[Fis] Anticipatory Systems--"Potential"

Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Tue Nov 20 21:15:04 CET 2018

Dear Jerry and FIS colleagues,

I wonder how big or how clever your Chemostat apparatus should be. There 
are thousands of metabolic intermediates in an organism, and there are 
another thousands of diversified signals. And we have in the order of 30 
billion cells (trillions in the US system). Plus around 100 trillion of 
bacterial cells in the microbiome. "We" are the emergence all of that 
molecular diversity. It does not mean that life exactly "controls" all 
the details of the mega-information of this whole system... How that 
control is organized, the principles of biological information, so to 
speak, become another great question, but probably very different from 
the idea of mass control in a chemostat. In any case, the way you have 
argumented it, seemingly smoothly going upwards from the quantum level, 
is beyond of what I consider feasible. Scientific overstretching of a 
reasonable paradigm perhaps.

Socially, indeed, we do not try to communicate around by following a 
colossal strategy of reducing happenstances to their quantum 
description; neither to the kind of meta-languages you mention. In 
general, social communication revolves around narratives. They are not 
free-wheeling constructions (at least referring to the "great stories" 
of all epochs) but optimized tools to guide individuals in the 
advancement of their lives, in the achievement of their "potential". 
Looking at the historical evolution of those great stories, they are 
teaching us about which were the cardinal aspects of common life to be 
specifically grasped by the child, by the adolescent, by the maiden, the 
artisan, the warrior, the priest... And in this social communication 
endeavors, life cycles do not appear as homogeneous linearly "timed". 
Human lives are continuously looking ahead, anticipating ("Prometheus" 
style) but simultaneously looking at the past and pondering on it 
("Epimetheus" style). Although "presentists", we live within an 
imaginary concoction built of mosaic pasts and futures, "multi-timed" so 
to speak. The way to harmonize past, present, and future (vital 
information) is one of the leit motifs of those great stories.

And about cycles, so many of them can be found. At the scale of the 
organism:  cellular & tissular cycles, metabolic cycles, behavioral 
cycles, ultradian cycles, circadian cycles, seasonal cycles, yearly 
cycles, secular cycles, and many others related to social mores. Some of 
them can be arranged in a sort of hierarchy or inclusivity, but there is 
a fundamental diversity. That most of this orchestration of cycles does 
not require a conscious effort does not mean that we should ignore them 
concerning the roots of social communication. The cycles and stages (and 
"passages") within a life cycle have an ominous presence. As i was 
saying, the "potential" of each young life in ascend requires the 
reception of wisdom (via social communication narratives) to integrate 
the own individual path within the social matrix of the time.

Thinking twice about the "potential" of life, it might be something 
important to consider regarding any form or manifestation of life. 
Perhaps better than the Principle of Conatus from Spinoza I was 
referring days ago (the effort to self-maintain and flourish). Complex 
life has "potential" to advance along some multi-time, multi-cycle 
developmental path in the most complex of all environments: the social 
matrix. Is there some deep similarity of this potential with the role 
that "potential" energy plays in our book-keeping of energy conservation?

