[Fis] Biologic - at the interface between biology, topology, logic and cybernetics (by Lou Kauffman)

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

I suggest:
Zen Master to student: "Have you finished your breakfast?"
"Yes."
"Then wash your bowl."

Thank you.
Joseph 

Envoyé avec l’application blue News & E-Mail

Le 9 janvier 2025 à 00:06, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> a écrit
>Dear Jason,
>My favorite Zen Story!
>
>Yes, what you say is consistent with my view.
>
>There is a distinction we have and do not always recognize between the
>“corporeal” world of everyday perception/conception and the “physical”
>world of quantum states and evolutions.
>In quantum theory one makes this distinction. A physical state is
>modeled by a vector in a complex space (Hilbert space). It can evolve
>physically, deterministically by what are called unitary
>transformations.
>These preserve the “length” of the vector — which means this: The
>vector represents (as Heisenberg and Stu Kauffman like to say) the
>potentia of the situation. 
>The vector represents all the possibilities that can possibly actualize
>in the corporeal world
>In relation to this state. Each possibility is a coordinate of the
>vector, a complex number. The sum of the absolute squares of these
>complex numbers adds to one (it might be an infinite sum).
>When a measurement is made, the vector actualizes as a definite event
>in the corporeal world and one of the possibilities occurs with
>“probability” the absolute square of its coordinate”.
>This means that the vector is carrying a probability distribution AND
>any quantum process preserves the total sum of the probabilities. In
>other words, a quantum process moves the probability distribution and
>the entire “Potentia”
>along from one state to the other. This preservation is called
>conservation of “quantum information”.
>
>Some imagine that quantum information solves the problem of
>consciousness.
>You can think about that.
>
>The evolution of potentia goes on deterministically unless there is a
>measurement. 
>Measurement makes the potential into the actual at the corporeal level.
>
>The confusions that occur in most discussions about quantum mechanics
>have to do with how potential becomes actual and what is the meaning of
>actual.
>In the corporeal world we have qualitative as well as  quantitative
>measures. The qualitative is not seen in quantum measurement process.
>Quantum measurement process is strictly quantitative.
>So there are many many structures and distinctions in the corporeal
>world that are not part of that Hilbert space model. The famous
>Schrodinger’s Cat experiment is a good example. If you take the quantum
>model literally, then the cat after one hour is
>In a superposition state of |LiveCat> + |DeadCat> and requires a
>“measurement” to have the “collapse of the wave function” to Live or to
>Dead. Schrodinger orginally presented this as absurd, because we know
>that cats are not in superpositions.
>The point is that the cat is not in the Physical World of Determined
>Quantum Evolutions of Potentia. The cat is in the corporeal world and
>after one hour the cat is either alive or dead whether you open the
>door to the chamber or not. 
>That is common sense. And Schrodinger did not expect that the others
>would abandon common sense to a world of superpositions of cats and
>many worlds. Yikes. But that is how it goes. Good theory gone wrong.
>And you have to admit that it
>remains a problem what is the distinction between the quantum physical
>and the corporeal.
>
>When we reach down to a tiny world of molecules and look for knotted
>DNA just like somehow rope in our hands, this is a daring gesture in
>the direction of the corporeal.
>Some people are working on the relation of these experiments with
>quantum states. The bonding of the molecules depends on quantum
>physics. You are right next to quantum chemistry.
>And you are also right next to the alternate possible where entirely
>new molecular structures might come into being.
>
>I made a distinction between the quantum physical world and the
>corporeal world. 
>
>There is no distinction between the quantum world and the corporeal
>world.
>
>There is no mirror.
>
>Wittgenstein wrote:
>
>
>
>The great mirror does not exist.
>The subject does belong to the world.
>There is no mirror.
>Best,
>Lou
>
>
>> On Jan 8, 2025, at 1:00 PM, Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Lou,
>> To resonate with your point about the nothingness of nothing, I have
>been guessing for a long time since I heard about quantum entanglement:
>If we take those tiny little quantum as if they can be observer
>themselves, then they do not have this thing named "spacetime" in their
>view at all. Alas, "spacetime" is just a human construction coming from
>the human cognitive system, specifically Einsteins. And the independent
>"space" and "time" were constructed by earlier humans... not quantum!
>So, the human-named entanglement is not an issue of them at all. 
>> Is this consistent with your thoughts?
