[Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

[Gyorgy Darvas]

Dear Pedro, and the previous discussants,

I refer to my paper presented last year at the Vienna summit:
- quarks continuously exchange gluons;
- gluon exchange takes place between quarks in different "colour" states
(otherwise they were in identical quantum states, what is excluded by 
the Pauli principle);
- they must avoid to get into identical colour state even after the 
gluon exchange;
- for this reason, before (or at least parallel to) gluon exchange, they 
must obtain information on the (colour) state of the partner;
- whatever physical phenomenon mediates this knowledge about the 
partner, this is a kind of *information* exchange.
Isn't it a "real" communication?
I argue: it is.

Best regards, Gyuri



On 2016.01.21. 15:06, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments. 
> Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I 
> wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest 
> becomes the most difficult. I will try here.
>
> There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow 
> physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input 
> according to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and 
> parameters that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome 
> may be probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.
>
> There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as 
> the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary 
> conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of 
> the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the 
> self-production/self-propagation of the entity.
>
> In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made 
> meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.
>
> Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from 
> its intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything 
> goes... and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, 
> stones, cells, etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the 
> mechanistic way of thinking.
>
> best regards--Pedro
>
>
>
> Koichiro Matsuno escribió:
>>
>> At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:
>>
>> In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language 
>> must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction 
>> among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.
>>
>>     The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks, 
>> including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with 
>> use of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is 
>> methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the 
>> things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast, 
>> the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of 
>> cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing 
>> chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something 
>> referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended. 
>> Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting 
>> in the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, 
>> so far.
>>
>>    Koichiro
>>
>> *From:*Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry 
>> LR Chandler
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
>> *To:* fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> *Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks
>>
>> Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:
>>
>> Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of 
>> human communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the 
>> immediate issue.
>>
>>  But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.
>>
>> The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
>> scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication 
>> between the general community and, say, the music (operatic and 
>> ballad) communities.
>>
>> Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining 
>> terms as “metaphor”in another discipline.
>>
>> Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly 
>> known and understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities. 
>>  In the chemical community, the understanding is at the level of 
>> intuition because ordinary usage within the discipline requires an 
>> intuitive understanding of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in 
>> different disciplines.
>>
>> (For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
>> Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, 
>> Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)
>>
>> The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings 
>> and definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES. For example, 
>> ordinary public language is necessary for expression of meaning of 
>> mathematical symbolic logic.  But, from the basic mathematical 
>> language, once it grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of 
>> symbols and new meanings for relations among mathematical symbols. 
>>  Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of terms that 
>> are have different meanings in its technical language.
>>
>>  The meaning of mathematical terms is developed from an associative 
>> logic that is foreign to ordinary language.  From these antecedents, 
>> the consequences are abundantly clear. The communication between the 
>> meta-languages fail. The mathematicians have added vast symbolic 
>> logical structures to their symbolic communication with symbols. In 
>> other words, the ordinary historian and scientist are not able to 
>> grasp the distinctive meanings of mathematical information.
>>
>> Physical information is restricted to physical units of measure and 
>> hence constrained to borrowing mathematical symbols and relating to 
>> the ordinary language as its meta-language.
>>
>> The perplexity of chemical information theory is such that it is not 
>> understandable in any one meta-language or any pair of 
>> meta-languages.  In order for symbolic chemical communication to 
>> occur, the language must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a 
>> primary interaction among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even 
>> the four basic forces.
>>
>> The early metalanguage of chemistry was merely terms within ordinary 
>> language, such as the names of elements. Or, the common names for 
>> oils from various sources. Around the turn of the 19 th Century, the 
>> metalanguage of chemistry started it century-long journey to become a 
>> meta-language of mathematics with the development of the concepts of 
>> atomic weights for each singular elements and molecular weight, and 
>> molecular formula for each different molecule.
>>
>> The critical distinction that separates the meta-language of 
>> chemistry from other metalanguages is the absolute requirement for 
>> specification of the name of any object on the basis of it’s 
>> distinction from other signs or collections of signs.
>>
>> Thus, chemical information theory, in terms of metalanguages, 
>> requires the exact usage of the meta-languages of both physics and 
>> mathematics in order to define the origin of its symbolic logic, as 
>> well as the natural metalanguage of ordinary human communication.
>>
>> Biological information theory is grounded on chemical information 
>> theory, using a particular encoding of meaning within dynamical 
>> systems, to communicate among the 5 essential metalanguages necessary 
>> for the practice of the medical arts. And, I might add, for human 
>> history.
>>
>> The failure of luke-warm physics to serve as a foundation for a 
>> generalized information theory is the lack of terminology that can be 
>> used to communicate among the symbolic logics used in more advanced 
>> modes of human communication.
>>
>> In summary, in the 21 st Century, the foundation of human symbolic 
>> communication  requires multiple metalanguages and symbol systems, 
>> that is, a generalized information theory.  Such a generalized theory 
>>  of information must necessarily include the symbolic logic of 
>> chemistry, which is essential to span the symbolic gaps between the 
>> disciplines.
>>
>> (For those of you who are familiar with my background, this email 
>> illuminates some of the reasoning behind the development of the 
>> perplex number system and perplex systems theory within the 
>> associative symbolic logic of graph theory.)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>     Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>     *From: *"Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
>>     <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>>
>>
>>     *Subject: Re: [Fis] Cho 2016 The social life of quarks*
>>
>>     *Date: *January 18, 2016 at 5:50:40 AM CST
>>
>>     *To: *'fis' <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>
>>
>>     Dear Howard and colleagues,
>>
>>     OK, you can say that quarks communicate, but immediately we need
>>     to create another term for "real" communication. I mean, there are
>>     quarks (fermions) and bosons (particle forces) everywhere:
>>     planets, stars, galaxies, etc. Their multiple interactions
>>     constitute most of the contents of physics. If you want to term
>>     "communication" to some basic categories of physical interactions
>>     based on force exchange --of some of the 4 fundamental forces,
>>     whatever-- we run into difficulties to characterize the
>>     communication that entails signals, agents and meanings, and
>>     responses. That's the "real" communication we find after the
>>     origins of that singular organization we call life --essential
>>     then for the later emergence of superorganisms, peaking order,
>>     memes, etc. You have oceans of interacting fermions and bosons
>>     around, but the new communicating phenomenology is only found in
>>     our minuscule planet.
>>
>>     As an explanatory metaphor, it is not a good idea, almost wrong I
>>     dare say. But as a free-wheeling, literary metaphor it belongs to
>>     the author's choice. The problem is that both realms of
>>     information, so to speak, have relatively overlapping components,
>>     depending on the explanatory framework used (see the ongoing
>>     exchanges by Stan, John, Terry,  etc.) And that kind of apparent
>>     homogenization blurs the effort to establish the distinctions and
>>     advance in a unifying perspective (I think!!). In any case, it
>>     deserves more discussion. In your Jan. 14th message you ad more
>>     elements--I will think twice!.
>>
>>     All the best--Pedro
>>
>>     PS. Clarifying the two messages per week rule (responding to
>>     offline quests): the two messages should be counted along the
>>     "international business week": starting on Monday until the end of
>>     Sunday, Greenwich Time. Thanks to all for respecting this
>>     "boundary condition"!
>>
>
>



---
Ezt az e-mailt az Avast víruskereső szoftver átvizsgálta.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160121/02305904/attachment.html>