[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 49

[Howard Bloom]

 Alex, you mention entropy.  the following paper might interest the members of this group.
Entropy is WrongByHoward Bloom
 
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of modernscience’s most revered concepts.  It’sthe law that the entropy in the universe is constantly on the increase. It’sthe law that disorder, chaos, and uselessness will take over in the end.  
The Second Law is so basic that one of the greats of 20thcentury science, Sir Arthur Eddington, the legendary explainer of Einstein’stheory of relativity, said in 1928,

"If someone points out toyou that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell'sequations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.  If it is found to be contradicted byobservation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But ifyour theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can giveyou no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepesthumiliation."[i] 

Brace yourself for “deepest humiliation.” February 15th,my new book will be published-- The Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything YouKnow About Nature Is Wrong.  The Case ofthe Sexual Cosmos argues that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.  Dead wrong. 

To see why entropy gets this universe backwards, you haveto understand the history of the Second Law. It all started with the steamengine.  The steam engine was themiracle-technology of its time.  It wasto Europe in the 1850s what Ai is to us today. The steam engine had catapultedBritain from a per capita income of 131.1 pounds in 1798 to a per capita incomeof 191.8 pounds in 1852,[ii]when the unnamed field of thermodynamics was getting its start. That’s anincrease of 46%. 

The Case of theSexual Cosmos tells the story of how the 28-year-old founder ofthermodynamics, the son of a professor of mathematics at the Royal BelfastAcademical Institution,  William Thomson,better known today as Lord Kelvin, made a prediction in 1852 that would givebirth to the concept of entropy. 

Since the age of 17, Thomson had been hooked on thetheory of steam engines.  Not thepractical engineering, but the abstract theory. The mathematical theory.  And hehad been particularly hooked on reducing a steam engine to equations.  Cutting-edge equations of the sort Thomsonhad mastered—and published about[iii]--whenhe was just seventeen.  The equations ofFrench mathematician Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier.  

Thomson asked in his 1852 paper "On a UniversalTendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy,”[iv]  about "the loss of power experienced bysteam in rushing through narrow steam-pipes."  And, he said "for the best steamengines...at least three-fourths of their work...is utterly wasted."Wasted in friction.  He called this waste“the dissipation of mechanical energy.”

Then Thomson took a huge leap and generalized this wasteto the entire "material world." He proclaimed that, "There is at present in the material world auniversal tendency to the dissipation of mechanical energy."  That's a big jump, from the pipes of a steamengine to the entire material world. 

But that's not the end of William Thomson's bigjumps.  He concluded his paper with theclaim that, "Within a finite period of time past, the earth must havebeen, and within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfitfor the habitation of man."  Inother words, William Thomson predicted catastrophe.  He predicted that the earth will becomeuninhabitable.  And plants, animals, andhuman beings will be out of luck.  Theywill die out.

All because of a claim without empirical backup, amassive assumption: that something true of the pipes of a steam engine would betrue of the entire earth. 

Two years later, in 1854 Thomson’s colleague at the University of Glasgow, William John MacquornRankine, would call this collapse of the earth “heat death.”[v]  And the notion of heat death is still aliveand kicking in the sciences today.  Forexample, widely-read theoretical physicist Sean Carroll says, “Entropy willcontinue to be an interesting topic at least until the heat death of theuniverse.”[vi]

But it took fifteen years from Thomson’s prediction forPrussian physics professor Rudolf Clausius to come up with “the universaldissipation of mechanical” energy’s killer app: The Second Law ofThermodynamics. 

Clausius had been engaged in an intellectual ping pongmatch with William Thomson since 1850.[vii]  The two bounced papers back and forth on anaudacious theory they shared—that heat is not caused by a particle called thecaloric.  This was rebellion of thehighest order.  The theory that heat is aparticle called the caloric had lofty credentials.  The “Father Of Modern Chemistry” himself,Antoine Lavoisier, had proposed that theory in the 1770s.  And Lavoisier was a giant. But Thomson andClausius dared challenge him.  Heat, theywere both convinced, was caused not by a particle but by the movement ofparticles, the movement of atoms and molecules.  

By the mid-1850s, no one quite knows who and no one quiteknows when had come up with a word to describe what Clausius and Thomson hadbeen developing, thermodynamics.[viii] 

But boiling down thermodynamics to a few basic rules washard.  Clausius wrestled with thechallenge from 1850 onward.  First, in 1865he invented a new word, entropy.[ix]Finally, in his 1867 paper “TheMechanical Theory Of Heat, With Its Applications To The Steam-Engine And To ThePhysical Properties Of Bodies”[x],Clausius got it.  He summed up the fieldthat he and Thomson had spent seventeen years pioneering—thermodynamics.  Clausius presented his summation in two“theorems.”

