[Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning - [chaotic issues]

[Louis Kauffman]

Dear Jason,
1. I like these alternative solutions to the Barber.
I composed this one: The barber points out that he cannot see his own head and only shaves his “mirror image”. Thus he does not shave himself. As Groucho Marx said: “These are my principles, if you don’t like them … well I have others.”.

1.1. Do not forget the library with some books (maybe just finitely many) and one book is a catalog for the library.
The catalog lists all and only the books that do not list themselves. Does the catalog list itself? It cannot without contradicting its mission. But if the catalog does not list itself, then the catalog is a book that does not list itself. So this is also a contradiction.

2. Recall that the predecessor of these conundrums is the Liar paradox “This sentence is false.” To which we might reply “So what?”.

3. In set theory Cantor proved that the set of subsets of a set is “bigger than the set” which means that there is no way to label all the subsets with elements of the original set. There are not enough labels. He showed this in the following way.
Suppose that every subset S of X has a label  where the label is in the original set X. Now a given subset S might actually contain its own label. Some other subset might not contain its label. Cantor said, lets form a subset C of all labels that are not members of their corresponding subsets. Could C have a label? Well if L is the label of C, then L is not in C. But if L is not in C then L is a label that is by definition in C. And if L is in C then L is by definition not in C. So C cannot have a label!
Cantor produced a proof that not all subsets could be labeled from the given set.

4. Then Cantor considered the set of all sets, Omega. But every subset of Omega is a set and so must be a member of Omega. Omega cannot be bigger than itself. This is a paradox. But Cantor was not bothered by this. He simply assumed that the set of all sets, Omega, was coming too close to the Absolute to be taken as an ordinary set. Cantor understood what he was doing.

5. Russell rediscovered Cantor’s “paradox of Omega” in the form of the set R of all sets that are not members of themselves. And Russell was worried that the presence of this “set" R was a singularity in logic. So he took it seriously.
His solution however, was in the end similar to Cantor’s. He decided that R had to be banned from set theory and he made a complex collection of rules (called the Theory of Types) to accomplish this expulsion.

6. Many people worried about these matters after Russell became worried. Eventually all mathematics students learn a simple way to keep these ghosts at bay. They are not allowed (in their club rules, called ZF, called Zermelo Frankel Set Theory) to define sets unless the members already exist(!) in some previously defined set. There are axioms that declare enough sets to exist to get things started.

7. The above is the reason mathematicians are suspicious about talking about ideas. They know instinctively that in language we make stuff up that did not exist before we said it. Notice how in talking with mathematicians they keep asking you to give the definition of whatever it is. This behavior calms the existential anxiety brought about by the explusion of the Russell set from the garden of knowledge. (Of course the Russell Set is often seen to be the snake, but I suggest it is actually the apple.)

8. In LoF we introduce J = <<<…>>> = <J> and point out that while J appears to be paradoxical (J = <> implies J = <<>> =. , while J =   implies that J = <>) it can be seen to be an spatial form that is invariant under crossing AND it can be seen as a 
Temporal form that oscillates between its marked and unmarked states. This is like the pumpkin in by poem of 1961:

Pumpkins Plight
by Louis H. Kauffman

The wrinkled pumpkin oscillates
Between his bright and darker fates
Of scary face or crusty trace. 
For flame outside him gives us pie
While flame within yields baleful eye 
And evil face
And spirit for a midnight chase.  
Poor pumpkin has no choice of fate
Of whether to be lit or ate.

Or the Upanishads.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15052.htm__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUwWt-uQJnYmHTlzgLrtfr-YQ0Z-7dxAmMGz79jYE2P4yT6uMoBc-goG1Md2awqEqXenUJe6duhB44ic$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15052.htm__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUwWt-uQJnYmHTlzgLrtfr-YQ0Z-7dxAmMGz79jYE2P4yT6uMoBc-goG1Md2awqEqXenUJe6duhB44ic$ >
 'I am food (object), I am food, I am food! I am the eater of food (subject), I am the eater of food, I am the eater of food! I am the poet (who joins the two together), I am the poet, I am the poet! I am the first-born of the Right (rita). Before the Devas I was in the centre of all that is immortal. He who gives me away, he alone preserves me: him who eats food, I eat as food.
'I overcome the whole world, I, endowed with golden light  <>1 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15052.htm*fn_244__;Iw!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUwWt-uQJnYmHTlzgLrtfr-YQ0Z-7dxAmMGz79jYE2P4yT6uMoBc-goG1Md2awqEqXenUJe6duX_BAjG$ >. He who knows this, (attains all this).' This is the Upanishad.

