[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 5
Karl Javorszky
karl.javorszky at gmail.com
Sun Jan 7 07:42:07 CET 2024
Hi Stuart,
Your assertion
The living cell *constructed* itself, it did not create a description of
itself sent to a distance assembly point.
To me, it appears to contradict the existence at least of semen.
The ejaculation does send to a distance assembly point a self-created
description of the organism.
Please find a better argument.
Respectfully
Karl
Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com> schrieb am So., 7. Jän. 2024, 00:50:
> HI Pedro and All,
>
> Thank you Pedro, perhaps we *are *at THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION. We begin
> to confront the vast, unprestatable, non-deducible becoming of the evolving
> biosphere. YET…yet, physics works also. We really can compute planetary
> orbits. If the biosphere is “governed by no laws” why do laws work so well
> in Physics?
>
> And there is something very odd about, “Information”. Consider the
> information content of a Picasso painting. Cast it into 10,000 pixels, each
> reflecting a wavelength specified by 4 bits. So 40,000 bits suffice and
> that 40,000 bits can be sent by email all over the world to be printed out
> on physically different systems using different procedures and perhaps
> pigments to create a good copy of the Picasso. It seems information is not
> embodied but becomes physical to print, or to erase a bit in the 40,000
> record.
>
> Now think of a living cell, a Kantian Whole with Catalytic and Constraint
> Closure. There IS NO SEPARATE “description” of this reproducing system. It
> cannot be copied. The living cell *constructed* itself, it did not
> create a description of itself sent to a distance assembly point.
>
> Also in Boltzmann entropy can stay constant or increase. In Shannon, in
> parallel, information can be transmitted without or with loss. BUT..there
> is no creation of new information. That is due to the Newtonian Paradigm
> where the phase space of all the possibilities are stated beforehand. (In
> Shannon, the entropy of the source.) But in the evolution of the biosphere,
> co-evolving organisms are creating ever-new ways to get to co-exist for a
> while. This is the unprestable and non-deducible creation of new
> information. The emerging evolving increasing complexity of the biosphere
> is not via a channel transmitting information from some exogenous source.
> Andrea Roli and I are working on this. And this becoming is NOT AI, which
> is algorithmic.
>
> Hm….
>
> Stu
>
> On Jan 5, 2024, at 2:20 PM, fis-request at listas.unizar.es wrote:
>
> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
> fis at listas.unizar.es
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> fis-request at listas.unizar.es
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> fis-owner at listas.unizar.es
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman (Terrence W Deacon)
> 2. Re: Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 4 (Krassimir Markov)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 08:47:37 -0800
> From: Terrence W Deacon <deacon at berkeley.edu>
> To: Pedro C. Mariju?n <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
> Cc: fis at listas.unizar.es, Skauffman <stukaufman at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman
> Message-ID:
> <CAOJbPRLC40bnKjupETxqd_tDLXziDZdwVTvXHVauFwcdwytxuA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Beware of the cryptic Cartesianism of opposing informationalism to
> physicalism (as in "it from bit").
> By accepting this framing, we risk falling for the old idealism vs
> materialism trap, just in a new form.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:59?AM Pedro C. Mariju?n <
> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Stuart and FIS colleagues,
>
> We are honored that you impart the FIS New Year Lecture this time. In this
> list, quite a few members share the impression that we are involved in a
> historical transition in science. Maybe, as you and Andrea Roli state, it
> could be the Third Great Transition. That it revolves around putting into
> question the predominance of physicalist views was coincidentally discussed
> in a previous discussion session, when two pioneers of AI research (Yixin
> Zhong from China and Eric Werner from Oxford) were arguing for a paradigm
> change away for physicalism. Now you are providing strong arguments from
> the biological self-construction and evolutionary points of view. An
> important point is the argument on Kantian wholes, from the closure of
> auto-catalitic sets. It could also be considered as the organizational
> reliance on "cycles". In biological systems there is a towering presence of
> cycles: from elementary reaction cycles, to enzyme work-cycles, to regional
> reaction cycles, gene expression cycles (your Boolean networks!!), to
> genetic macro-cycles... to the cell's entire life cycle. And an even larger
> story could be told about cycles in complex organisms...
>
> To put the argument in a nutshell: bye to physicalism (as a fundamental
> meta-scientific vision). Yes, but what would substitute for it?
> I dare say "informationalism". You mention the biosphere and the global
> economy, and even our cultures. Aren't all them based on the circulation of
> "information flows" (in vastly different forms, of course)??
