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

Wed Jun 22 07:53:47 CEST 2022

Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:04 AM, Tuesday, joe.brenner en bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>   wrote;

>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).

At issue must be the nature of cohesion acting between the actual and the potential, that may be inaccessible on the epistemological ground. That is a temporal cohesion making the participants non-separable temporally. The actual is already open to implementing the potential to come. At the same time, the potential may serve as a cohesive factor for connecting the precedent actual to the subsequent one. Thus, the potential is inaccessible externally because of the absence of the epistemic competency for telling what will come next. 

Tuesday, June 21, 2022 2:59 AM, Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chandler en icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chandler en icloud.com>   wrote;

>One could conclude that the scientific language of QM achieves the same objective as Shannon’s theory with a parallel method expressed in a different form of mathematical metrology?

Right. Standard interpretation of both QM and Shannon’s theory is certainly symbolical and scientific, rather than indexical. In this sense, both are understandable quite well epistemologically.  Precisely for this reason, however, both the theories rightly lack the generative competency from within. 

Tuesday, June 21, 2022 12:57 PM, Marcus Abundis 55mrcs en gmail.com <mailto:55mrcs en gmail.com>  wrote; 

> Until all quantum 'measurement problems' are resolved, and until we glean the deeper/broader implications of chaos theory, all remains speculation.

Once it is taken for granted that there is no symbolical way for telling what will be measured before the actual measurement, there has been no dependable theory for the objective. Instead, if the issue of how could it be possible to estimate the likelihood of having something repeatable or even durable is focused upon, laboratory works may help while following the indexical instructions applied to various lab equipment.

  Best,

  Koichiro

From: Fis < <mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> On Behalf Of  <mailto:joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> joe.brenner en bluewin.ch
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:04 AM
To: 'fis' < <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es> fis en listas.unizar.es>; 'Gordana Dodig Crnkovic' < <mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic en chalmers.se> gordana.dodig-crnkovic en chalmers.se>; 'Andrei Igamberdiev' < <mailto:a_igamberdiev en hotmail.com> a_igamberdiev en hotmail.com>; 'Stanley N Salthe' < <mailto:ssalthe en binghamton.edu> ssalthe en binghamton.edu>
Subject: [Fis] FW: [External Email] Re: Biological computation session - Kickoff Text. Change

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 < <mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> On Behalf Of Koichiro Matsuno
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:03 AM
To: 'fis' < <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es> fis en 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 en bluewin.ch> joe.brenner en 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 en listas.unizar.es> fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> On Behalf Of  <mailto:joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> joe.brenner en bluewin.ch
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 1:34 AM
To: 'Andrei Igamberdiev' < <mailto:a_igamberdiev en hotmail.com> a_igamberdiev en hotmail.com>; 'Stanley N Salthe' < <mailto:ssalthe en binghamton.edu> ssalthe en binghamton.edu>; 'fis' < <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es> fis en listas.unizar.es>; 'Gordana Dodig Crnkovic' < <mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic en chalmers.se> gordana.dodig-crnkovic en 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

----------

------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220622/63a77a83/attachment-0001.html>