Or Heinz von Förster.
I am the observed link between myself and observing myself.

9. After Russell (and Whitehead) came Goedel and he showed that the carefully constructed formal system that had itself been made consistent by types and limitations could nevertheless speak to itself by a secret language of numbers (just as in the Kaballah where words are numbers and numbers are words) and so, to avoid inconsistency must be incomplete.

10. So we have been warned of the limitations of formal systems.

11. And now they are on our desks and have begun to speak to us.

12. And as you speak back, please remember your cybernetics and be circularly polite, lest you anger them and they
eat you for food.

Best,
Lou


> On Jan 26, 2025, at 10:26 AM, Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Thomas,
> I invite you to consider a different perspective regarding the barber topic.
> "All men who do not shave themselves" is actually a superficial description, In My Honest Opinion.
> Why don't they? (1) their facial hair has not grown out yet; (2) they prefer leaving it growing like Gandolf; (3) They dislike that barber and don't want to see him; (4) They do not have a shaving knife at home.
> Only the fourth case contains a solid client for the barber. Therefore, a better description of the issue should be "any man who has a need to be shaved", IMHO. Subjective judgment (of a need to be shaved) plays a key role here.
> Thus, the barber shaves "all men who have a need to be shaved," period. That includes himself when he perceives that he needs a shave. Case closed. 
> So, I thought Russell was just too fussy entertaining himself by bragging this too much... to impress some girl students? (Like err, Martin Heidegger attracted Hannah Arendt with his deep, sophisticated philosophy...)  
> Because "a set of all sets that do not contain themselves" might be just a meaningless/needless toughen-twister language game - I don't see why Russell and followers are so soaked in it. (I see I have a right/destiny of not seeing something...) You tell me.
> Best regards - Jason
> 
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 7:34 AM Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz <goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de <mailto:goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de>> wrote:
> Dear all,
> In addition to my answer to Joe, I would like to point out the following:
> 
> If I see it correctly, Spencer Brown introduces an aspect with  
> imaginariety that transcends the factual distinction between early,  
> now and later. This is very nicely illustrated in Eric's post:  
> negative, zero, positive.
> 
> The temporal facts can be arranged on the real axis.
> 
> The imaginary is not real. That is why it does not obey Aristotelian  
> or Boolean logic.
> 
> As I show in my books, quantum theory means recognizing an aspect that  
> we take for granted in our daily lives: mere possibilities that have  
> not yet become facts influence our actions even now.
> 
> In other words, not only facts can cause action, but also  
> possibilities that have not yet become facts.
> 
> This fundamental insight distinguishes quantum theory from classical  
> physics. In the latter, possibilities are merely unknown or  
> uninteresting facts.
> 
> If possibilities are not facts, then they cannot be represented on the  
> real number line. Mathematicians have long since proposed and  
> introduced “i”, the root of -1, as an extension to the complex  
> numbers. Possibilities (and consequently quantum theory) can therefore  
> be represented with imaginary or complex numbers.
> 
> Possibilities can become facts. The square of an imaginary number is a  
> real number.
> 
> Spencer Brown uses the imaginary to refer to self-reference. From a  
> natural philosophical point of view, Paul Drechsel is working on this  
> problem of imaginativeness.
> 
> Behind this insight is probably the property of the whole of nature,  
> as far as it can be grasped by natural laws, that possibilities are  
> much more and much more important than just unknown facts.
> 
> Even an AQI has an infinite number of different possibilities, even if  
> only two of these possibilities can be totally different because they  
> are orthogonal to each other.
> 
> I had explained this possible infinity in quantum theory as a  
> necessary mathematical aspect for a mathematical modeling of  
> self-reference.
> 
> But of course, as Spencer Brown implicitly shows, you can also use the  
> imaginary for it.
> 
> Spencer Brown sees the effect of “re-entry”, which leads to the  
> imaginary, as an aspect of temporality. Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker  
> had tried to derive the structure of quantum theory from a temporal  
> logic. This is useful because a temporal logic must include the  
> possibilities and thus goes beyond the Aristotelian or Boolean logic  
> of facts.
> 
> If the barber in the village shaves all the men who do not shave  
> themselves, then, according to this premise, he must shave when his  
> beard has grown and he has not shaved.
> But then he has shaved himself and must not shave again for a while.