> Let us think, for instance, on the enormous disarray created by the new
> social networks in our societies... we do not much understand the
> psychological changes derived for the intertwining of natural vs artifical
> info flows in our societies.
>
> I am just reading Joseph's just arrived comments, philosophically and
> formally oriented. Fine. I would ad that we are lacking a vast
> informational view that can help us to understand that strange world put
> into action 3,000 million years ago, full of emergent realms. So, filling
> in the gap that physicalim is unable to fill in consistently.
>
> Best regards to all,
> --Pedro
>
> *PS. If anyone has doubts about the messages effectively distributed in
> the list, go please to the instantaneous archive:
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/
> <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/>*
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> El 04/01/2024 a las 23:54, Stuart Kauffman escribi?:
>
> Hello to All,
>
>
>
> I am truly grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with you the
> recent Stuart Kauffman and Andrea Roli paper, ?A Third Transition In
> Science?? J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 4/ 14 2023. I attach a link below. It?s
> eventual publication in a fine journal after almost two years has its own
> wry history.
>
>
>
> Andrea and I think we are correct, but we may be wrong. More, I only
> slightly begin to understand what our results, if correct, mean.
>
>
>
> I had thought that the First Transition in science was Newton?s invention
> of Classical Physics in 1689 A.D. And I thought the Second Transition was
> the reluctant discovery of quantum mechanics between 1900 and 1927 A.D.
>
>
>
> I begin to suspect I was wrong. The First Transition in science was in
> 1299A.D. when the first mechanical clock was invented and installed at the
> Wallingford Abby. It was installed because the monks were often late for
> prayers. Within less than a century, Europe was dotted by chuch towers with
> ever - more impressive mechanical clocks. Modern people in 1379 A.D. must
> have begun to wonder if the World itself was some amazing clockwork
> machine. Then Copernicus, 1543 A.D., then Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
>
>
>
> This, then, was the Second Transition in Science. Yes, yes, yes! The
> World is a vast clockwork machine. No room for God?s miracles ? the Deistic
> God of the Enlightenment. No room for mind ? Descartes lost his Res
> cogitans to Newton?s Res extensa. No Free Will.
>
>
>
> With Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger cam a loss of determinism, but
> still within the Newtonian Paradigm. And no mind and no responsible Free
> Will.
>
>
>
> If Andrea and I are correct, this Third Transition demonstrates for the
> first time since 1299AD, 725 years later, that the evolving biosphere is
> not a clockwork machines. Evolving life is not a machine at all.
>
>
>
> Are the two of us correct? If so, what does this Third Transition
> portend? These issues now lies before us.
>
>
>
> Merci a tous,
>
>
> Stu Kauffman
>
>
> A Third Transition in Science? Link
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QWqRy48IxgI7uqQVW1zW2bni_amdH6RTRyIDsnv2KVgCUL0gLsvl9TQg9-0nZwoqnXSch1vxIkH0HogQ-8uUlw$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0HwbrDZ8$
> >
>
>
>
>
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0Kbsj3yQ$>
> Libre
> de virus.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QWqRy48IxgI7uqQVW1zW2bni_amdH6RTRyIDsnv2KVgCUL0gLsvl9TQg9-0nZwoqnXSch1vxIkH0HoiCeiZeGQ$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0Kbsj3yQ$
> >
> <#m_-7995677017021347638_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci?n 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 est? suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicaci?n en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Professor Terrence W. DeaconUniversity of California, Berkeley*
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240105/5083d3c2/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:19:59 +0200
> From: Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com>
> To: fis at listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 4
> Message-ID:
> <CAKEQgkxjFRQ6=gw15cJ6DNN-BcU0soEHvi-42hxiJPC45wk1GA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Prof. Kauffman and FIS Colleagues,
> Warm Wishes for health and happiness in (and not only!) New Year !
>
> Dear Prof. Kauffman,
> Thank you very much for the interesting article and the ideas presented in
> it.
> I fully agree that set theory cannot be used for the purposes you state in
> the article.
> I agree with all your conclusions and opinions ...
>
> But ...
>
> Only at the level of set theory!
>
> Modern mathematics has already proposed theoretical foundations by which to
> model the complexity and unpredictability you speak of.
>
> This is the Category Theory.
>
> I do not have the opportunity to go into details here, but I will try to
> explain the difference in a sentence or two.
>
> In set theory, we work with elements and functions from one element to
> another element.
>
> In category theory, we work with structures and morphisms (mappings) of
> structures into structures, and a special place is occupied by functors,
> which are mappings of categories into categories.
>
> I have been using Category Theory for modeling information phenomena for
> many years and I am satisfied with the results.
