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

[Jason Hu]

Bowl washing here means "experience completion." Sort of. The Zen master
didn't ask the student to manufacture that bowl in hand, grow the rice and
raise the chicken to make that breakfast.

This opens to the layers of "the truthness of knowing":
hearing-seeing-smelling-tasting-chewing-swallowing;" observation needs to
go through these many steps before your stomach reaches to either a feeling
of satisfaction or a feeling of pain.

I'm saying this because a good number of Western academics in favor of
socialism had no such "experience completion." They had only the first
three layers of sense but not the later three layers.  There is a good
reason that the word "nonsense" is non-sense. The complete sense of
breakfast includes bowl-washing.

If "socialism/communism" is too emotional for some to discuss, let me use
another daily example: marriage.
What is the current divorce rate in the Western countries? Let's assume
50%. exact number here is irrelevant as long as it is not 0% or 100%.
So, that "sweetheart-before-marriage" is actually Schrodinger's sweetheart,
you have to go all the way to swallowing to let your stomach reach a
conclusion, not just your tongue.

As someone who escaped from a socialist/communist society three times, I'm
pretty sad to watch that a number of my colleagues in the West are still
daydreaming about socialism (under various names or covers). They had no
chance to wash that bowl.

Perhaps the current huge fire in LA, "People's Republic of California," can
serve as true information and thus wake up some of them.

Thank you.
Jason

On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 1:24 AM joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <
joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> wrote:

> 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 écritDear
>> 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> 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>
>>> *Date: *Wednesday, 8 January 2025 at 09:49
>>> *To: *Gordana CHALMERS <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se>
>>> *Cc: *fis <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> on behalf of Louis Kauffman <
>>> loukau at gmail.com>
>>> *Date: *Tuesday, 7 January 2025 at 23:41
>>> *To: *Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com>
>>> *Cc: *fis <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!R82z7_1svn2bWKs_ny-toidOhRkgD0RQ4DRRcRfDnI6IIUDEpd4X00lERDO-KtpukIV2Fy5v5OjFF7QazxE8jDKHFmBa$ 
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/uic.zoom.us/j/4809175166?pwd=SHp0amNNLzJhUHBncVRxT3lBNjIwUT09__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XdwZRY8ylgw5YoRAg_UFqz2_YVnj6IuLdZAV5CZ5Soh8UtJCpiC0Fj4PFGk_aENf8x4ysT_KT6hs25dX$>
>>>
>>>
>>> Meeting ID: 480 917 5166
>>>
>>> Passcode: 0rw2GP
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 7, 2025, at 1:50 PM, Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Plamen,
>>> I take your note on multidimensionality as something very important.
>>> In this regard, I would like to note that multidimensionality is
>>> inherent in our everyday life.
>>>
>>> I myself designed and participated in the implementation of an
>>> industrial information system that has been operating for 30 years and is
>>> used for multidimensional modeling of business processes. At its core lies
>>> a system for operating with an infinitely-dimensionally numbered
>>> information space, i.e. data is stored on the basis of coordinate vectors
>>> with a variable and practically unlimited length.
>>> This is truly another world!
>>>
>>> Dear Lou,
>>> First of all, I would like to note that I, like Plamen, need time to
>>> familiarize myself with and complete the difficult "homework" that was
>>> assigned to us. At the moment, I am very carefully and in depth reading
>>> "Self-Reference, Biologic and the Structure of Reproduction". But these are
>>> 71 pages, and I have to familiarize myself with more text. However, I
>>> already have two topics in mind that I would like us to talk about:
>>> 1. Multidimensional languages and systems for modeling biological
>>> entities and processes.
>>> 2. Information at the quantum level.
>>> There will probably be something else...
>>>
>>> With respect,
>>> Krassimir
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XIIUo2kCPEBwmLwjlHRotwgnUns6gELu_I0pResJZh2wE8BNVdCtgB0QRCXULAOMCwPQ__llEBJpzU5cfpA$>
>>>
>>> Virus-free.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!R82z7_1svn2bWKs_ny-toidOhRkgD0RQ4DRRcRfDnI6IIUDEpd4X00lERDO-KtpukIV2Fy5v5OjFF7QazxE8jPIZPE0D$ 
>>> <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
>>> 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
>>> ----------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20250109/f88f2372/attachment-0001.html>