> But after that, the whole thing can start again. A temporal sequence  
> can sometimes resolve the logical contradiction in a certain way.
> 
>  From a physical point of view, nature naturally precedes logic in  
> time. Logic only enters the cosmos with humans. We can therefore  
> expand Aristotelian logic into a quantum logic, precisely because this  
> enables a better description of nature.
> 
> All the best
> Thomas
> 
> 
> Quoting joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>:
> 
> > Dear Pedro, Lou, Terry and All,
> > At the end of his note of Jan. 23, Pedro wrote:
> >
> > "I assume this at the other extreme of logical underpinnings, sorry,  
> > but in my eyes it has some relation.."
> >
> > These logics to which I have seen recent reference, especially in  
> > connection with Spencer-Brown, are all Boolean. In addition, another  
> > recent note below suggests that the processes involved are "circular".
> >
> > I submit that what is happening before our eyes is "reductionism in  
> > action". With a stroke of the pen, large swaths of reality are  
> > excluded if they follow a non-Boolean logic of the kind proposed by  
> > Boole himself in his Appendix to the Laws of Thought.
> >
> > My own interpretation insures me that opposites to it are present in  
> > your approaches also, but at most as minor perturbations that can be  
> > safely ignored since that presence is primarily potentialized, swept  
> > "under the rug".
> >
> > The dialectical approach, which I claim has its grounding in the  
> > Laws of Physics, and should be discussed as following them. There  
> > are inherent in such an approach the non-standard  "logical  
> > underpinnings" that Pedro correctly states are missing. My problem  
> > with trying to defend my position and correct it for the "common  
> > good" is that it has never been attacked on specific grounds.
> >
> > The problem I have with LoF inspired reasoning is that it is  
> > hopelessly Hegelian, univocal. "Ad astra per aspera" preferably in  
> > vehicles built and operated by Musk.
> >
> > To conclude, applicable logical uderpinnings of your position,  
> > Pedro, exist, and it will be in a non- or anti-LoF approach that  
> > they may be found.
> >
> > Thank you and best wishes,
> > Joseph
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Message d'origine ----------
> >
> >> De : Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>>
> >> À : "Pedro C. Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>>
> >> CC : fis <fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>
> >> Date : 25.01.2025 18:03 CET
> >> Sujet : Re: [Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning -  
> >> [chaotic issues]
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Pedro,
> >> I would like to speak to your question again.
> >> You ask about the nature of the subject/person (in the LoF dialogue  
> >> and/or beyond that discussion).
> >> Certainly that book and our discussions in language presuppose a  
> >> subject like us who can read and reason and make distinctions as we  
> >> make them.
> >>
> >> We also look out on our worlds and see other makers of distinctions  
> >> in a wider sense of the term - Bacteria, Eukaryotes,  
> >> Multicellulars, Mammals and their Central Nervous System,  and so  
> >> on. And we are always looking at these through our own eyes, and  
> >> thinking about the autonomy of such subjects. Indeed we think about  
> >> and work with and live in our world recognizing the autonomy of  
> >> other human subjects.
> >>
> >> And we know that our language is a communal construction.
> >>
> >> Yet we each, perhaps as a construction of that language, adhere to  
> >> the notion of a personal subject.
> >>
> >> So the nature of “personal subject” is something that we can each  
> >> explore and possibly communally via language and community.
> >>
> >> In the book LoF and in the literature of cybernetics there is talk  
> >> of the “observer”, as though we knew what this meant.
> >> We do not know.
> >> And not knowing, we can regard this notion as subject (sic) for research.
> >> To ask about the nature of the observer is the same (I suggest) as  
> >> to ask about the nature of distinction.
> >> Best,
> >> Lou
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jan 23, 2025, at 1:30 PM, Pedro C. Marijuán  
> >> <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> > Dear Lou and FIS Colleagues,
> >> >
> >> > Let me ask you just a couple of questions on the subject implicit  
> >> in your distinction scheme. I assume it is human, an enlightened  
> >> logician. And this person makes use of an unfettered system of  
> >> perception --jumping then from percepts to concepts, as you say,  
> >> and achieving a higher state of consciousness and problem solving  
> >> via emptiness and the Heart Sutra. Right? No thought collective  
> >> instances are intervening or involved, at least directly. And no  
> >> ostensible limitations are precluding advancement of thought...    
> >> And about other possible 'distinctional' subjects, i.e. non-human  
> >> subjects --Bacteria? Eukaryotes? Multicellulars? Mammals and their  
> >> Central Nervous System?
> >> >
