the final structuring of the content of my book on this now very broad subject. This final restructuring has taken much of my attention over the past week or two, along with my continuing fight with a variety of medication effects, and so I must add an apology for the high-latency in my contributions.
Obviously there will be details missing and this question of locality and its absence across dynamic physical structure, leading to my proposal of a new universal aspect of nature such that it may drive a new (bio)mechanics, is central.
In addition, the resolution of our instruments are not yet adequate to show the mechanics I speak of either in the organisms of interest to the current body of research or at the atomic level. I have only a limited ability to direct this research. I trust that I will be forgiven if I simply suggest the way ahead as these technologies evolve.
When we do reach a capable resolution (hopefully in the not too distant future) I suggest, for example, that we will discover neither a discrete nor a smooth continuum but rather a dynamic knotted “disturbances and distortions of the continuum" in the world’s fundamental structure. And further, this inclusive model allows me to predict that we will place on this continuum, as the origin of both gravitation and sense/response, the single label “Light."
Because of this broad field of inquiry it can be considered a very active area of research and there are always new results to consider from a variety of sources - and this is where I have spent most of my time in the past ten years. For example, HHMI is a rich and diverse source and "Clique topology reveals intrinsic geometric structure in neural correlations" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.06172) has my attention today. I tend to steer away from detailed analysis of human neural structures, essentially because the degree of complexity is too high to manage without a more fundamental biophysical understanding first. For this reason I prefer the neural analysis of, say, biophysicist Dennis Bray over the attempts at explanation of mathematician Vladimir Itskov, although his highlight of the limits of conventional models of “neural” [sic] computation is very relevant.
But the source of research study could have easily been the dynamics of blood flow in the human brain, the behavioral study and neural development of blinded kittens, a marine study of protists, jellyfish, plants or algae, the study of pain anomalies in genetically related families in Europe and Pakistan, the neural dysfunction of children in Canada, electroception by Zoologists in Australia, the bioengineering of digital counters in DNA strands or manipulation of other genetics in the labs at Stanford. And I find the behavior of buffalo around a pond, or the empathetic or hunting social behaviors of sea mammals, as fascinating as human behavior manifest on Facebook.
It does seem relevant for me, however, to highlight just how my work on the allostery of biophysics and mathematical flexible closed structure, my particular view of the universal, informing, mathematics, sense and response, may be incorporated generally (appealing to the power of Wigner’s simplification) into the physical sciences and thus the general potential scope of endeavor that this may allow.
Certainly, it seems to me, that this “as above, so below,” Eugene Wigner inspired, approach and the "general covariance” or “algebraic sum of physical laws” of Einstein and Benjamin Peirce, has allowed me to discover, as it did Maxwell for electrodynamics, simple mathematics of value able to get traction on the structure of the problem without being bogged down by the manifest complexities of biochemistry and metabolic thermodynamics.
Recalling always that despite my excursions into biology, social behavior, cosmology, and the depths of theoretical physics, that from the start I have labeled my work “The Foundations of Logic and Apprehension, informed by research in biophysics." And that my original motivating interest, apart from a confessed human curiosity, rests squarely in the large scale engineering problems and mathematics of process interaction in recognition and complex decision making in parallel computation.
I understand how this endeavor may indeed seem a “crazy story” by conventional measures - it has certainly taken me "down the path least traveled" - but I trust that it will be taken in the truest spirit of scientific and mathematical investigation and inquiry.
It seems likely that I will be able to share this restructured (draft) Table Of Contents of my book, in which it will be seen that much of this momenta across discipline scope is covered, in the coming days, along with the additional notes I have promised.
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 8:31 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es> wrote:
> Dear FISers,
> In response to the recent philosophical exchanges, and curiously waiting to see how Steven solves his final posts (Benjamin Peirce is such an unjustly forgotten figure, not to speak about his arch-famous son), let me try some new "tangent" on the ongoing debate... I see but five different and interrelated "momenta" that should be aligned for the hypothetical advancement of the common info field. The first one corresponds to philosophy, as the critical playground where dissatisfaction with the existing views should conduce to attempting more congenial new ways of thinking. Unsolved problems of the sciences, when they are general and affect several disciplines, easily generate philosophical debate--which can be helpful to suggest new inroads. Saying clearly "nope" to some philosophical and para-philosophical schools is quite valuable although it easily generates irritation and obfuscation in the concerned parties (that ingredient of "piquancy" also enlivens the debates).
> The second momentum would correspond to the biomolecular (primordials of life and cellular organization). The third momentum would wrap around the organismic and the neuronal (the evolutionary outcomes of multicellular life up to advanced nervous systems). I think they are so obvious that do not deserve further comment.
> The fourth momentum involves the roots of human sociality, up to the historical development of social complexity. And the fifth momentum belongs to the contemporary revolution around communication, information, etc. These two social momenta are being egregiously forgotten in most of our debates (not any more with the planned discussion sessions!)
> Unfortunately, none of those momenta --even looking too far away-- should be left in the dark. Most of our discussions seem to deal with the instrumental aspect, the math theories, constructs, and other knowledge bodies that may help to characterize abstractly different structures and dynamics where some classes of information seem to be involved. It is not difficult to achieve some interesting results in those theoretical and para-theoretical realms... but without connecting with some of those big momenta, trying to ride on their impetus, it won't be significant.
> A new multidisciplinary itinerary is needed--neither the piece meal nor the continuous entanglement would work to achieve it. Personally I find that the goal is very difficult. Too many things in too very disperse realms have to be cohered... So the allure of this crazy story!
> All the best--Pedro
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
More information about the Fis