[Fis] (no subject)

[Karl Javorszky]

(Patres et conscripti 2025 01 01)



Dear Joseph,



Your kind words belong to the previous discussion, and in answering them,
I’d like to sneak in a 3rd letter this week, in order not to disturb the
coming session; to close a task once begun (Zeigarnik-effect).



I shall group your points in ascending order of complexity.



*4. I do not like categorizing anything, such as information in its
appearances, as a substitute fpr a dialectical disussion of the appearance
- reality duality. The role of information in this is central, and is part
of both science and philosophy. I don't see what using the term "technical"
brings here.*



Limited by twice max 3 pages per week, the following project that may
depict as a numeric picture that what you call the *appearance - reality
duality* has not yet been discussed in detail.

We use the two imaginations of many cars using a traffic web and those of
traffic jams. On one level of discussion and counting (from far above), the
jams are the observable entity. One can categorize them according to
place/time/extent regularity. These are the logical archetypes that get
created inevitably, just by the assembly being differentiated (only so many
‘=’ statements are possible before a ‘≠’ statement becomes necessary). The
proposal is to connect existing mental constructs filed currently under the
tag “chemical element” to the numeric-logical clusters that evolve as at
times there are not as many places available as there are diversities that
need to be separated by intermitting similarities.

On the level of cars and convoys of cars the idea of jams is not
recognizable. Each driver knows that they are in a go-slow or stand-still
area/place/neighborhood. These are properties that belong to the car, time,
place.

As one refines the concepts of logical archetypes, one will find better
rhetorical approaches to the following idea, which in my understanding
Joseph and me share, albeit using different words: *The traffic jams and
the individual cars are physic – metaphysic for each other. *Both can claim
to be reality and say that the other is an appearance.



As to the distinction between philosophic and technical questions, the
above example gives contours to both perspectives. That the logical
archetypes exist and can be sieved out from among all that is certainly the
case (if circumstances permit), is a question philosophically solved. What
now remains is to give a thorough massage to the 46.260 elementary
internally connected available connectors. (Cycles that are an implication
of *a+b=c.*) This is a technical task you can charge a good programmer with.

What remains as a philosophical task to address is, what are the properties
of jams? Trying to describe them in terms of properties of cars does not
give them full credit for all their types and kinds. It is a question of
imagination at first, what properties one believes to interact so that
order results from their interaction, like jams result from the
interactions of cars. As one sorts and groups 46.260 cars that can take
part in many among different jams, one will find ordering principles that
distinguish types and classes of logical archetypes. The order develops
from the interplay among such elements that are not tagged up yet with all
possible tags: such can be otherwise. The combinatorics are different among
the cars and among the jams. There are constellations and coincidences in
one that are not representable in the other. The two represent *appearance
- reality duality *for each other.



* 3. As part of a process of its "coming about" and operating, "DNA" has
more relations than those between numbers which can be ascribed to it.
Nothing predicatble happens with or to DNA because of them.*

*5. I think the best philosophical parts of our discussion that refer to
the human condition involve more than neurology. Our neurology is something
to be moved to and from something else which is, for me, our existence. *

*In conclusion, all of your terms can be retained, Karl, but only if their
dynamic relation with other terms is allowed.*



In the fis context, DNA refers to a simple concept of a handful of
individual units that each have places that are numbered *1..3* and on each
of the numbered places one of four tokens can sit. (That the 4 tokens come
in pairs of *2 * 2* is an encouraging hint that – maybe indeed – Nature
organizes herself according to the rules that also govern *a+b=c.*) The
handfuls of units together are a description of an organism. The organism
is a collection of periodic processes with feedback states. The handfuls
together are not *one, long *sequence, but are iterations of an ideal one,
long sequence. Whether the iterations are addressed by
physiological-logical processes (parallel processing of DNA strands)
concurrently or in one logical-temporal sequence, is not known to this
person, and is of no present relevance.

This concept of the DNA is a generalization, sufficiently far away from any
particularities, and poses no prejudice of exclusivity of any further
statements about the thing. We disagree on your assertion that nothing
predictable happens to the sequence due to actions or states of the
organism. Folklore has it that if any of the parents were intoxicated
(poisoned) in a significant way while producing the egg resp. sperm, there
will result alterations to the sequence.

Similar stands for using neurology to describe limits, ranges, intervals,
possibilities or certainties of co-existences and concurrences. There are
other perspectives also. Using a concept world and simple terminology of
neurology does not in any way exclude discussion of the subject under
different viewpoints, using different terminologies.

This is even more so in the more general terms of claiming exclusive
ownership of whatever.



*2. I do npt like Peircean and other categorizations, which I consider
epistemid, especially if they obscure dynamic process relatioms whoch I
consider ontic, involving changes of energy.*



If this is an accusation, let me answer with the aria of Billy Budd as he
stands accused by the Master-at-Arms of mutiny:

*S**ir, I am loyal to my country and my King. It is true I'm nobody, who
don't know where he was born, and I've had to live rough, but never, never
could I do those foul things. … Don’t know, don’t know such things.*

There is a sci-fi short story by Nelson S Bond: Socrates of the South
Forty. An uneducated person deciphers rather complicated riddles.

