[Fis] Gravity, Holism, and Biological Information Processing--Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine, truth and trust

[Gordana Dodig Crnkovic]

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your thoughtful and generous response to my message.
I find your observations deeply compatible with the info-computational framework I am working with,
and they help recognize important nuances that further refine this view.

You are right to emphasize that information flow in living systems is not unidirectional or strictly hierarchical.
While levels of organization do exist and are useful for explanatory purposes, biological systems exhibit dense interactivity across these levels,
with influences flowing both upward and downward
- something the info-computational model fully accommodates through multi-scale, agent-based processing.
What we often describe as “levels” are abstractions over continuous, overlapping dynamics, where causality is contextual and recursive.

Your point about quantum mechanisms playing a significant role in sensory systems is particularly appreciated.
While quantum effects may not dominate metabolism, they do indeed surface under special structural and energetic conditions,
as in olfaction, vision, and possibly magnetoreception. Probably also in ligand-receptor interactions.
In info-computational terms, these represent local information processes governed by fine-grained structures within the broader biological architecture.
When all other forces are in delicate balance, quantum dynamics can tip the system’s behavior, providing a high-resolution lens for understanding certain biological phenomena.

This links to your broader point that cells manage energy flows in a self-referential, context-sensitive manner
—a distinction from machine-like processing.
In info-computational framework, this is expressed through morphological computing, where the structure of the system is the ”program” of natural computation.

It is not just that life processes information—it constructs meaning, in real time, through embodied interactions shaped by evolutionary and developmental constraints.

To build on what you and Thomas have both said: physics offers the substrate and universal constraints, but life operates within those constraints as a continuous, open-ended, adaptive computation process. What distinguishes living systems is their capacity for semantic integration—to interpret internal and external changes in ways that promote continued existence.

I am currently working to further refine these ideas and connect them with existing biological models, in relation to cognition as a spectrum of sense-making processes across life forms.

Best regards,
Gordana


From: William Miller <wbmiller1 at cox.net>
Date: Monday, 2 June 2025 at 00:06
To: "goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de" <goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de>, "Dr. Eric Werner" <evwerner at gmail.com>, Gordana Dodig Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se>
Cc: "fis at listas.unizar.es" <fis at listas.unizar.es>, "Michael.Levin at tufts.edu" <michael.levin at tufts.edu>, "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Gravity, Holism, and Biological Information Processing--Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine, truth and trust

Dear Gordana and all,
I agree with your perspectives and the fine articles on consciousness and minds premises and conclusions. As I have stressed, I view the living frame within a dynamic of living information management whose specifics separate living organisms from machines.

I would offer two thoughts. The more we examine cellular organisms in depth, the more we realize that hierarchical dynamics are supplanted by the fluid flow of information across scales. Indeed, i n living systems, there is no unilateral flow of information, which is why Crick's Central Dogma has turned out to be incorrect.

I would agree that quantum mechanisms are important in the living frame and may not be dominant. I would note, however, that all of the senses of multicellular organisms (sight, olfaction, hearing) are heavily dependent on quantum mechanisms. So, it is possible that the sensory systems of organisms are slanted toward quantum mechanisms but metabolic flows are not. In both instances, cells are deploying energetic flows toward sustaining themselves according to their self-referential contex.

Best regards,
Bill

On Sunday, June 1, 2025 at 10:19:11 AM MST, Gordana Dodig Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se> wrote:



Dear Thomas,

Thank you for your detailed reflections on holism, gravity, and the foundations of life. I would like to respond from the perspective of info-computationalism—an approach that interprets nature as a network of morphological information-processing systems, across levels of organization, from physical to cognitive and social as presented in Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2017) Nature as a Network of Morphological Infocomputational Processes for Cognitive Agents, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics, 226, 181–195. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2016-60362-9__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RCv3r4mMQNR_BJSYGRHZoFUF6EKEjSh_w1v7DUYPlDz4B3NDiry7udG3aeOc_w56npGjZYW3fjzOoZcAVEVDOVaUcz1dOC2u$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2016-60362-9__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VFwo5U3iaF-5sSf6FPmlsPYL4XzL9ierjznjeMql2Ku8vp5D6dOUqA7Zr5k1mrM0GEz7IoUEEKBctMCvbeFZVMHO3421ID4F$>

In this framework:

Information is structure, and computation is its dynamics. Life emerges from a succession of interrelated informational processes—beginning at the quantum level, but becoming most richly expressed in chemistry, bioelectricity, and embodied cognition.