>> 
>> I have to invoke a famous story in Buddhism. One senior monk wrote a
>poem on the wall of their temple:
>> 
>> "The body is like a bodhi tree,
>> The mind is like a bright mirror,
>> Always wipe it, please,
>> don't let it get dusty."
>> 
>> Then, among the crowd, a younger junior monk wrote the following:
>> 
>> "The bodhi tree is not a tree,
>> nor is the mirror a mirror,
>> there is nothing there,
>> how can dust collect?"
>> So, the junior monk became the Sixth Patriarch of Buddhism (Chan
>section). His name was Hui-neng, 638-713 AD.
>> 
>> Cheers! - Jason
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 3:15 AM Gordana Dodig Crnkovic
><gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se
><mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se>> wrote:
>> Dear Lou,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you for this wonderful and overwhelming answer! I will need a
>few days to try to understand it as much as I can.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> You are right that the comparisons I sketched are very crude, but I
>hope they serve as a starting point to orient the discussion.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> When we learn, we use our previous knowledge to connect the dots. I
>have been trying to connect from John Wheeler, Heinz von Foerster, and
>Douglas Hofstadter.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The picture is vast, and the details are fuzzy (not just the
>details—the entire construction feels fuzzy), 
>> but it helps me to begin forming relationships and moving between the
>dots.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Of course, the formalization you propose is quite different from the
>formal systems pursued by logicians, and I appreciate the distinction.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks again for elucidating your position. I look forward to your
>lecture on Friday, at noon Chicago time, 
>> which I understand is 7 o’clock in the evening in Stockholm.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Gordana
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday, 8 January 2025 at 09:49
>> To: Gordana CHALMERS <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se
><mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se>>
>> Cc: fis <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Biologic - at the interface between biology,
>topology, logic and cybernetics (by Lou Kauffman)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear Gordana,
>> 
>> This sounds approximately right, except that when you speak of
>formalization in relation to Kauffman it sounds like it might be
>something like the formal systems that the logicians propagate.
>> 
>> (Base structures are letters/characters. Then everything is built up
>in a logico-textual manner out of text strings.) Kauffman is an
>advocate of diagrammatic systems, games, playing and process. 
>> 
>> So it comes out different somehow.
>> 
>> More like the cartoon below.
>> 
>> One only groks such things in the course of human interaction, and
>such diagrammatic systems are meaningless without
>observers/interpretants and lots of discussion.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Oh, by the way, it is a tenet of my profession that everything that
>we do can be translated into the logician type formal systems. It does
>not work of course, but it is remarkable how much does go over.
>> 
>> What is so interesting is what does not go over. For example, since
>the Greeks we have the notion of empty space. But the only way we have
>managed to formalize this in logico-formalist terms is by saying that a
>space is a collection
>> 
>> of points (not empty at all!) with some special structure. Oy! The
>only way you get to empty space is by being silent, and then it shows
>itself. We need those non-thoughts to do our work, and we humans need
>those 
>> 
>> non-thoughts to do the work of crossing and erasing the boundaries
>that keep us in chains.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Maybe you will come back and answer this last paragraph with category
>theory. We can talk about that. The simplest category has one object
>and one morphism. Also not quite empty. The simplest set is simpler.
>> 
>> Just a frame for nothing: { }. The form we take to exist arises from
>framing nothing. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> My favorite conundrum is non-locality in quantum mechanics. This
>discussion was framed for cybernetics/biology. But consider that two
>“particles” separated in
>> 
>> Spacetime but entangled have something (unarticulated) in common and
>ask yourself how this can be? I think the best answer is that they are
>indeed part of a larger whole, a whole that needs a wider base than
>spacetime.
>> 
>> People try to make the connection concrete and in spacetime such as a
>wormhole (Susskind) but I believe that it is deeper than that, perhaps
>simpler than that, having all to do with the way distinctions appear to
>us
>> 
>> even though they are purely imaginary. This paragraph was written
>just to possibly get you going in the direction of fundamental physics.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I am neither a Kantian nor a Platonist and I suggest that there are
>no distinctions whatever in “Reality”.
>> 
>> No space, no time, no thing.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Waiting for the next thought.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Lou
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> In anticipation of Lou’s talk, I made this attempt to put Lou’s ideas
>in context of other authors.
>> 
>> I have some questions too, but I save them for after the lecture on
>Friday.