> Maybe someday we'll have a chance to talk in more detail.
>
> With respect,
> Krassimir
>
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweo0pSd3bs$
> >
> ????
> ??????
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoxbM1Dfw$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweo0pSd3bs$
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ?? ??, 5.01.2024??. ? 13:59 <fis-request at listas.unizar.es> ??????:
>
> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
> fis at listas.unizar.es
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> fis-request at listas.unizar.es
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> fis-owner at listas.unizar.es
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman (joe.brenner at bluewin.ch)
> 2. Re: New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman (Pedro C. Mariju?n)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
> To: Skauffman <stukaufman at gmail.com>
> Cc: pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com, fis at listas.unizar.es, plamen at simeio.org
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:41:33 +0100 (CET)
> Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman
>
> Dear Stuart (if I may), Pedro and Plamen,
>
> Happy New Year and best wishes for 2024 to All! As Pedro and Plamen may
> recall, I have been ?at home in Stuart?s Universe? for some time. His
> article, however, brings clearly into focus the issues to be resolved in
> science and philosophy, including logic.
>
> As you may not recall, however, I have been arguing for all this time,
> *contra
> vents et mar?es*, in favor of some very specific additions. Among other
> things these, have their ground in the very much neglected Buddhist
> insights into the relational structure of reality (co-dependence or
> co-instantiation) in the work of both Nagarjuna (2nd - 3rd Centuries
> C.E.) and Yamauchi Tokuryu (19th -20th Centuries).
>
> To be as brief as possible here, Stuart?s article refers to or implies
> needed changes in the following areas:
>
> - Free will as necessary for individual and collective
> responsibility;
>
> - Total separability in the part-whole relation:
>
> - Inapplicability of standard set theory;
>
> - Dynamic implications of the Axiom of Choice; (I have sent my
> philosophical-logical interpretation of this Axiom to some 45 people
> without an answer, not that I was wrong or ignorant ? nothing.)
>
> - Non-algorithmic, but regular features of the real world;
>
> I look forward very much to a dialogue on these and other issues,
>
> Cheers, as far as possible,
>
> Joseph
>
> ----Message d'origine----
> De : stukauffman at gmail.com
> Date : 04/01/2024 - 23:54 (E)
> ? : fis at listas.unizar.es
> Cc : pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com, plamen at simeio.org
> Objet : [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman /Pedro and Plamen is this
> what you need? stu
>
> Hello to All,
>
>
>
> I am truly grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with you the
> recent Stuart Kauffman and Andrea Roli paper, ?A Third Transition In
> Science?? J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 4/ 14 2023. I attach a link below. It?s
> eventual publication in a fine journal after almost two years has its own
> wry history.
>
>
>
> Andrea and I think we are correct, but we may be wrong. More, I only
> slightly begin to understand what our results, if correct, mean.
>
>
>
> I had thought that the First Transition in science was Newton?s invention
> of Classical Physics in 1689 A.D. And I thought the Second Transition was
> the reluctant discovery of quantum mechanics between 1900 and 1927 A.D.
>
>
>
> I begin to suspect I was wrong. The First Transition in science was in
> 1299A.D. when the first mechanical clock was invented and installed at the
> Wallingford Abby. It was installed because the monks were often late for
> prayers. Within less than a century, Europe was dotted by chuch towers with
> ever - more impressive mechanical clocks. Modern people in 1379 A.D. must
> have begun to wonder if the World itself was some amazing clockwork
> machine. Then Copernicus, 1543 A.D., then Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
>
>
>
> This, then, was the Second Transition in Science. Yes, yes, yes! The
> World *is* a vast clockwork machine. No room for God?s miracles ? the
> Deistic God of the Enlightenment. No room for mind ? Descartes lost his Res
> cogitans to Newton?s Res extensa. No Free Will.
>
>
>
> With Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger cam a loss of determinism, but
> still within the Newtonian Paradigm. And no mind and no responsible Free
> Will.
>
>
>
> If Andrea and I are correct, this Third Transition demonstrates for the
> first time since 1299AD, 725 years later, that the evolving biosphere is
> not a clockwork machines. Evolving life is not a machine at all.
>
>
>
> Are the two of us correct? If so, what does this Third Transition
> portend? These issues now lies before us.
