Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Fri Sep 24 12:17:01 CEST 2021

Dear All,
Let me, first of all, announce an interesting e-conference organized by 
the journal */Information/* (one of the official sponsors of the past 
IS4SI meeting).
It is the 1st International Electronic Conference on Information (IECI2021),
the deadline of which is approaching*: **October 8th*.
We are kindly invited to submit an abstract: 
In any case, they deserve our support: let us help promote their 1st 
International Electronic Conference on Information.

Then, answering to Lou (and acknowledging other philosophical 
arguments), there is an additional point that could be relevant:  
Maybe I am wrong, but when I read the mssg below, my impression is that 
we are only considering a kind of homogeneous alphabets, that can grow 
via recursion, but that cannot go beyond the formal confines of that 

Machine codes in computers (and the cascade of codes built upon them) 
are ultimately due to the physical heterogeneity of their processing 
architectures. I mean, CPU, ALU, Central memory, peripherics, etc. are 
structurally different and the strings of 0s and 1s circulating within 
the system do need codes (*addresses*) so that they can circulate via 
the central bus towards the specific component-architecture. This is the 
final meaning of computer codes: matching between heterogeneous 
processing architectures--and ascending upon multiple levels so that 
languages, etc. can be designed.

In the biological world something similar occurs: we have sequential 
architectures (DNA & RNA) based on complementarity, structural 
architectures (membranes, cytoskeletons) based on identity, and a 
general "diluted" processing architecture (enzymes and proteins) based 
on supplementarity. Whatever function we may observe implies multiple 
ups and downs, back and forth, among these architectures and they need 
the recognition of quite specific motives arranged in well organized 
sets. Once the biological genetic code was in place, some complexity 
addicts (eukaryotes) progressively developed more and more codes & 
complex functions----and finally here we are. The final meaning of 
biological codes, like in computers, would be matching between 
heterogeneous architectures. About what agents helped in the code 
multiplication of eukaryotes, the response nowadays looks clear and 
clear: viruses and their complex retinue in the now internalized RNA 
world. See Luis Villarroel:/ex virus omnia./

So, there are formal, logical, philosophical, semiotic arguments to make 
about codes--OK, but if they do not consider this real world aspect of 
heterogeneity of processing architectures am afraid they will be of 
limited usefulness to approach the reliance of computers and living 
beings on codes.