Thanking the comments,

El 19/11/2018 a las 1:55, Jerry LR Chandler escribió:
> Pedro, List:
> To put this in context, see  my extensive post of Oct 27, which is 
> re-posted below.
>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
>> <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>> wrote:
>> Also I would like to be able to respond to other demands from Jerry, 
>> but here is my counter-demand: could you adventure tools to formally 
>> capture such a multi-time, multi-rhythm being as a life-cycle in 
>> progress?
> Here I merely respond to Pedro’s counter demand.
> The formal capture of such “multi-time, multi-rhythm being as a life 
> cycle in process” is captured by time sequences of measurements on 
> specific compositions of the specific species of life.  The 
> wide-spread experimentation with Chemostats is one such example. The 
> Chemostat apparatus establishes and maintains a steady state rate of 
> reproduction with constant input flows of nutrients and constant 
> outflow of cells and waste and unused nutrients. (see 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemostat
> A chemostat allows unbounded number of measurements of time series of 
> unbounded number of cellular components by merely changing flow rates 
> and other constraining parameters.
> (I really do not understand the distinction between the terms 
> "multi-time" and "multi-rhythm" since multi-rhythm infers multi-time. 
>  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to speak of the multiplicity of 
> biochemical cycles that are necessary for the chemical system to 
> reproduce itself in the sense that one cell begets two cells in 
> uni-cellular organisms or, similarly, in higher organisms with 
> orgasms, two individuals reproduce by generating a third individual 
> with directly comparable cycles.)
> More directly to the issues of numbers and information theory, the 
> remaining challenges are not a consequence of “errors” of thinking in 
> the basic physics of matter.  Rather, a central unsolved problem is 
> closely associated with time and material cycles, cycles within 
> material cycles, cycles within cycles within material cycles.   
> Quantum theory (QED) provides the basic mathematics to initiate cycles 
> within cycles (nuclear spin surrounded by electron spin).  The 
> challenge is to generate  from QED mathematics, the mathematics of 
> cycles within cycles with cycles describing molecules, and higher 
> cycles of natural sorts and kinds.
>  This can be deictic with a partition of the complete lexis of all 
> possible narratives. The formal status  should relate to Tarski’s 
> “meta-languages”.  see “The Primary Logic” by Michel Malatesta for a 
> detailed description of the relationships between the lexus of 
> individual disciplines.
> The following quote from Cerruti (Foundations of Chemistry · August 
> 2017) seems to illuminate certain aspects of the problem:
> In a sense, the very same title of the foundational work by Rudolf 
> Carnap (Der logische Aufbau der
> page4image1160
> Welt, 1928) expresses very clearly the cognitive purposes of the 
> proponents of this viewpoint. The semantic view shifts the 
> philosopher’s attention from the logical analysis of theories towards 
> an investigation based on mathematical models. A relevant supporter of 
> this standpoint is the Dutch philosopher Bas van Fraassen (mentioned 
> by Fortin and coauthors). In his 1980 essential work, van Fraassen 
> clearly speaks of ‘‘failure of the syntactic approach’’ and strongly 
> claims that: ‘‘the notions of truth and model belong to semantics’’ 
> (van Fraassen 1980, pp. 43 and 53). According to the Dutch philosopher 
> ‘‘Any structure which satisfies the axioms of a theory [...] is called 
> a model of that theory’’, and ‘‘The models occupy centre stage’’. Van 
> Fraassen’s models are to be intended in the strictly mathematical 
> sense of the theory of models. For example, talking about the Bohr’s 
> atomic model, he distances himself from this use of the term: ‘‘in the 
> scientists’ use, ‘model’ denotes what I would call a model-type’’ (van 
> Fraassen 1980, p. 44). In synthesis: ‘‘For the Syntactic View, what is 
> not (or cannot be) reconstructed axiomatically is not theoretical, 
> while for the Semantic View, what is not (or cannot be) modeled 
> mathematically is not theoretical’’. Based on this sharp contrast, it 
> is not surprising that the supporters of the syntactic versus semantic 
> views have often chosen a ‘‘strategy of combat’’ within the 
> philosophical debate (Winther 2015).
> I’ll stop here for now.  A lot more needs to be said about the 
> intimate nature of relations among scientific narrative before one can 
> bind the logic of the perplex number system to the grammars associated 
> with mathematically structured anticipatory systems.
> Cheers
> jerry
>> On Oct 21, 2018, at 1:58 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
>> <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>> wrote:
>> Dear FIS Collegues,
>> To Jerry: Thanks for the appreciation. I cannot object the 
>> logico-formal path you propose, but is it feasible?
> Since it already operates in nature, does this make these paths 
> mathematically infeasible?
> It seems that nature does what nature does, without questioning it’s 
> feasibility!
> Several disciplines already have made the logic-formal path of 
> molecular biology the critical basis of practice - the leading 
> practitioners of personalized medicine, for example.  The readers of 
> this list have the opportunity to learn the foundation of modern 
> biomedical information theory, rather than simply deny its existence! 
>  Meanwhile, the high school students of today are learning the 
> intricacies of the several coding systems necessary to represent 
> natural information transfer.
>> I really doubt that a new way of thinking could emerge by logically 
>> bridging those different disciplines; the magnitude is more than 
>> enormous.
> Your strange fears are unwarranted, in my opinion.
>> My argument is that the most pressing problems in the informational 
>> arena (susceptible of being "bridged") refer to cell-cycle logics of 
>> signaling, and human life advancement and social communication 
>> strategies.
> Hmmmm…
> It seems to me that your analysis could be stronger if you separate 
> the grounding of information transmission in various narrative 
> categories.  Pragmatic information transportation is grounded in 
> composed organizations.  Naturally composed organizations are not 
> merely  mathematical metaphysics, they are real functional identities.
> At the root of organized systems are the codes of representations. 
> Quantum theory forms the dynamics. The informed numbers of nature form 
> the transmission agents for information transfer and information 
> re-formations (reactive compositions that change the scale of being). 
>  Organisms reproduce information, not merely send information from 
> point A to point B.
> The informed numbers of living systems are not merely inert symbols of 
> meta-physical mathematics (phenomenology?), but informed numbers have 
> attributes.  The attributes of informed numbers are expressible in 
> several codes (symbol systems), including the electrical symbols of 
> quantum theory.
>> Narratives are not the sceintific subject per se, but only in their 
>> tight relationship with the advancement of our own individual lives. 
>> Tales, comedies, tragedies, operas, novels, lullabies, media, today 
>> propaganda ... are natural units with different calibers that are 
>> useful for different life situations. In all cases the universal 
>> reference is the advancement of the life course.
> Very interesting sentences.
> But, without a definition of what is meant by “natural units”, it is 
> unclear to me what the logical content is.
> For example, what are the "natural units” of psychology?
> In other words, if I may ask, is the intent to assert some sort of 
> universal extension?
> If this conjecture is true, I would appreciate a hint or two about the 
> logical base of the extension. Are you seeking to imply Tarski’s 
> meta-languages?
>> Stories provide us with a unique mirror to the inner dynamics of 
>> human nature.
> Is this sentence ambiguous?
> The the term “mirror” merely a metaphor to remove reality from the 
> dynamics of the human?
> Or, is it the same sort of “mirror” used in Quantum theory to 
> distinguish the asymmetry of optical isomers that are essential for 
> generating human dynamics?
> While I appreciate the attempts to create a useful descriptive 
> language for biological information theory, it seems to me that a 
> foundation for scientific information theory must be a quantitive 
> theory with logical terms that represent mathematical terms.  The 
> concept of informed numbers provide such a basis. Elsewhere, I have 
> used the term “organic mathematics” to represent the relation logics 
> of informed numbers.
> Cheers
> Jerry

Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es

El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181120/fea0efe2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: page4image1160.png
Type: image/png
Size: 121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181120/fea0efe2/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the Fis mailing list