[Fis] Fw: NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[tozziarturo at libero.it]

Dear Joseph, 
The Borsuk-Ulam theorem looks like a translucent glass sphere between a light source and our eyes: we watch two lights on the sphere surface instead of one. But the two lights are not just images, they are also real with observable properties, such as intensity and diameter. 
Until the sphere lies between your eyes and the light source, the lights you can see are two (and it is valid also for every objective observer), it's not just a trick of your imagination or a Kantian a priori.  
Therefore, the link between topology and energy/information is very strong.  If we just think the facts and the events of the world in terms of projections, we are able to quantitatively elucidate puzzling and counterintuitive phenomena, such as, for example,  quantum entanglement
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-016-2998-7
Therefore, the 'eternal' discussio­n of whether geometry­ or energy (call it dynamics, informational entropy, or whatsoever)­ is more fundamental ­in the universe, does not stand anymore: both geometry and energy describe the same phenomena, although with different languages.  In physical terms, we could say that geometry and energy are 'dual' theories, e.g., they are interchangeable in the description of real facts and events.  



--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android venerdì, 25 novembre 2016, 00:28PM +01:00 da Joseph Brenner  joe.brenner at bluewin.ch :

>Dear All,
> 
>Pedro should be thanked already for this new 
Session, even as we welcome Andrew and Alexander. The depth of your work 
facilitates rigorous discussion of serious philosophical as well as scientific 
issues.
> 
>In Pedro's note of 2016.11.24 there is the 
following:
> 
>" Somehow, the 
projection of brain "metastable dynamics" (Fingelkurts) to higher 
dimensionalities could provide new integrative possibilities for information 
processing. And that marriage between topology and dynamics would also pave the 
way to new evolutionary discussions on the emergence of the "imagined present" 
of our minds."
> 
>What Pedro calls here "the marriage between 
topology and dynamics" reminds one of the 'eternal' discussion of whether 
geometry or energy (dynamics) is more fundamental in the universe. I just 
suggest that there are alternative terms to focus on and describe the 
interaction between topology and dynamics that are more - dynamic, and make an 
emergence a more logical consequence of that interaction.
> 
>Best wishes,
> 
>Joseph
>_______________________________________________
>Fis mailing list
>Fis at listas.unizar.es
>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20161125/98ef4adc/attachment.html>