“The two fundamental theorems of the mechanical theory ofheat,” Clausius pontificated, were

 

1.  Theenergy of theuniverse isconstant.

2.  Theentropy of theuniverse tendsto a maximum.

Were Clausius’ two “theorems” supported by vast masses ofempirical evidence?  No.  They were pronouncements made off the top ofthe head.  Based only on small-scaleobservations of heat flow.  And based ontheorizing about steam engines.  In otherwords, Clausius’ two theorems were not based on observations of deep time andthe vast universe.  Yet they were snappedinto place as scientific permanences. 

Why are we saddled with the cosmic pessimism ofentropy?  Because of Thomson’s assumptionthat “the dissipation of mechanical energy” is the dominant force of thecosmos.  It’s not.  And entropy’s underlying metaphor, itsunderlying assumption, is wildly inaccurate. The universe is not like a steam engine.

Meanwhile, have there been any empirical tests to see ifThe Second Law is for real?  Yes.  At least one. And it was a big one.

In 1859, Charles Darwin’s new theory of natural selectionmade an implicit prediction about the age of the earth:  that it was unimaginably old. That impliedprediction appeared in Darwin’s first book on evolution: On the Origin ofSpecies by Means of Natural Selection. And when it came to Darwin’s age of the earth, Thomson disagreed.

Thomson wasa Christian and a believer.  He wouldeventually become President of the Christian Evidence Society.  In 1862, he wanted to prove Darwin’s theorywrong.  He wanted to demonstrate that theearth was too young to have supported Darwin’s “slow changes,” changes that couldnot produce new species “until,” as Darwin put it, “the hand of time has markedthe long lapse of ages.”[xi]  This Darwinian process would have taken eons.

And itwould have replaced God as the creator of the earth’s plants and animals.

So Thomsonwent to work to pin down the planet’s age.[xii]Thomson mustered all the sciences he could, from the newly-discovered melting temperaturesof slate, sandstone, garnet and granite to new results from the GreenwichObservatory measuring how tides were slowing down the earth.  Not to mention the sophisticated equations ofFourier and, of course, the new science Thomson and Clausius had namedthermodynamics.  From all this, Thomsonconcluded that our planet is between 20 million and 400 million years old.[xiii]  Thomson felt that 98 million give or take 20million was the most likely range.  Whichproved precisely what Thomson wanted it to prove, that Charles Darwin's newtheory of evolution couldn't possibly be right. 

Or, asThomson put it, “We cannot, without violating the principles of probability,assume the existence of any species, or the origin of any natural family, to bedue to the accumulation of variations, through the agency of natural selection,in less than 400 million years.”[xiv]Which means that on an earth only 20 million to 400 million years old,evolution is impossible.

Darwin's theorysaid evolution took place slowly over massive amounts of time. Thomson with his calculations proved something conclusive: the earthhad not been around long enough to allow for the Darwinian process to unfold.

Thomson’sattack was one of the most telling that Darwin ever received.  Said Mr. Darwin:

“I am greatly troubled at the short duration of the world according toSir W Thomson.” 

“Thomson’s views on the recent age of the world havebeen for some time one ofmy sorest troubles.” 

“Then comes Sir W Thomson likean odious spectre.”[xv]

Twentythree years later, in 1892, the “odious spectre” William Thomson would be giventhe title “Lord Kelvin.”  By QueenVictoria herself.  So how could hepossibly be incorrect?

In the end,Charles Darwin turned out to be right about the earth’s age. William Thomsonturned out to be wrong.  Thermodynamicshad led Thomson astray.  But the error ofThomson's prediction has been ignored for over 150 years. It has been writtenout of the history of science.

The ironyis that Thomson was given the title First Baron Kelvin, of Largs in the Countyof Ay for doing something very anti-entropic—solving engineering problems tobuild something startlingly new: the first transatlantic cable.

Why does William Thomson’s error need to be written backinto science’s history? Because in science when a theory makes predictions thatprove wrong, that theory must be modified or tossed away.  And in the battle between William Thomson andCharles Darwin, the theory of entropy failed utterly.  The earth, it turns out, is not 400,000 yearsold.  It is 4.5 billion years old.

But there is far more evidence against the Second Law ofThermodynamics than Thomson’s failure to predict the age of the earth.  It’s evidence that has piled up since Thomson’sdeath in 1907.  Evidence that the cosmosbegan in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago and has been doing surprising thingsever since.