This view recognizes that no single level of organization explains the complexity of life or mind. Instead, reality consists of emergent strata, where higher levels retain dependence on—but are not reducible to—lower ones.
While quantum effects may influence biology, they do not appear to dominate its dynamics.
While gravity is necessary, chemical bonding, ion flows, and membrane potentials are dominant.

Current technological computing is only a narrow subset of natural computation, and the information we manipulate is a subset of natural, embodied, and context-sensitive information.

This is an observer-dependent agent-based framework, where epistemology and ontology are interwoven: what we understand as “matter and energy in space-time” is shaped by our models and means of observation.

For my current views on consciousness as a biological phenomenon, please see: Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2025). De-Anthropomorphizing the Mind: Life as a Cognitive Spectrum. A Unified Framework for Biological Minds. Preprint. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202503.1449.v2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RCv3r4mMQNR_BJSYGRHZoFUF6EKEjSh_w1v7DUYPlDz4B3NDiry7udG3aeOc_w56npGjZYW3fjzOoZcAVEVDOVaUcxy6It4R$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doi.org/10.20944/preprints202503.1449.v2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VFwo5U3iaF-5sSf6FPmlsPYL4XzL9ierjznjeMql2Ku8vp5D6dOUqA7Zr5k1mrM0GEz7IoUEEKBctMCvbeFZVMHO3_ysfHK1$> There I argue for a non-anthropocentric, biologically grounded view of cognition, recognizing a spectrum of cognitive capacities across living systems.

I believe this info-computational framework can serve as a bridge between physical foundations and the emergent complexity of life and mind—without resorting to either reductionism or mysticism.

Best regards,
Gordana



From: "Dr. Eric Werner" <evwerner at gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 1 June 2025 at 16:58
To: "goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de" <goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de>
Cc: "fis at listas.unizar.es" <fis at listas.unizar.es>, "wbmiller1 at cox.net" <wbmiller1 at cox.net>, "Michael.Levin at tufts.edu" <Michael.Levin at tufts.edu>, "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>, "johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com" <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>, Gordana Dodig Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at chalmers.se>, "goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de" <goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine, truth and trust



Excellent Tutorial Thomas!!!

Please go into more detain on the relation of energy, matter and information and your difficult to understand (at least for me) Absolute Quantum Bits (AQIs?)

Eric

Sent from my iPad



On May 18, 2025, at 11:13 PM, Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz <goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote:

Dear John, Gordana, Pedro, and fis,
I would like to add something from a physical perspective to my post from May 14 regarding the current discussion and the questions of gravity and holism.

The subject area of the natural science that deals with the most complex structures, biology, has so far been limited to our Earth.
The field of chemistry covers areas of the cosmos that are not so hot that molecules are immediately broken down again.
The scope of those relationships that are so simple that they apply everywhere in the entire cosmos is that of physics. Its findings also provide the basis for understanding chemical and biological relationships.
The accurate relationships discovered by physics are fundamentally effective always and everywhere.
Therefore, from the perspective of physics, I would like to elaborate on two points:

“In my opinion, these observations speak to life being 'greater than the sum of its parts' or a 'holism', unlike a machine, which is the literal sum of its parts.”
This point made by John is important. All living beings are “more than the sum of the parts” into which they can be broken down or which can be explained as their constituent parts.
In this sense, all life is holistic.
However, this is only a necessary condition.
As quantum theory shows, all systems described by quantum theory are holistic. Very few of these are living beings.
Holism is therefore necessary for life, but not sufficient.