>> 
>>  
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Gordana
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Comparing Lou Kauffman, John Wheeler, Heinz von Foerster, and Douglas
>Hofstadter reveals common themes of recursion, self-reference, and the
>role of observers in constructing reality, but their approaches and
>emphases differ based on their disciplinary focuses.
>> 
>>  
>> 1. Disciplinary Cont
>> 
>> Aspect
>> 
>> Lou Kauffman
>> 
>> John Wheeler
>> 
>> Heinz von Foerster
>> 
>> Douglas Hofstadter
>> 
>> Field
>> 
>> Mathematics, Cybernetics, Biology
>> 
>> Theoretical Physics
>> 
>> Cybernetics and Systems Theory
>> 
>> Cognitive Science and Philosophy
>> 
>> Key Concern
>> 
>> Formalization of recursion and self-reference
>> 
>> Information and the participatory nature of reality
>> 
>> Observing systems, recursion, constructivism
>> 
>> Consciousness, creativity, and self-referential loops
>> 
>>  
>> 2. Core Ideas
>> 
>> Aspect
>> 
>> Kauffman
>> 
>> Wheeler
>> 
>> Von Foerster
>> 
>> Hofstadter
>> 
>> Recursion
>> 
>> Formalizes recursion using eigenforms, knot theory, and distinctions.
>> 
>> Recursion appears in quantum phenomena and the iterative
>actualization of reality.
>> 
>> Recursion underpins feedback loops and system dynamics.
>> 
>> Recursion is central to "strange loops" that generate consciousness.
>> 
>> Self-Reference
>> 
>> Eigenforms model systems observing themselves mathematically.
>> 
>> Observers influence reality through self-referential acts of
>measurement.
>> 
>> Observers construct themselves within systems through reflexivity.
>> 
>> Self-referential loops create the sense of "I."
>> 
>> Information
>> 
>> Encodes recursion and biological replication processes
>mathematically.
>> 
>> Reality arises from information (bits) processed through observation.
>> 
>> Information is a feedback-driven construct of observers.
>> 
>> Information transforms into meaning through recursive cognitive
>structures.
>> 
>> Observer’s Role
>> 
>> Observer is implicit in the mathematics of self-reference and
>recursion.
>> 
>> Observer "creates" reality by participating in quantum processes.
>> 
>> Observer is embedded in systems, shaping reality through
>distinctions.
>> 
>> Observer is a recursive entity, defined by strange loops.
>> 
>>  
>> 3. Philosophical Orientation
>> 
>> Aspect
>> 
>> Kauffman
>> 
>> Wheeler
>> 
>> Von Foerster
>> 
>> Hofstadter
>> 
>> Ontology
>> 
>> Self-reference and recursion are universal principles underlying
>biological and logical systems.
>> 
>> Reality is informational and participatory, emerging through
>observation.
>> 
>> Reality is constructed by observers, with no objective existence
>outside distinctions.
>> 
>> Reality and identity emerge from recursive cognitive processes.
>> 
>> Epistemology
>> 
>> Knowledge arises through formal systems modeling distinctions and
>recursion.
>> 
>> Knowledge is observer-dependent, grounded in informational
>interactions.
>> 
>> Observers generate knowledge through recursive observation and
>feedback.
>> 
>> Knowledge is emergent, shaped by cognitive and symbolic recursion.
>> 
>> Human-Centeredness
>> 
>> Focuses on universal principles; less anthropocentric.
>> 
>> Anthropocentric in framing the universe as participatory.
>> 
>> Embeddedness of observers is central but not anthropocentric.
>> 
>> Deeply human-centered, exploring how recursion shapes human thought.
>> 
>>  
>> 4. Commonalities and Differences
>> 
>> Commonalities
>> 
>> Recursion and Self-Reference
>> 
>> All four thinkers see recursion and self-reference as central to
>understanding systems, whether biological (Kauffman, von Foerster),
>physical (Wheeler), or cognitive (Hofstadter).
>> 
>> Role of Observers
>> 
>> The observer is integral in shaping reality across all frameworks,
>whether mathematically (Kauffman), quantum-mechanically (Wheeler),
>operationally (von Foerster), or cognitively (Hofstadter).