Says The Case ofthe Sexual Cosmos, every step of the cosmos’ evolution has made the idea ofentropy look silly.  Entropy and theSecond Law imply that at every evolutionary step, things should fall apart. Butin reality, cosmologists and astrophysicists have discovered that every step ofthe cosmos’ evolution has been a step up, not a step down.  A step toward more elaborate order, not less. 

Things have not just fallen apart.  They have not just followed the Second Law.  They have fallen together.  Or, as TheCase of the Sexual Cosmos puts it,

Even the dust of space has donethe very opposite of what [the Second Law of Thermodynamics] predicted.  Instead of falling apart in a random whizzle,instead of tumbling into a formless phmumph of entropy, instead of spreadingout in a uniform mist… space dust has come together in galaxies. Then in stars,planets, moons, asteroids and solar systems. Every swirl of a galaxy and ringaround the rosy of planets circling a sun is a victory dance over entropy.Every swirl shuns the lapse into uselessness. Every swirl defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 

The Case of the Sexual Cosmos adds that: 

Twentieth century experts likeHarvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould[xvi]did everything they could to prove the concept of progress wrong.  But this is a universe that has progressed 

 

•       from a nothing to a big bang, 

•       from a big bang to the birth of quarks, 

•       from quarks to protons and neutrons,  

•       from protons and neutrons to atoms.  

•       from atoms to galaxies, planets, and molecules.  

•       And from molecules to life…to you and me.
Nature’s obsession with progressis real. So is nature’s ability to produce startlingly newrealities. Very much like inventing the transatlantic cable that WilliamThomson helped turn from fantasy to reality.
This cosmos’ history of perpetual complexification is theultimate disproof of entropy.

 

***

  

The Case of theSexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature is Wrong, says that TheSecond Law cries out to be replaced by a law that is almost its opposite, TheFirst Law of Flamboyance. 

What is the First Law of Flamboyance? The Second Law ofThermodynamics says that all things fall apart. All things dissolve in a random soup. And all energy lapses into uselessness.

But the FirstLaw of Flamboyance says flamboyance in this universe is always on the increase.Things in this cosmos do not just fall apart. They fall together.  In fact, theyfall together to generate startling new realities, new systems, new emergentproperties, new social identities, social identities like black holes,galaxies, stars, planets, and life. Social identities whose intricacy defiesbelief.  Social identities like themillion cells in a flower.  Socialidentities like the 36 trillion cells that collude to be you or me.   And those new intricacies do not just allowenergy to lapse into uselessness.  Theyinvent.  They give energy new uses.

Why use theword “flamboyance”?  Aside from theflamboyant displays of supernovas and the Milky Way?  Because of another of the cosmos’ creations,sex.  Sex does its evolutionarymagic by constantly demanding more extravagance.  From the flamboyance of  a DNA molecule with roughly 30 billionprecisely choreographed atoms to the flamboyance of a peacock’s tail, theflamboyance of a break dance at the Olympics, and the flamboyance of a militaryparade in North Korea.   Sex demandsgreedy accumulation of surplus and gaudy display.

The Case of theSexual Cosmos points to the gaudiness of everything from dinosaurs totardigrades, elephant seals, hummingbirds, and human beings.

Yes, The First Lawof Flamboyance says that the universe we live in continually produces newmaterial miracles and supersized surprises. The universe does the very opposite of what the Second Lawpredicts.  And in science, Laws that makeinaccurate predictions must be modified. Or discarded.   That applies tothe Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Things do not just fall apart.  They fall together.  Entropy is wrong.

 

______

Howard Bloom of the Howard Bloom Institute has beencalled the Einstein, Newton, Darwin, and Freud of the 21st century by Britain'sChannel 4 TV.  One of his eightbooks--Global Brain---was the subject of a symposium thrown by the Office ofthe Secretary of Defense including representatives from the State Department,the Energy Department, DARPA, IBM, and MIT. His work has been published in The Washington Post, The Wall StreetJournal, Wired, Psychology Today, and the Scientific American. A formerVisiting Scholar at New York University’s Graduate Psychology Department, aformer Core Faculty member at the Graduate Institute in Meriden, Connecticut,and the current Kepler Space University Professor of Practice, Bloom has beenpublished in journals or has spoken at scholarly conferences in twelve differentscientific fields, from quantum physics and cosmology to neuroscience,information theory, and biopolitics.  Hecalls this multi-disciplinary approach “Omnology.” Says Pavel Kurakin, of theKeldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Science,“Bloom has created a new Scientific Paradigm. It explains in vast and compelling terms why we should forget all weknow in complicated modern math and should start from the very beginning.”   And concludes Joseph Chilton Pearce, authorof Evolution's End and The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, "I have finishedHoward Bloom's [first two] books, The Lucifer Principle and Global Brain, inthat order, and am seriously awed, near overwhelmed by the magnitude of what hehas done. I never expected to see, in any form, from any sector, such anaccomplishment.  I doubt there is astronger intellect than Bloom's on the planet."

