[Fis] "express matter and energy in terms of information"

[Marcus Abundis]

Interesting points . . . what I think I see reflected in recent posts
(Alex, Pedro, Karl, Joe, and Louis) is that Material Reality holds two key
'formal aspects'. First is the REGULAR FUNCTIONING that sustains most daily
events (viewed via conventional 'science'). Second is the ADAPTIVE LOGIC
(creativity) needed to contend with eternal dynamism that arises as an
aggregate effect (*shifting* simple-to-complex reality) of the first.

Differences between the two leave us with an unreconciled 'psychological
problem'—where *currently* science is our best way of depicting
(consistently measurable-and-repeatable) 'most set things'. But creativity
differently holds rather ambiguous 'shifting things', and demands another
means of presentation. Related, a truly complete INFORMATIC presentation
must hold both, equally, while also detailing interrelations (a de facto
3rd aspect).

My earlier post to Krassimir in 'defining information' frames only the
first aspect, via generic terms O-S-O (regular functioning). But not
covered in mx post to Krassimir is my framing of S-O-v (adaptive logic,
creativity), and shifting functional degrees of freedom (DoF) to map
FUNCTIONAL TRANSITIONS (which Krassimir tries to address in GIT?).
Interestingly, all three roles are partly covered by Signal Entropy's
logarithmic base (X^n), if viewed from the right 'meaningful' perspective.

Lastly, this psychological problem is perpetuated by the silo effect of
current disciplines. For example, even just within the area of Physics . .
. I have found that if I try to speak to someone about four fundamental
forces of the Standard Model—they want to respond with a discussion of
Newtonian physics and F=MA, which leads nowhere.

Marcus


On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 4:15 AM Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excellent Karl.
> Thank you.
>
> The point about good theorems about limitations is that they show us
> exactly what produces the limitations.
> Thus if you insist on using one formal system and it is consistent and can
> do arithmetic, then it is definitely incomplete.
> We can actually see how this happens. But that does not mean that we are
> limited. We are limited if we insist on one system.
> We are not limited in the Goedelian way if we are evolving new systems
> over time. That is in fact what mathematics does.
> No one has proved that there are utterly unsolvable problems, just that if
> you insist on living in a box then you will not be able to see what is
> outside
> the box. And remarkably, we find very challenging problems that push us to
> find out how we are boxed and push us to get out of that box.
> The problems come both from within mathematics (like Riemann Hypothesis or
> Collatz problem) and from outside mathematics (like the problem of
> understanding biology, or the problem of unifying gravity and quantum
> theory). Mathematics is not based on formal systems. Mathematics is based
> on unsolved problems.
> Science is not based on formal procedures. Science is based on our
> questions about the world.
> Best,
> Lou
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240227/ed3c1d1f/attachment.html>