[Fis] FW: [External Email] Re: Biological computation session - Kickoff Text. Change
Karl Javorszky
karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Thu Jun 23 09:53:20 CEST 2022
Dear Koichiro, Marcus, Colleagues,
The following snippet from your conversation is worth looking into:
*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.*
Let us look at the sentence in its transliterated form, removing the
negation (that is, negating the original sense of the sentence):
*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.*
*Marcus says:*
No symbolical way exists → no dependable theory exists.
Means the same as:
Symbolical way exists → dependable theory exists.
This could mean also:
Dependable theory exists → symbolical way exists.
*Proposition by Karl:*
*There exists a dependable theory for telling what will be measured before
the actual measurement. *
Means the same as:
*There exists an expected value for each observed value. *
*Technical procedure:*
1. Create an etalon collection of symbols, in which
2. Each symbol has a place and a value
3. Reorder the etalon collection
4. Observe where each of the symbols comes to be placed
By this method, one has expected values for each possible observed value.
*The theory* that on resorting a collection, elements with a given property
shall be assigned specific linear places in dependence of the :
a. Properties of the elements in the whole collection,
b. Properties of the element of which we wish to predict the expected
place
c. Aspect upon which the sorting is done
is indeed a *dependable theory.*
Hope to have shown you that *sorting and ordering are tools of arithmetic*
which bring forth dependable results.
Best wishes:
Karl
Am Mi., 22. Juni 2022 um 07:54 Uhr schrieb Koichiro Matsuno <
cxq02365 en nifty.com>:
> Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:04 AM, Tuesday, 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 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 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 <fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> *On Behalf Of *
> joe.brenner en bluewin.ch
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2022 1:04 AM
> *To:* 'fis' <fis en listas.unizar.es>; 'Gordana Dodig Crnkovic' <
> gordana.dodig-crnkovic en chalmers.se>; 'Andrei Igamberdiev' <
> a_igamberdiev en hotmail.com>; 'Stanley N Salthe' <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 <fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> *On Behalf Of *Koichiro Matsuno
> *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2022 10:03 AM
> *To:* 'fis' <fis en listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] [External Email] Re: Biological computation session
> - Kickoff Text. Comment
>
>
>
> Sunday, June 19, 2022 1:34 AM, 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 <fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> *On Behalf Of *
> joe.brenner en bluewin.ch
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 19, 2022 1:34 AM
> *To:* 'Andrei Igamberdiev' <a_igamberdiev en hotmail.com>; 'Stanley N
> Salthe' <ssalthe en binghamton.edu>; 'fis' <fis en listas.unizar.es>; 'Gordana
> Dodig Crnkovic' <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.*
>
> 1. Stan: What happens to your statement if the quantum idea is removed?
> 2. 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.
> 3. 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
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> 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
> ----------
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20220623/fea5c1d0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list