 

 


[i]Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1928), 74.

[ii]Broadberry, Stephen N., Bruce MS Campbell, Alexander Klein, Mark Overton, andBas van Leeuwen. "British economic growth: 1270-1870." (2010).

[iii]Thomson, W. (1841). On Fourier's Expansions of Functions in TrigonometricalSeries. Cambridge Mathematical Journal, 2, 258–262.

[iv] Thomson says that hefirst communicated his “theory of the dissipation of energy… to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1852, in a paper entitled ‘Ona Universal Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy.’” See William Thomson, “Kinetic Theory of the Dissipation of Energy,” Nature 9, 1874, pages 441–444,https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1038/009441c0__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QG_09Yw1LIQ2fEduZemrETXWitGSw1ISdKF-nXB4WjuPRJh0zQ309LCaDeFyvVz3RP6o2wFKDnhO6k8ydg$ 

[v]  William JohnMacquorn Rankine, "On the General Law of the Transformation of Energy.”William John Macquorn Rankine, "On theGeneral Law of the Transformation of Energy." Philosophical Magazine,Series 4, 5, no. 30 (1853): 106–117. “Shortly after the events we havedescribed, Thomson [Lord Kelvin] published 'On a Universal Tendency in Nature to theDissipation of Mechanical Energy' [13] in 1852 (where in the introductory passage,Thomson again invokesCarnot as the primarysource of thermodynamic thinking). This paper begins a discussion of startlingimplication; that the universe is irrevocablyheading towards a state of total dispersion, which was to be known by the 1860sas 'the heat death of the universe.'” Michael W. Collins, Richard C. Dougal, Kelvin,Thermodynamics and the Natural World,UK: WIT Press, 2016, page 266.

[vi] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://x.com/seanmcarroll/status/1642536269552181248__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QG_09Yw1LIQ2fEduZemrETXWitGSw1ISdKF-nXB4WjuPRJh0zQ309LCaDeFyvVz3RP6o2wFKDngFekh9vw$ 

[vii] Rudolf Clausius, "Ueber die bewegende Kraft derWärme und die Gesetze, welche sich daraus für die Wärmelehre selbst ableitenlassen,"  Annalen der Physik, 1850,volume 79, pages 368–397 and 500–524.  "On theMoving Force of Heat, and the Laws regarding the Nature of Heat itself whichare deducible therefrom," This is the first paper in which Clausiusmentions Thomson’s work.

[viii] Reference sources of all kinds credit William Thomsonwith introducing the term “thermodynamics” in his 1849 Paper "An Accountof Carnot's Theory of the Motive Power of Heat; with Numerical Results Deducedfrom Regnault's Experiments on Steam." Alas, that’s not accurate.  Thephrase “thermo-dynamic engines” makes several appearances.  But nowhere is there a suggestion of ascientific approach called “thermodynamics.” As to the origins of that term, the reference sources are eitherinaccurate, muddled, or indifferent.

[ix] Clausius, Rudolf. 1865. Ueber verschiedene für die Anwendung bequeme Formen derHauptgleichungen der mechanischen Wärmetheorie, Annalen der Physik und Chemie,volume 125, pages 353–400. Clausius, R. (1867). The MechanicalTheory of Heat – with its Applications to the Steam Engine and to PhysicalProperties of Bodies (translated by T. Archer Hirst). London: John van Voorst.

[x] Rudolf Clausius, “The Mechanical Theory Of Heat, With ItsApplications To The Steam-Engine And To The Physical Properties Of Bodies,” editedby T. Archer Hirst, London, John van Voorst, 1867.

[xi] Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means ofNatural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle forLife. London: John Murray, 1859.

[xii] Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Meansof Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle forLife. London: John Murray.

[xiii] Thomson, William (1862). 'On the Secular Cooling ofthe Earth'. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 23, 167–169.

[xiv] Thomson, William (1869). "GeologicalDynamics". Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, 3, 215-227.

[xv] These quotes appear in Paul Sen, Einstein's Fridge:How the Difference Between Hot and Cold Explains the Universe, page 72.

[xvi] Gould, Stephen Jay. Full House: The Spread ofExcellence from Plato to Darwin. Harmony Books, 1996.