Best regards,

El 22/09/2021 a las 19:29, Louis Kauffman escribió:
> Dear Joseph,
> (I am sending this again without graphics so it can end up on fis.)
> The RD construction is very general, but we have articulated it with 
> particular models.
> One starts with a domain where distinctions can be made and there is a 
> notion of locality.
> In that domain one makes distinctions about given entities
> and replaces the entities by the corresponding signs of distinction.
> These signs amalgamate to become new entities to be distinguished at 
> the next round.
> Lest this seem abstract, look again at the model.
> The sign = is an amalgamation of empty word on left and empty word on 
> rght.
> The sign ] is amalgamation of empty word on left and  vertical bar | 
> on rght.
> The sign [] is amalgamation of vertical bar | on left and  empty word 
> on rght.
> The sign O is meant to be a box and so is an amalgamation of vertical 
> bar on left and right.
> The point is that the alphabet arises by the amalgamations of previous 
> distinctions and so new symbolic entities arise from the process of 
> distinguishing by these rules.
> After the body of this email, I will show you how the two dimensional 
> RD alphabet arises.
> This level of model includes notions of language and description in a 
> very elementary formal framework.
> I have not included a logical language or a language that even begins to
> have self-reference and ordinary reference. Thus meta-levels and 
> thinking about thinking are not fully reflected in this small model.
> But the action of the model gives one the opportunity to reflect on these
> larger issues. I am in the business of finding significant minimal 
> models.
> These models are not going to be complete articulations of the whole 
> situation of thinking about thinking or
> reflecting on reflecting. They are intended as ways to help thinking 
> about that.
> Note also that the RD above engages in “mitosis” or 
> “self-replication”. It does so without a reflective level. This is of 
> interest
> for thinking about coding in biology and in thinking about what coding 
> would mean in physical situations “below” biology.
> Let me give here another example: the audio-active sequences studied 
> by John Horton Conway.
> 1
> 11 - read “one one” and it describes the line above.
> 21- read “two ones” and it describes the line above.
> 1211- read “one two, one one” and it describes the line above.
> 111221- read “three ones, two two’s, one one” and it describes the 
> line above.
> 312211- read “one three, two two’s, one one” and it describes the line 
> above.
>> This recursion is an example of "describing describing" and the coding 
> issues are somewhat different from the RD.
> We retain locality of interaction and have a fixed alphabet that is 
> less iconic. Counting is needed at the descriptive level.
> This recursion requires more structure to run, but it is very very 
> interesting.
> Note that 22 is the only self-referential sequence.
> Note also that we could write nx —> xx…x (n x’s) meaning that nx 
> describes xx…x.
> In the audio active line we would have
> xxxx…x
> nx
> as in
> 777
> 37.
> So we have nx —> xx…x
> and 2x —> xx
> and so
> 22 —> 22.
> This pattern fits into the whole of 20th century logic since Russell.
> Let me tender persuasions.
> Russell:  Rx = ~xx
> This is the definition of the Russell set if you take AB to mean “B is 
> a member of A” and ~ is “not”.
> Then: RR = ~ RR is the Russell paradox.
> In this formalism, the Russell paradox becomes the production of a 
> fixed point for negation.
> Church and Curry generalized this to an abstract formalism (lambda 
> calculus) where they could write
> gx = F(xx) for an arbitrary F.
> Then
> gg = F(gg) and we produce a fixed point for F.
> This is exactly how we got to the self reference of 22 by
> 2x —> xx
> 22 —> 22
> where here equality is replaced  by reference.
> The notion of replacement of reference is integral to Goedelian 
> self-refefrence.
> g ——> P(x) now interpreted as “g is the Goedel number of the 
> proposition P(x) with free variable x.
> Then let #g be the Goedel number of P(g) so that
> #g —> P(g).
> Let the language be rich enough so that # is an operation in the language.
> h —> P(#x)
> Then
> #h—> P(#h)
> and P(#h) talks about its own Goedel number.
> Then with Goedel let ~B(x) mean that “there is no proof of the 
> statement with Goedel number x.
> Then with
> h —> ~B(#x)
> #h —> ~B(#h)
> and we have produced the proposition ~B(#h) that asserts its own 
> unprovability!
> This is the core of Goedel’s incompleteness Theorem.
> I hope you see that we have arrived Goedel’s Theorem on a track 
> leading directly from the self-reference of 22, by way of the Russell 
> Paradox.
> All this comes from the capacity of language to speak about language 
> and thinking to think about thinking.
> Goedel in fact shows us that all formalisms that we build that are 
> rich enough and are consistent will be incomplete.
> So there is no intent here to create complete formalisms.
> I want to look at how the simplest non trivial formalisms behave, and 
> how even very similar ones such as the RD and the audio activity are 
> related to each other and to
> the larger issues of reference, self reference  and the generation of 
> such dialogues at all levels.
> Note also how small formalisms can summarize wide ideas.
> The von Neumann Universal Building Machine B acts as follows.
> B,x —> X,x.
> Give B a blueprint x and B will produce X (the entity described by the 
> blueprint).
> Hence if b is the blueprint for B, then B can build itself!
> B,b —> B,b.
> This is another variant of 2x —> xx so 22—> 22.
> Another thing that happened in the 20th century is that everyone got 
> frightened about Rx =~xx giving RR = ~ RR,
> and the story I am telling here of the central role of reference and 
> self-reference is still not fully appreciated by mathematical 
> practitioners such as
> economists and even physicists.
> Very best,
> Lou
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------

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/20210924/7dc54c92/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RD.png
Type: image/png
Size: 24143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20210924/7dc54c92/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the Fis mailing list