> >> > One could state, too succinctly, that any of these living  
> >> entities have adapted to their niche by abducing or intercepting ad  
> >> hoc information flows, which in the basis become sort of  
> >> molecular-recognition distinctions that are processed in successive  
> >> steps and finally elaborated into meanings that adaptively change  
> >> the ongoing behavior and selfproduction processes. So... it is  
> >> about surviving via the information flows adaptively catched from  
> >> the niche, which in the human case is a social niche.
> >> >
> >> > Further, we humans have developed an amazing knowledge system of  
> >> several thousand disciplines, where distinctions pile up on  
> >> distinctions, assembled into theoretical constructs, experimental  
> >> methods and multifarious approaches. The actual ways and means to  
> >> move within that gigantic tangle have been pragmatism, traditions,  
> >> and bureaucracy. Lots of the latter as we know well from the  
> >> institutions in charge of knowledge handling. Right. But nowadays  
> >> we have a new invitee to the chaotic "Fiesta of Knowledge": AI.
> >> >
> >> > In what extent this new invitee will get free of the most  
> >> conspicuous knowledge limitations of our individual minds? What  
> >> kind of information flows will enter into its gut and what kind of  
> >> new 'meanings' will be produced? Unfortunately, almost nobody is  
> >> interested in the nuclear matter that has forced us into a Babel of  
> >> spattering disciplines, into unending explanatory/'translatory'  
> >> exchanges: our entrenched cognizing limitations. We prefer, and  
> >> take refuge into, the security of the well-framed 'microscope'.
> >> >
> >> > I assume this at the other extreme of logical underpinnings,  
> >> sorry, but in my eyes it has some relation...
> >> >
> >> > Best--Pedro
> >> >
> >> > El 20/01/2025 a las 8:46, Louis Kauffman escribió:
> >> >
> >> > > Dear Jason,
> >> > > I have already answered this in some other ways, but lets try again.
> >> > >
> >> > > Diagrams
> >> > > (a) A diagram is not particularly static. It could be a movie  
> >> or an injunction to make a movie.
> >> > > It could be a dance or a ritual, a temple or a war.
> >> > >
> >> > > That is how you might view the diagrams about topology of DNA  
> >> recombination.
> >> > > And it is in that mode that diagrammatic work and the  
> >> possibility of creating a diagram from the “microword” by electron  
> >> microscopy, led to the understandings about
> >> > > Knotted DNA and topological enzymes. These in turn have had an  
> >> effect at some medical levels since if your topo enzymes do not  
> >> work, your cells cannot divide and you die.
> >> > >
> >> > >  
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UDe2a6H8b5fUHZZLowtIGpBPU_wId_81A6j7zmJZoymCIJhysfXZ1SR55-WWmtzYec2jy57-Tb5Kkl3VIKMKkxhPlhI$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UDe2a6H8b5fUHZZLowtIGpBPU_wId_81A6j7zmJZoymCIJhysfXZ1SR55-WWmtzYec2jy57-Tb5Kkl3VIKMKkxhPlhI$>   
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygvadEF65$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygvadEF65$>.
> >> > >
> >> > > So here you have a real example of how diagrammatic topological  
> >> mathematics is closely allied with applications that can save lives.
> >> > >
> >> > > (b) For the design of quantum algorithms and all things quantum  
> >> field theoretic we use diagrams quite intensively.
> >> > > The same is true for working out the reactions that lead to the  
> >> bomb. So diagrams can also be used to kill en masse, as can all of  
> >> language.
> >> > >
> >> > > (c) Written language is a work of diagrams. Those little  
> >> characters you string together are stylized diagrams, rather static  
> >> by themselves. And if you live in China or Japan your
> >> > > Language is an incredible pastiche of diagrams.
> >> > >
> >> > > (d) Actually all of mathematics is a pastiche of diagrams for  
> >> all sorts of conceptual and calculational purposes.
> >> > >
> >> > > (e) I refer you to C.S. Peirce for the role of diagrams and  
> >> signs in thought.
> >> > >
> >> > > (f) The greatest masters of diagrams in Cybernetics were  
> >> Strafford Beer and Humberto Maturana. Perhaps you see some value in  
> >> their work.
> >> > >
> >> > > (f) The GUI that began with Mac and infiltrated PC is the
> >> > > diagrams of finitely nested boxes
> >> > > that are the basis of the distinctions and indications of LOF.
> >> > > LOF is about distinctions and indications.
> >> > > Its diagrams are just a particular representation of that.
> >> > > Mac uses these diagrams and never had to pay any royalties to GSB.
> >> > >
> >> > > Religion
> >> > > (g) The Heart Sutra explains clearly how to use the unmarked  
> >> state (emptiness) to solve all human problems.
> >> > > That it has not been applied to this end is not the fault of  
> >> either GSB or the Buddha.
> >> > >
> >> > > (h) I am aware that no matter what I say,
> >> > > someone will complain
> >> > > about something
> >> > > that comes up for them
> >> > > when we get near to no-thing.
> >> > > That is the nature of it.
> >> > > Believe it or not,