>> 
>> Information as a Core Concept
>> 
>> Each thinker places information at the heart of their theories,
>though interpreted differently (as formal systems for Kauffman, quantum
>bits for Wheeler, operational constructs for von Foerster, and
>cognitive patterns for Hofstadter).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Differences
>> 
>> Focus on Biology
>> 
>> Kauffman and von Foerster deeply engage with biological systems,
>while Wheeler and Hofstadter primarily use them as metaphors.
>> 
>> Mathematical Formalism
>> 
>> Kauffman emphasizes rigorous mathematical modeling, whereas von
>Foerster and Hofstadter lean toward conceptual approaches, and Wheeler
>bridges the two with quantum theory.
>> 
>> Scope of Inquiry
>> 
>> Kauffman seeks universal principles spanning biology and mathematics.
>Wheeler focuses on the cosmos. Von Foerster centers on systems and
>constructivism. Hofstadter is more focused on human consciousness and
>cognition.
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es
><mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>> on behalf of Louis Kauffman
><loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Tuesday, 7 January 2025 at 23:41
>> To: Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com <mailto:itheaiss at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: fis <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Biologic - at the interface between biology,
>topology, logic and cybernetics (by Lou Kauffman)
>> 
>>  
>> Dear Krassimir and others,
>> 
>>  
>> It seems to me that I should not have sent all those papers!
>> 
>> I offer a talk on these matters this Friday, Noon Chicago time.
>> 
>>  
>> Title: Biologic - at the interface between biology, topology, logic
>and cybernetics
>> 
>> Speaker: Louis H Kauffman
>> 
>>  
>> Time: Noon, Chicago time. Friday, January 10, 2025
>> 
>>  
>> Join Zoom Meeting
>> 
>>
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://uic.zoom.us/j/4809175166?pwd=SHp0amNNLzJhUHBncVRxT3lBNjIwUT09__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!X1xbODqcw5rWx0raFBpyZPz2rfHF2u6xebBxt1ZWSV_ZEH8tnWTFOjuqQuJrDAWWAppXITCWNg6XqGO_$
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/uic.zoom.us/j/4809175166?pwd=SHp0amNNLzJhUHBncVRxT3lBNjIwUT09__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XdwZRY8ylgw5YoRAg_UFqz2_YVnj6IuLdZAV5CZ5Soh8UtJCpiC0Fj4PFGk_aENf8x4ysT_KT6hs25dX$>
>>  
>> Meeting ID: 480 917 5166
>> 
>> Passcode: 0rw2GP
>> 
>>  
>> Best,
>> 
>> Lou
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 7, 2025, at 1:50 PM, Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com
><mailto:itheaiss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> Dear Plamen,
>> I take your note on multidimensionality as something very important.
>> In this regard, I would like to note that multidimensionality is
>inherent in our everyday life. 
>> 
>> I myself designed and participated in the implementation of an
>industrial information system that has been operating for 30 years and
>is used for multidimensional modeling of business processes. At its
>core lies a system for operating with an infinitely-dimensionally
>numbered information space, i.e. data is stored on the basis of
>coordinate vectors with a variable and practically unlimited length.
>> This is truly another world!
>> 
>> Dear Lou,
>> First of all, I would like to note that I, like Plamen, need time to
>familiarize myself with and complete the difficult "homework" that was
>assigned to us. At the moment, I am very carefully and in depth reading
>"Self-Reference, Biologic and the Structure of Reproduction". But these
>are 71 pages, and I have to familiarize myself with more text. However,
>I already have two topics in mind that I would like us to talk about:
>> 1. Multidimensional languages and systems for modeling biological
>entities and processes.
>> 2. Information at the quantum level.
>> There will probably be something else...
>> 
>> With respect,
>> Krassimir
>> 
>>  
>> 
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XIIUo2kCPEBwmLwjlHRotwgnUns6gELu_I0pResJZh2wE8BNVdCtgB0QRCXULAOMCwPQ__llEBJpzU5cfpA$>	
>>
>Virus-free.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!X1xbODqcw5rWx0raFBpyZPz2rfHF2u6xebBxt1ZWSV_ZEH8tnWTFOjuqQuJrDAWWAppXITCWNnHyJ_Vn$
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XIIUo2kCPEBwmLwjlHRotwgnUns6gELu_I0pResJZh2wE8BNVdCtgB0QRCXULAOMCwPQ__llEBJpzU5cfpA$>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
><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
><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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>> ----------
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
><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
><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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>> ----------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250109/d5e8eb1e/attachment-0001.html>