The rules this person keeps are: be polite, try to understand the other
one, keep strictly to talking about numbers and their relations. Such, one
cannot come into controversies. The term ‘gravitation’ has been used en
passant, by mentioning that axis *a+b *of the common Newton space looks
like Nature has delivered to our eyes what she does in practice. Energy as
a term has never been uttered by me in fis, because I don’t know what it
is. To me it looks like a different word for dis-(al)location, but this I
keep in my heart.



*Your note reminded me of when you first argued, many years ago, that 2 X 5
was not equal to 5 X 2, and so on. I objected and still object to your
concept as long as 2 and 5 are numbers. It is clear that if the 2 and the 5
refer to real objects - people or processes - 2 groups of 5 are not the
same as 5 groups of 2. Please comment again, if you would.    *



A *koan *about an Accadian and a Sumerian merchant sitting and talking. A 2
and a 5 are delivered.

The Sumerian says: I shall expect another 3 till the evening. The Accadian
says: their color difference is rather unusual.

The Sumerian has *one *stick, which he can stick into the ground at any
place and measure from that place the distances he uses. He uses *identical
*steps to calculate distances (and converts units via MKS resp. SI
conversion coefficients).

The Accadian has *many pairs of sticks* one pair each for color, viscosity,
temperature, etc. which he uses to relate the usuality or extraordinarity
of these 2 and 5 to. The Accadian lives in part in his history, because he
cannot stick the pair *anywhere*, because tradition of what is usual binds
the methods of measurements. He converts by using the Marijuán constants.

Historical fact is that the Sumerian way of talking about 2 and 5 has
survived. The Accadians having been put to the sword has conferred a bad
image to anything they did, like they were cannibals. Reviving the ancient
customs, language, habits, beliefs, culture of the Accadians may actually
propel Science forward. This is what we have been working on 30 years here.
The heroic task is to assemble all variants of sentences an Accadian would
say and see how well that agrees with what the Sumerian would possibly say
and what such deliveries would look like where both agree.



*1. Once you have made your statement about "Learned Friends" I wish you
would avoid repeating. It may or may not refer to me; in either case I find
it irritating.*

Due to some circumstances, this person was interested in the proceedings
leading to Brexit and has watched coverage of the debates in Parliament.
There, the usual evocation of ‘Honourable member for *xxx*’ among each
other is softened up by the distinction of addressing members of scientific
standing among each other as ‘Learned Friend’. This stroke me as a
conspiracy among the educated. The *hoi polloi *call each other Honourable.
As opposed to these, those who have seen school from the inside are
hopefully more reasonable and cooperative. The honorific implicates a
belief that in Academia in both areas, the symposion area and the
gymnasion, the same rules of sportsmanship and camaraderie apply. This
person believes himself to be learned and nurtures attitudes of attention,
cooperation, goodwill towards the other participants of this informal chat
group. A honorific usual in Parliament would not be misunderstood as being
anything less than respectful.



Wishing you a Happy New Year and invigorating discussions,

Respectfully

Karl

Am Mi., 1. Jan. 2025 um 12:45 Uhr schrieb Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz <
goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de>:

> Dear Jason,
> The simplest quantum structure corresponds to the smallest action.
>
> An AQI therefore has the action of Planck's constant: h.
>
> Action is defined as energy multiplied by time: E•t
>
> An AQIs is defined absolutely, that is,
> in relation to the entire cosmos and in no way to any object in the cosmos.
> It is maximally abstract, that is,
> without any possible specific meaning in relation to anything.
>
> At present, there is an intensive discussion regarding the empirical value
> of the Hubble constant.
> The values for H0 currently lie between H0 = 75 (km/s)/Mpc and H0
>  = 67.4 (km/s)/Mpc.
> For the purpose of estimating only the orders of magnitude, a value of H0 = 70 (km/s)/Mpc
> is chosen.
>
> With the value for the megaparsec of 3.08567758149137∙10^19 km and the
> Planck time of tPl = 5.39∙10^(– 44) s,
> the Hubble time tCosmos = 1/ H0 is tCosmos = 8.17831∙10^60 tPl.
> (That is
> 8.17831∙10^60((5.39∙10^(–44))/(60∙60∙24∙365)) = 13.978∙10^9 years.)
>
> With the Planck constant h = 4.1356677∙10^(–15) eV s and the age of the
> universe,
> i.e. the Hubble time 44.08109∙10^16 s,
> the energy of an AQI at the present age of the universe is
> EAQI = 9.38195∙10^(–33) eV
> Thus, for 1 proton from EProton = 9.38272∙10^8 eV, a value of about
> 10^41 AQIs results.
>
> In 1972, Carl Friedrich v. Weizsäcker had presented an estimate for a
> nucleon that corresponds to a value of about 10^40.4.
>
>
> Quoting Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com>:
>
> > Dear Dr. Goernitz,
> > Can AQI exist independently from its context - or some larger structure
> > (matter or energy)? By "exist," I mean stability with a relevant longer
> > time.
> > By "longer time," I mean in the range of human perception, even with the
> > help of cognitive instruments. Just curious.
> > Best regards - Jason
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 2:00 AM Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz <
> > goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >> I would like to start by wishing everyone a healthy, successful and
> >> hopefully more peaceful new year.
> >>
> >> Now a few comments from me on the current contributions, regarding
> >> information and meaning.
> >>
> >> Natural science seeks rules and laws for the processes in nature.
> >> However, due to the expansion of the cosmos, there are never two
> >> completely identical situations. For an individual case, however, the
> >> idea of a rule is meaningless.
> >>
> >> Rules require similarity, laws require – not only in jurisprudence –
> >> equality.
> >>
> >> Similarity and equality arise from sweeping what appears to be
> >> insignificant in the situations under consideration under the carpet.
> >> Changes to inanimate matter require the expenditure of energy, but
> >> living things can also be influenced by meaningful information.
> >>
> >> Scientific explanation starts from simple structures to explain
> >> complicated structures.
> >> Chemistry explains the biochemical basis of life. Quantum mechanics
> >> provides the theoretical basis for chemistry.
> >>
> >> The simplest quantum structures that are mathematically possible have
> >> only a two-dimensional state space. It therefore makes sense to call
> >> them quantum bits.
> >> The particles of quantum mechanics and, with that, the quantum field
> >> theories can be constructed from these structures.
> >> This means that matter can be understood as a special form of such
> >> quantum bits.
> >>
> >> It has been known for some time that quantum theory relativizes
> >> distinctions that are important for everyday life. E=mc^2 shows the
> >> equivalence of matter with motion, i.e. with one of its properties.
> >> The distinction between force and matter is reduced to the distinction
> >> between fermions and bosons, which can be converted into one another
> >> under certain conditions.
> >>
> >> These quantum structures with a two-dimensional Hilbert space are to
> >> be thought of as absolute and completely abstract, not as properties
> >> of a material or energetic structure. I call them AQIs.
> >>
> >> The AQIs form matter, energy, as well as the properties of matter and
> >> energy.
> >>
> >> Life only emerged relatively late in the development of the cosmos,
> >> and only for living things can something become meaningful.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Quoting Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Again, one wonders.
> >> >
> >> > Marcus writes:
> >> >  you also invoke ‘meaning’ which is notoriously difficult to define –
> >> where
> >> > do you clearly define meaning?
> >> >
> >> >  There is a perfectly valid definition of meaning available for all
> who
> >> > have access to the FIS list.
> >> >
> >> > The last time this définition was shared with the Learned Friends was
> 21
> >> > days ago, 9th December 2024, in a letter to Xueshan.
> >> >
> >> > *Information has been defined (eg Liaisons Among Symbols) as the
> totality
> >> > of ∆ (n?, n!).*
> >> >
> >> > *Meaning has been defined (op. cit.) as the relation of a context to
> at
> >> > least one of the Central Elements.*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz
> >> Fellow of the INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF INFORMATION STUDIES
> >>
> >> Privat (für Postsendungen):
> >> Karl-Mangold-Str. 13
> >> D-81245 München
> >> Tel: 0049-89-887746
> >>
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://goernitzunderstandingquantumtheory.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Twd5A-cSLW8XBCnqHSJSmnpnRgk8TzmugecCjfUIUl15bOVeXlewBLt5Z82oDgMW23D9dJVIhIcotYDJNuXxBAlvzbWnJw$
> >>
> >> Fachbereich Physik
> >> J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Fis mailing list
> >> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >> ----------
> >> INFORMACIN SOBRE PROTECCIN DE DATOS DE CARCTER PERSONAL
> >>
> >> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
> por
> >> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> >> Puede encontrar toda la informacin 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 aplicacin en el momento en que lo desee.
> >> http://listas.unizar.es
> >> ----------
> >>
>
>
> Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz
> Fellow of the INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF INFORMATION STUDIES
>
> Privat (für Postsendungen):
> Karl-Mangold-Str. 13
> D-81245 München
> Tel: 0049-89-887746
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://goernitzunderstandingquantumtheory.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XogH13xKD8imDiOOPCmWQlqYABXL4Mqn_TP19Ae3T4VzlzYATYXK8x2nC7_XfwT1TaCcS5R9zzMLowH5P5sAGq0qsqE$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://goernitzunderstandingquantumtheory.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TGweAGthWys3xLXwudUEWX-fqIm8jxOFF4KJZ8mDu4qWZtcJVFX_2DBidTH0uXsML7EoH7PTvWB0giR8ZMxJm79X5Pcucg$>
>
> Fachbereich Physik
> J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20250101/5f9e59fb/attachment-0001.html>