    On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 07:17:11 PM EST, Alex Hankey <alexhankey at gmail.com> wrote:   

 Dear Kate, Lou, and Everyone, especially Pedro, 
What Pedro's eloquent and interesting response to Kate fails to recognize is that these kind of organism responses are Not, repeat Not, the usual kind of 'mechanical response' delivered by ordinary physical systems. 
Physical systems are normally mechanically stable, and sequences of responses to identical stimuli are distributed according to the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. effectively identical. 
Organisms, on the other hand, obey the laws of Fractal Physiology, where sequences of responses are characteristic of critical instabilities from the field of phase transitions. (A switching process, On / Off, is analogous to a phase transition, with little fine control.) 
Critical Instabilities, however, offer extremely delicate control with the opportunity to regulate the magnitude of response as a continous variable, i.e. smoothly. 'Upregulation' and 'Downregulation' are the terms commonly used to describe this kind of continuous, finely attuned control.
Not surprisingly, all organisms now found on earth obey the laws of Fractal Physiology when they are in Good Health. (Health in this context can be defined as Optimal Regulation, i.e. capable of being continuously regulated.) 
The physics of Critical Instabilities adds a completely new dimension to biology, removing it from the suppositions of mechanics. It is fairly easy to show that the highly complex system of interacting feedback loops involved in system regulation possess the property of Perfect Self-Observation, and thus a Subjective Sense of Self -- Self Awareness, Consciousness. 
The supposedly 'inanimate' systems responding to external stimuli, as discussed in Pedro's contribution, are totally different from what he supposed. They are not mere mechanisms, as science has always considered; rather, they exhibit the very different behaviour described above. They are thus more closely related to manifestly conscious, purposeful beings like ourselves. 
The brilliant book on single cell intelligence, Sensitive Souls, by Cambridge's Brian Ford, provides a more empirical perspective on these radical conclusions. 
As I think all those following this thread will appreciate, these facts entirely alter the way we should evaluate organisms and biology -- Life itself, and thus, the science and scientific models, which we invoke when describing their various behaviours. 
All best wishes to all, 
Alex 



On Thu, 16 Jan, 2025, 04:15 Katherine Peil, <ktpeil at outlook.com> wrote:


Hi Lou, Pedro et al,  

 

Lou:  Thank you for your clarifications as it concerns probability: Let me see if I’ve got you right: So Bayesian probability concerns frequencies that come from counting, while Quantum probabilities reflectthe predictive frequency of certain events. If so, in terms of cybernetics, would Quantum probability qualify as more of afeedforward process (before the fact)? Bayesian, more (after the fact) feedback?



As for self-reference, I’m fully on board with the circle as “a sign that that distinguishes itself as well as other distinctions” (and there is far more to say here). But my curiosity concerns the “distinctions” themselves, how they relate to boundary conditions that distinguish a system from its “external” environment, which are fluid, dynamic, interpenetrating, and interactive. And how they relate to the idea of an Umwelt that is part perception (requiring an internal mental model) and part sensation (the registration of changes in the immediate external environment). Many thanks in advance. To find words that can sufficiently transcend interdisciplinary boundaries is no small task, and I greatly appreciate your patience and flexibility. I look forward to your Zoom session this Friday.

 

Pedro: We are in hearty agreement about the primacy of action – behavior – in the conceptualization of Perception, and the enactive nature of Cognition. Indeed, that is a central point of my emotion work. But when we look away from complex brains and focus upon the sensory-motor control chemistry of the lowly bacterium, the primacy of self-directed animation becomes clear. (Specifically, an environmental affordance, say a chemical gradient, is sensed via receptor complexes on the outside of cell membrane which initiates a signal transduction cascade on the inside. This begins with the placing of Phosphorylation mark of the inside tails of that receptor, which triggers a specific (either/or) rotational direction of the flagellum: Either Counterclockwise which moves the creature toward the gradient, or Clockwise creating a little tumble away in a different direction). Please not that this self-directed animation ishedonic animation, movement toward that which is beneficial and away from that which is harmful.



But when you say…”cognitiondoes not produce models of the world”, this is where I disagree and offer more to the story. The above is only one half of the process, the direct stimulus-response, the “registration” of sensory stimulus upon the organism and its hardwired motor response. This happens in the immediacy of real time. The second half of the story begins with the placement of a second chemical signal, amethylation mark (on the inside tails of those same receptor complexes), coincidental to the specific direction of the flagella, a mechanism thatserves as an evaluative memory trace on a longer time scale. Counterclockwise motion is associated with approach behavior, and while clockwise is associated with avoidance, hence theinnate informative Pavlovian logic of “good for me” (reward), or “bad for me” (punishment).

