[Fis] FW: [External Email] Re: Biological computation session - Kickoff Text. Change

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

Dear Koichiro,

 

Of your many contributions to knowledge and this list, this one most clearly supports the core thesis of my non-standard logic of processes and its principle of dynamic opposition having equivalent status to formal quantum mechanics in some macroscopic cases. To help above all me to understand this better, I would be very grateful for examples of the operations

In which you see “concurrent operation of symbolic and indexical languages”. I would like to use these for a direct comparison with the concept of potentiality I have been proposing.

 

I would just like to suggest that such concurrent participation does not exclude and perhaps implies that,  perhaps  in the very biological cases of interest, the two types of phenomena corresponding to your epistemic categories are not totally separated or separable. The most basic example I can think of is that of kinetic and potential energy. 

 

To repeat, where you write symbolical and indexical languages, which are formally distinct (epistemological, separable), I see the actual and potential proper parts of processes (ontological, non-separable). Dynamic opposition is thus a necessary principle of non-separability operating in the “various disciplines”.

 

I look forward to your response, and that of All, with great interest.

 

Best wishes,

 

Joseph

 

 

From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> On Behalf Of Koichiro Matsuno
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:03 AM
To: 'fis' <fis at listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Biological computation session - Kickoff Text. Comment

 

Sunday, June 19, 2022 1:34 AM,  <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> joe.brenner at bluewin.ch wrote;

 

> I believe we may consider an area of science in which a dynamics of simultaneous actuality-potentiality provides the necessary macroscopic explanations, in which the processes involved are nevertheless quantum-like, 

 

  Quantum Mechanics is peculiar in allowing for both symbolic and indexical languages as demonstrated in the non-commutability of some indexical operations. Likewise, such concurrent participation of the both types of languages remains wide open even to various macroscopic disciplines without referring to QM directly. 

 

   Best,

   Koichiro

 

 

From: Fis < <mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> On Behalf Of  <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 1:34 AM
To: 'Andrei Igamberdiev' < <mailto:a_igamberdiev at hotmail.com> a_igamberdiev at hotmail.com>; 'Stanley N Salthe' < <mailto:ssalthe at binghamton.edu> ssalthe at binghamton.edu>; 'fis' < <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es> fis at listas.unizar.es>; 'Gordana Dodig Crnkovic' < <mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se> gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Biological computation session - Kickoff Text. Comment

 

Dear Gordana, Andrei, Nikita, Stan, and All, 

If I may, I would like to offer a brief summary of that part of the current discussion dealing with aspects of potentiality, with many thanks. The for me central issues were implied in the following, all on June 17:

1.	Andrei: 

The potential field of the internal quantum state implies the simultaneous existence of contradictory statements (JEB: antagonistic phenomena?)

The realization of Joseph’s approach, not only philosophically, but from the point of view of natural science, require certain structures that can hold potentiality.  

2.	Stan: What happens to your statement if the quantum idea is removed?
3.	Andrei: I don’t see another way of explaining how a system holds a coherent state for a prolonged time, without applying a theory that deals with the transition between the potential and the actual. If the quantum idea is removed, then we remove any possible explanations of the internal determination of biological activity and the problem of self.
4.	Stan:

So then a QM interpretation would be validated as being ‘about’ something real in an aspect of actual nature (here a living cell) by way of constructing compatibility with a microscopic perspective derived from conventional microscopic science?

It is quite a remarkable experience for me to see these ideas juxtaposed, finally discussed although certainly not in final form. I believe we may consider an area of science in which a dynamics of simultaneous actuality-potentiality provides the necessary macroscopic explanations, in which the processes involved are nevertheless quantum-like. I would call this an unconventional interpretation of standard science.

If I take the example of intersubjectivity, we may thus consider here  a non-quantum concept for its grounding solely in the macroscopic interactions described.

 

Best, 

Joseph

 

----------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220620/be1d08bf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 00034.txt
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220620/be1d08bf/attachment.txt>