>
>
>
> Merci a tous,
>
>
> Stu Kauffman
>
>
> A Third Transition in Science? Link
>
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoI7pfKPU$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Qqk-MU8YHDOqCRFRhl7TeX1dkVGTkGVguvuvh9b0bDsQA5fo9VckJgLmoyonQDdvxMbEBRHMUpOBTww1u06J-5k$
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Pedro C. Mariju?n" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
> To: Skauffman <stukaufman at gmail.com>, fis at listas.unizar.es
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:59:18 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman
> Dear Stuart and FIS colleagues,
>
> We are honored that you impart the FIS New Year Lecture this time. In this
> list, quite a few members share the impression that we are involved in a
> historical transition in science. Maybe, as you and Andrea Roli state, it
> could be the Third Great Transition. That it revolves around putting into
> question the predominance of physicalist views was coincidentally discussed
> in a previous discussion session, when two pioneers of AI research (Yixin
> Zhong from China and Eric Werner from Oxford) were arguing for a paradigm
> change away for physicalism. Now you are providing strong arguments from
> the biological self-construction and evolutionary points of view. An
> important point is the argument on Kantian wholes, from the closure of
> auto-catalitic sets. It could also be considered as the organizational
> reliance on "cycles". In biological systems there is a towering presence of
> cycles: from elementary reaction cycles, to enzyme work-cycles, to regional
> reaction cycles, gene expression cycles (your Boolean networks!!), to
> genetic macro-cycles... to the cell's entire life cycle. And an even larger
> story could be told about cycles in complex organisms...
>
> To put the argument in a nutshell: bye to physicalism (as a fundamental
> meta-scientific vision). Yes, but what would substitute for it?
> I dare say "informationalism". You mention the biosphere and the global
> economy, and even our cultures. Aren't all them based on the circulation of
> "information flows" (in vastly different forms, of course)??
> Let us think, for instance, on the enormous disarray created by the new
> social networks in our societies... we do not much understand the
> psychological changes derived for the intertwining of natural vs artifical
> info flows in our societies.
>
> I am just reading Joseph's just arrived comments, philosophically and
> formally oriented. Fine. I would ad that we are lacking a vast
> informational view that can help us to understand that strange world put
> into action 3,000 million years ago, full of emergent realms. So, filling
> in the gap that physicalim is unable to fill in consistently.
>
> Best regards to all,
> --Pedro
>
> *PS. If anyone has doubts about the messages effectively distributed in
> the list, go please to the instantaneous archive:
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/
> <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/>*
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> El 04/01/2024 a las 23:54, Stuart Kauffman escribi?:
>
> Hello to All,
>
>
>
> I am truly grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with you the
> recent Stuart Kauffman and Andrea Roli paper, ?A Third Transition In
> Science?? J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 4/ 14 2023. I attach a link below. It?s
> eventual publication in a fine journal after almost two years has its own
> wry history.
>
>
>
> Andrea and I think we are correct, but we may be wrong. More, I only
> slightly begin to understand what our results, if correct, mean.
>
>
>
> I had thought that the First Transition in science was Newton?s invention
> of Classical Physics in 1689 A.D. And I thought the Second Transition was
> the reluctant discovery of quantum mechanics between 1900 and 1927 A.D.
>
>
>
> I begin to suspect I was wrong. The First Transition in science was in
> 1299A.D. when the first mechanical clock was invented and installed at the
> Wallingford Abby. It was installed because the monks were often late for
> prayers. Within less than a century, Europe was dotted by chuch towers with
> ever - more impressive mechanical clocks. Modern people in 1379 A.D. must
> have begun to wonder if the World itself was some amazing clockwork
> machine. Then Copernicus, 1543 A.D., then Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
>
>
>
> This, then, was the Second Transition in Science. Yes, yes, yes! The
> World is a vast clockwork machine. No room for God?s miracles ? the Deistic
> God of the Enlightenment. No room for mind ? Descartes lost his Res
> cogitans to Newton?s Res extensa. No Free Will.
>
>
>
> With Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger cam a loss of determinism, but
> still within the Newtonian Paradigm. And no mind and no responsible Free
> Will.
>
>
>
> If Andrea and I are correct, this Third Transition demonstrates for the
> first time since 1299AD, 725 years later, that the evolving biosphere is
> not a clockwork machines. Evolving life is not a machine at all.
>
>
>
> Are the two of us correct? If so, what does this Third Transition
> portend? These issues now lies before us.
>
>
>
> Merci a tous,
>
>
> Stu Kauffman
>
>
> A Third Transition in Science? Link
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoI7pfKPU$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0HwbrDZ8$
> >
>
>
>
>
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0Kbsj3yQ$>
> Libre
> de virus.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoxbM1Dfw$
> <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0Kbsj3yQ$
> >
> <#m_-5327561665015284833_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240105/9c080885/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 5
> ***********************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at 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
> ----------
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240107/3ba47173/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list