 

In short, via its duration in time, the methylation process forges a crack between the registered sensory stimulus and hardwired response, arguably opening a space for what we mean by “cognition” and “perception” and the emergence of the enactive mind. This is why I have added the 5th E to the 4E enactive mind model (embodied, embedded, enactive, extended, andemotion driven). Moreover, the methylation signaling process works in concert with bioelectric signaling, in the form of membrane depolarization and ion fluxes, those that Mike Levin’s work suggests inform morphogenic development. The role of methylation marks is central to what we are learning about Epigenetics, which I would argue may have predated Genetics proper, highlighting the active evolutionary role of the agent in response to its immediate environment.

 

I hope this helps clarify my position and look forward to your upcoming criticisms on autopoiesis.

Kate Kauffman

 

 

On 1/15/25, 10:48 AM, "Fis" <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> wrote: Katherine Peil Kauffman

 

Send Fis mailing list submissions to
        fis at listas.unizar.es

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899277694%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PcXzyBDB27jGXHMyMsvZdhDUcUuxT6qMPCp8WV223Lo%3D&reserved=0
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: Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38 (Louis Kauffman)
   2. Re: Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38 (Pedro C. Mariju?n)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:42:33 -0600
From: Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com>
To: Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com>
Cc: fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38
Message-ID: <D98184CD-067B-43E1-89ED-389280CA2911 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

See my previous email. I assert that human consciousness cannot be encompassed by any single formal system.
This goes beyond set theory. I assert the validity of arguments such as those given in Penrose books Emporer?s New Mind, but state these arguments in my way
And without speculation about what kind of physics goes beyond Turing.

As I said before, such arguments are hard for some people to take. The assertion really is that if you accept the original Goedelian argument, then it tells you that a human cognizer reasoning about
a formal system can do more than the formal system on its own. If you accept this, then you cannot be such a formal system without being inconsistent. I do think that people find this annoying.
But there it is. And maybe you find it annoying because it is proving what you already knew.

NotTuring
LK

1. We prove Goedel?s Theorem as follows: 
Let T be a formal system that is consistent 
and contains at least the Peano axioms for number theory.
I examine T as a mathematical object and produce (via Goedel coding) 
a sentence G that declares its own unprovability in T. 
This declaration has an external meaning and it is 
devised so that a proof of G in T would lead to a contradiction. 

Thus, since T is consistent, G cannot be proved in T. 
But G states the non-provability of G in T. 
Thus G is true but not provable in T. 
We have proved, from outside T, that G is true. 
This proof is a mathematical proof of the statement G 
and it does not contradict T?s unprovability inside T, 
since we work in the larger system of 
reasoning about formal systems, including T.

2. Could I be identical with T as above? 
Certainly not. 
For I have proved G. 
So if I = T, then T has proved G. 
I have shown that T cannot prove G.
Thus if I = T, then T is inconsistent. 
We have assumed that T is consistent. 
Therefore I am not identical with T as a mathematical reasoner.

3. Could I be a Turing machine T, 
consistent and rich enough to contain Peano Arithmetic? 
Suppose it is so and 
go to 1. and 2. above 
to arrive at the conclusion that 
this is not possible.

4. Go back to 1. 
and note that I have the capacity to take T as an object of study. 
The discussion in 2. and 3. leads to the 
ancient questions about whether a person can know themselves. 

In the mathematical context, 
if I do stand outside my own processes of reasoning 
and then reason about these processes, 
this is a practical capacity that I have.

The history of mathematics and logic is 
a long spiral of such self-examination. 
In order for it to spiral as it does, 
the whole process can not be encompassed in a single formal system. 

This is the import of Goedel?s theorem 
and it actually applies to the entities 
that we call persons, 
individual reasoners with understanding. 
The individual reasoners are not single formal systems 
(to the extent that they are consistent).