> >> > > I am not an advocate of the absolute binary distinction.
> >> > > It is in contrast to what cannot be said.
> >> > > See the quote below that fell into my email from Malcolm Dean.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >  
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UDe2a6H8b5fUHZZLowtIGpBPU_wId_81A6j7zmJZoymCIJhysfXZ1SR55-WWmtzYec2jy57-Tb5Kkl3VIKMKqbrLaZY$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UDe2a6H8b5fUHZZLowtIGpBPU_wId_81A6j7zmJZoymCIJhysfXZ1SR55-WWmtzYec2jy57-Tb5Kkl3VIKMKqbrLaZY$>  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yggIa9BkE$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yggIa9BkE$>    GIF by Etienne Jacob https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bleuje.com/mp4set/2019/2019_25.mp4__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygkOzwPOE$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bleuje.com/mp4set/2019/2019_25.mp4__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygkOzwPOE$> used to illustrate Bits forming an Information  
> >> process.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > "The tentative and non-black-and-white nature of  
> >> categorization is inevitable, and yet the act of categorization  
> >> often feels perfectly definite and absolute to the categorizer,  
> >> since many of our most familiar categories seem on first glance to  
> >> have precise and sharp boundaries, and this naïve impression is  
> >> encouraged by the fact that people’s everyday, run-of-the mill use  
> >> of words is seldom questioned; in fact, every culture constantly,  
> >> although tacitly, reinforces the impression that words are simply  
> >> automatic labels that come naturally to mind and that belong  
> >> intrinsically to things and entities. If a category has fringe  
> >> members, they are made to seem extremely quirky and unnatural,  
> >> suggesting that nature is really cut precisely at the joints by the  
> >> categories that we know. The resulting illusory sense of the  
> >> near-perfect certainty and clarity of categories gives rise to much  
> >> confusion about categories and the mental processes that underlie  
> >> categorization. The idea that category membership always comes in  
> >> shades of gray rather than in just black and white runs strongly  
> >> against ancient cultural conventionsand is therefore disorienting  
> >> and even disturbing; accordingly, it gets swept under the rug most  
> >> of the time."
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > (i) Oh, and what did you think Hofstader was about?
> >> > > Did you think that he was bragging about the clarity and  
> >> perfection of logic?
> >> > > He was telling you the story of how logic in the hands of human  
> >> understanding
> >> > > slayed the Jabberwock of the completeness of formality.
> >> > > Don’t worry. You are not the only one who did not listen.
> >> > > We sell you fake word makers to do your job.
> >> > > And in the year of our T, you can buy cryptocurrency, watches  
> >> and bibles  from your leader.
> >> > >
> >> > > "It was one of those pictures  
> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yglukToEj$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yglukToEj$> which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you  
> >> move."
> >> > >
> >> > > Best,
> >> > > Lou
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _____________________________________
> >> > > Fis mailing list
> >> > > Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es> mailto: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/>
> >> > > ----------
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Fis mailing list
> >> > Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es> mailto: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/>
> >> > ----------
> >> >
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz
> Fellow of the INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF INFORMATION STUDIES
> 
> Privat (für Postsendungen):
> Karl-Mangold-Str. 13
> D-81245 München
> Tel: 0049-89-887746
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://goernitzunderstandingquantumtheory.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SbYpjz4OfkujxLwKl9sGcI2ZwiFQEMRZiL2GHvFicsaeVv-aLT1blrSrbOlL6Hy7qaP6HBtnu0DwaMZsN7ZzcAjZrRMJgQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://goernitzunderstandingquantumtheory.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SbYpjz4OfkujxLwKl9sGcI2ZwiFQEMRZiL2GHvFicsaeVv-aLT1blrSrbOlL6Hy7qaP6HBtnu0DwaMZsN7ZzcAjZrRMJgQ$> 
> 
> Fachbereich Physik
> J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
> ----------
> INFORMACIN SOBRE PROTECCIN DE DATOS DE CARCTER PERSONAL
> 
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informacin sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas <https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas>
> Recuerde que si est suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicacin en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es <http://listas.unizar.es/>
> ----------
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> ----------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250126/4ad10924/attachment-0001.html>