[Fis] The Limits

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear All,

Thanks to Jerry, Stan, and Bruno for their responses.
There is a recent publication on "Agent Inaccessibility as a Fundamental 
Principle in Quantum Mechanics" by Jan Waleczek (Entropy, 2019, 21/1), 
pointed out by courtesy of Malcolm Dean, that captures very well the 
deep sense of this discussion. The subtitle is: "Objective 
Unpredictability ad Formal Uncomputability." It is open access. Rather 
than the triumph of indeterminism with the quantum revolution, the paper 
states that it is only valid to claim the following: /the quantum 
revolution means the profound discovery of an agent-inaccesible regime 
of the physical universe. /
And if we think about all the problems and paradoxes surrounding 
research on consciousness, Do they relate to this very inaccessibility? 
Many parties have tried to connect consciousness "explanation" with the 
quantum. Rather unsuccessfully, at least at the time being. But the 
point I see is, Could the Limit of quantum inaccessibility to the 
external world of the agent be germane, or even the same Limit, than the 
inaccessibility to its own  internal world?
In my view, this does not imply a negationist stance concerning the 
integrity of the whole scientific enterprise or information science in 
particular. Precisely, the universalistic, open-ended nature of our 
human openness to information derives from consciousness, language, and 
the empirical congruence perception/action in a collaborative social 
framework. Because of this universal openness to information we can 
organize universalistic sciences (physics, maths, logics/comp., info 
science) and many other particularistic ones, depending on the further 
limits or principles we establish--as Jerry remarks below.
Should the universal openness to information, subtended by the 
inaccessibility limit(s) of quantum and consciousness, be considered as 
a sort of Information Zeroth Principle?

Best wishes
--Pedro
PS. I have just seen entering the new message from Karl...





El 25/02/2019 a las 21:14, Jerry LR Chandler escribió:
> Pedro, Karl, List:
>
> While I concur with most of your post, Pedro, I do not find the 
> situation as dismal as you project.  In my view, our perceptions and 
> interpretations of signs of nature are critical to setting limits to 
> meaning. I support your general thesis and add some supportive arguments.
>
> Shannon information theory avoids the issue by requiring that the 
> representation of meaning must first be reduced to mathematical 
> symbols by encoding. (At some future time, the purpose and 
> consequences of encoding in the foundations of Information theory need 
> to be addressed here.!)
>
> Closure is intrinsic to the encoding process-the meaning of 
> mathematical, physical, chemical, biological and linguistic symbols 
> are all necessarily re-represented as bits and bytes before transmission.
>
> Yes, the issue of limits is foundational to the informational 
> sciences.  The issue of extension is among the most critical 
> informational concepts because it bounds the meaning of terms, not 
> just in mathematics but all other disciplines as well. The notion of 
> limits is often ignored in the soft sciences.  But not just the softer 
> sciences, the limits of extension are also ignored in many physical 
> derivations in order to avoid intractable mathematics and in order to 
> approximate equations to fit results.
>
> I also concur with closure issues that is well-stated by:
> *"There is a false closure attempted that fails, and inevitably 
> reappears later on in strange but fundamental principles: Godel, 
> Heisenberg, Church-Turing.. “ *
> These issues relate to our perception of nature.
>
> When is symbolic closure meaningful?I also concur that the extension 
> of simple number sequences to molecules is fraught with difficulties 
> closely related to the concepts of individuality, identity, extension 
> and physical / chemical / mathematical logic. Each discipline requires 
> a different approach to encoding the symbols into Shannon information. 
>  Each discipline has a different approach to limitations of meanings 
> of logical terms.
>
> The limits of chemical codes address the issue of the extensions of 
> sequences of DNA to numerical sequences.
> The chemical logic of DNA necessary starts with the atomic numbers and 
> additive relations.
> Chemical logic is limited to the atomic numbers.
> Chemical logic is limited by the number of atomic numbers in the table 
> of elements.
> Chemical logic is limited by the number of atoms in a molecule.
> Chemical logic is limited by the valences of the atoms in the molecule.
> Only atomic numbers can be composed into molecules such as DNA, thus 
> constraining the mathematical forms of DNA to specific electrical and 
> physical properties.
> Each DNA base has an *internal* information (physical and chemical 
> attributes) that is COMPOSED exclusively from the atomic numbers. The 
> rules for composition of atomic number are expressed in quantum theory.
>
> Thus, the meaning of the symbols for sequences of DNA is limited by 
> the limits of meanings of atomic numbers and collections of atomic 
> numbers (other molecules of the cell related to DNA.)
>
> In this context, the meaning of such chemical terms as molecular 
> number, molecular formula, molecular weight, molecular structure and 
> molecular (isomeric) forms are limits of meaning of "numbers” such 
> that a molecular name (such as “DNA”) can be composed from our 
> perceptions atomic numbers.
>
> Hopefully, others will contribute to this discussion on the role of 
> limits and extension on theories of information.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 12:42 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
>> <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>> wrote:
>>
>> It has individual consequences in our terrible inclination to 
>> overextend paradigms, but also a more "abstract", collective lack of 
>> final anchors. There is a false closure attempted that fails, and 
>> inevitably reappears later on in strange but fundamental principles: 
>> Godel, Heisenberg, Church-Turing... They basically consist in limits 
>> of thought put to the foundations of universalistic disciplines. In 
>> other more restricted fields, particularistic ones, those principles 
>> do not appear, or better, they are not needed. In the case of 
>> information science, which in my view is also universalistic, that 
>> kind of principled limit is needed too.
>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------



---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20190301/09132313/attachment.html>