> On Jan 15, 2025, at 7:09 AM, Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello to All, 
> 
> in support of Lou, I attach two references that say the becoming of the world, including, presumably, human consciousness, is beyond any mathematical formulation based on set theory.
> 
> Kind wishes, 
> 
> Stu
> 
> Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2021) The World Is Not A Theorem? Entropy vol 23, issue 11
> 
> Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2022), What is Consciousness? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society,_ _2022
>    
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 3:38?AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> <  I am sympathetic with mathematical and formal modeling of ?cognitive processes? but feel that it should be clear that formal models will not capture the whole phenomenon. >
>> 
>> For *myself*, while I accept an essential truth lies in this statement . . . I am ALSO inclined to think 'surrendering' prematurely is a lack of scientific imagination ('heavy lifting') ? where 'science' is SUPPOSED to be in the business of continually reinventing itself. That said, I also accept that many do not see science as an actual/active creative process. For me, it is different. I think the core issue here is ?cognitive processes = psychology?, a notoriously . . . .uhhh, I am not sure of the best word to use here, so I will just say 'difficult topic'.
>> 
>> And thanks for the lovely taoist imagery . . . taoism being the last word in Natural Psychology.
>> 
>> Marcus
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899293606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fjd4SUfnIx4JvBE%2B4obKAqatB5G86lzgozolpVhERD0%3D&reserved=0
>> ----------
>> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsicuz.unizar.es%2Finformacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899301754%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7Tnws6ELVMX6uVo3Esotr02oMmC%2BzPjo%2F8eyilg3M%2BU%3D&reserved=0
>> 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.
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899308433%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7EA7aS74Y1mryKhwHEHuAuO8s%2B6guLB%2BLB7AO%2Fb4FIQ%3D&reserved=0
>> ----------
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fpipermail%2Ffis%2Fattachments%2F20250115%2F4d41fae6%2Fattachment-0001.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899315000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yDWOc0H7s3UHrGMu1xyHg2vKRaRutrk3%2FvykGTgLBRc%3D&reserved=0>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:47:31 +0100
From: Pedro C. Mariju?n <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
To: fis at listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38
Message-ID: <102f3b64-2ab4-43bc-baa2-62a65c124045 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

Dear Lou and List,

May I enter some dissonance? Human cognition, not necessarily being 
"neurocentric" as Kate says, is well grounded (partially) by following 
the Action-Perception Cycle, or perception-action cycle.
Starting with an interesting abstract (/The Pragmatic Turn: Toward 
Action-Oriented Views in Cognitive Science, /MIT Press 2016--with 
several editors, and a bunch of brilliant contributors):
/"Experts from a range of disciplines assess the foundations and 
implications of a novel action-oriented view of cognition. Cognitive 
science is experiencing a pragmatic turn away from the traditional 
representation-centered framework toward a view that focuses on 
understanding cognition as ?enactive.? This enactive view holds that 
cognition does not produce models of the world but rather subserves 
action as it is grounded in sensorimotor skills. In this volume, experts 
from cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, robotics, and 
philosophy of mind assess the foundations and implications of a novel 
action-oriented view of cognition. Their contributions and supporting 
experimental evidence show that an enactive approach to cognitive 
science enables strong conceptual advances, and the chapters explore key 
concepts for this new model of cognition. The contributors discuss the 
implications of an enactive approach for cognitive development; 
action-oriented models of cognitive processing; action-oriented 
understandings of consciousness and experience; and the accompanying 
paradigm shifts in the fields of philosophy, brain science, robotics, 
and psychology..."/

Nowadays there is plenty of literature along these lines, starting with 
Gibson's ecological approach to vision. The basic claim is that the 
perceiver's ability to perceive is constituted (in a fundamental part) 
by sensorimotor knowledge. Even in our own languages we would find a 
sort of mirror image of the underlying cognizing engine: in a sentence, 
for instance, there is a subject/object (perception or meta-perception 
of an entity) that connects with a verb (action, or meta-motor 
transformation) forming a minimal cognitive episode, which is extended 
to connect with further episodes.? I dare say that maths themselves may 
participate of this scheme: various entities or objects (variables) 
experiment actions (operations) that transform the expression in an = 
one, with renewed variables and operations. Maths somehow externalize 
our inner processes of thought in world observation-action and make them 
more universal and abstract, though far more schematic and deprived of 
the intrinsic far richer "cognit" connectivity. But the result is an 
uncanny efficiency (as Eddington put: "The Unreasonable /Effectiveness/ 
of /Mathematics/ in the Natural Sciences").

Better if I leave my further criticisms on autopoiesis for a next occasion.
Best--Pedro

El 15/01/2025 a las 17:42, Louis Kauffman escribi?:
> See my previous email. I assert that human consciousness cannot be 
> encompassed by any single formal system.
> This goes beyond set theory. I assert the validity of arguments such 
> as those given in Penrose books Emporer?s New Mind, but state these 
> arguments in my way
> And without speculation about what kind of physics goes beyond Turing.
>
> As I said before, such arguments are hard for some people to take. The 
> assertion really is that if you accept the original Goedelian 
> argument, then it tells you that a human cognizer reasoning about
> a formal system can do more than the formal system on its own. If you 
> accept this, then you cannot be such a formal system without being 
> inconsistent. I do think that people find this annoying.
> But there it is. And maybe you find it annoying because it is proving 
> what you already knew.
>
> NotTuring
> LK
>
> 1. We prove Goedel?s Theorem as follows:
> Let T be a formal system that is consistent
> and contains at least the Peano axioms for number theory.
> I examine T as a mathematical object and produce (via Goedel coding)
> a sentence G that declares its own unprovability in T.
> This declaration has an external meaning and it is
> devised so that a proof of G in T would lead to a contradiction.
>
> Thus, since T is consistent, G cannot be proved in T.
> But G states the non-provability of G in T.
> Thus G is true but not provable in T.
> We have proved, from outside T, that G is true.
> This proof is a mathematical proof of the statement G
> and it does not contradict T?s unprovability inside T,
> since we work in the larger system of
> reasoning about formal systems, including T.
>
> 2. Could I be identical with T as above?
> Certainly not.
> For I have proved G.
> So if I = T, then T has proved G.
> I have shown that T cannot prove G.
> Thus if I = T, then T is inconsistent.
> We have assumed that T is consistent.
> Therefore I am not identical with T as a mathematical reasoner.
>
> 3. Could I be a Turing machine T,
> consistent and rich enough to contain Peano Arithmetic?
> Suppose it is so and
> go to 1. and 2. above
> to arrive at the conclusion that
> this is not possible.
>
> 4. Go back to 1.
> and note that I have the capacity to take T as an object of study.
> The discussion in 2. and 3. leads to the
> ancient questions about whether a person can know themselves.
>
> In the mathematical context,
> if I do stand outside my own processes of reasoning
> and then reason about these processes,
> this is a practical capacity that I have.
>
> The history of mathematics and logic is
> a long spiral of such self-examination.
> In order for it to spiral as it does,
> the whole process can not be encompassed in a single formal system.
>
> This is the import of Goedel?s theorem
> and it actually applies to the entities
> that we call persons,
> individual reasoners with understanding.
> The individual reasoners are not single formal systems
> (to the extent that they are consistent).
>
>
>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 7:09 AM, Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello to All,
>>
>> in support of Lou, I attach two references that say the becoming of 
>> the world, including, presumably, human consciousness, is beyond any 
>> mathematical formulation based on set theory.
>>
>> Kind wishes,
>>
>> Stu
>>
>> Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2021) The World Is Not A Theorem? Entropy 
>> vol 23, issue 11
>>
>> _Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2022), What is Consciousness? 
>> _/Biological Journal of the Linnean Society/,_ _2022
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 3:38?AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <??I am sympathetic with mathematical and formal modeling of 
>>> ?cognitive processes? but feel that it should be clear that formal 
>>> models will not capture the whole phenomenon. >
>>>
>>> For *myself*, while I accept an essential truth lies in this 
>>> statement . . . I am ALSO inclined to think 'surrendering' 
>>> prematurely is a lack of scientific imagination ('heavy lifting') ? 
>>> where 'science' is SUPPOSED to be in the business of continually 
>>> reinventing itself. That said, I also accept that many do not see 
>>> science as an actual/active creative process. For me, it is 
>>> different. I think the core issue here is ?cognitive processes?= 
>>> psychology?, a notoriously . . . .uhhh, I am not sure of the best 
>>> word to use here, so I will just say 'difficult topic'.
>>>
>>> And thanks for the lovely taoist imagery . . . taoism being the last 
>>> word in Natural Psychology.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899321420%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PL2BSRYoOlpxxGs0VHfqX53h5k0oM6587nvYT%2BzeVyM%3D&reserved=0
>>> ----------
>>> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsicuz.unizar.es%2Finformacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899328193%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DL0hZ6TBa7D6oZerKanfDX3qEFV%2B%2BtN5lclctNZ4%2FxM%3D&reserved=0
>>> 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.
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899334885%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BUksu6D6EdZcx8wRJP%2FojBgOdrGehJAA9fRxJhDObKU%3D&reserved=0
>>> ----------
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899341339%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PbvlTLcHXmD6VbjB0ech%2BJjWFLELFYUGiycAGJJCfhQ%3D&reserved=0
> ----------
> 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsicuz.unizar.es%2Finformacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899347768%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qOIwyLxri99mlQqjq%2Bami%2Bwrk7MzmByB1FEk5b6bY7c%3D&reserved=0
> 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.
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899354059%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=foDXWwYfzolRVkokFjNS09AupSY%2Bp%2F2R7tFxtBQHvAg%3D&reserved=0
> ----------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fpipermail%2Ffis%2Fattachments%2F20250115%2Fd352f78b%2Fattachment.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899361043%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yIWKMbLKZKtPtHYLptd2OQxoNFcNPfI8%2FGQH5eVNNeY%3D&reserved=0>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899367662%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FXukIR3IrEhm7plpij60kqzvPZclIXQCDsVUIVKyEes%3D&reserved=0


------------------------------

End of Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 49
************************************
_______________________________________________
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
----------

_______________________________________________
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/20250116/1adb1084/attachment-0001.html>