This brings me to the second point I would like to discuss.
Mechanics and general relativity are both theories of classical physics. In classical mechanics, there is no room for the concept of holism. The mathematics used there does not allow for it.
The holism of quantum theory has a mathematical cause: interacting structures must be described in a state space that is constructed as the tensor product of the state spaces of the parts.
This multiplicative structure, which leads from parts to a whole, ensures that in quantum theory a whole is always more than the sum of the parts from which it is constructed or into which it can be broken down.
Incidentally, in many cases this can lead to quite different results from the outset. A quantum system can break down into completely different parts than those from which it was constructed.

“In my opinion, the 'greater than' is the consequence of the force of gravity that caused the transition from non-life to life in the first place.”
I cannot find any justification for this statement in the mathematics of gravity.
But of course, gravity is also necessary for life. In the gravity-free vacuum of interstellar space, life cannot develop and is not possible without technical aids.
Life does not develop on suns, but on planets and similarly cool celestial bodies, which must not be too cold, however. All planets have a gravitational field.
Gravity is therefore also necessary for life, but it is not sufficient. Almost everywhere where there is gravity, there is no life.

Once life has emerged, gravity is no longer absolutely necessary. Both humans and single-celled organisms survive for many months in the ISS, where there is no gravity.

Of course, John is right when he states:
“bearing in mind that the growth factors are not information.”
Growth factors are molecules. A newspaper is not information either, but paper. However, certain properties of the newspaper enable us to understand that it can be interpreted as a carrier of information. The growth factors are also carriers of important properties.
In this process, it is important that this information reaches its destination in living beings by means of photons.

All life processes have a biochemical basis because, unlike all previous machines, information processing in life does not primarily take place through the transport of electrons, but through changes in molecules and ions.
This means that biological information processing moves at least 10,000 times more mass than a technical information processing device.
This is why biological information processing is inextricably linked to the material substrate of the living being in question.
Unlike electronic information processing, biological information processing cannot be separated from its material basis. Biology knows no distinction between hardware and software.

“Energy is not information, it is the capacity for maintaining 'self' in an ever-changing environment, due to an expanding Cosmos. The primary purpose of the organism is to detect meaningful change (for itself), and either adapt or become extinct.
Quantum theory also provides additional clues in this regard.
In biology, and in all chemical processes in general, there is still a clear separation between matter and energy. This is because all chemical processes are so low in energy that no matter can be created in this process.
Nevertheless, it is extremely important for understanding the whole matter that we have known for over 100 years that matter can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into matter, but, as I said, not in chemistry and biology.

If we want to understand the connections more precisely, we need to look at the fundamentals of quantum theory and the fundamentals of cosmology.
Scientific explanation leads from the simple to the complex and complicated. The most complicated structures in physics are quantum field theories. They describe the creation and destruction of any number of quantum particles as a structure. They are therefore much more complicated than quantum mechanics, which calculates with a fixed number of particles and a classical electromagnetic field.
For mathematical reasons, the simplest possible quantum structures have a two-dimensional state space. They are therefore often referred to as quantum bits.
Quantum bits can be used to create the quantum particles of energy and matter.

Modern quantum theory makes it clear that not only can energy be converted into matter, and matter thus be understood as a special form of energy, but that, beyond this, even meaning-free and cosmically based quantum information is the basis for these two phenomena, which are so clearly distinct in everyday life.
Abstract, absolute, and thus still meaning-free quantum information is the physical basis for explaining matter and energy.

In everyday life, on the other hand, information is always linked to meaning. “Meaning-free information” is a very difficult demand on abstraction.

The fact that energy can be converted into matter is irrelevant in biology. However, the fact that this equivalence of matter and energy can be understood as the basis for energy to act on matter is also significant for biology.
The fact that the quantum particles of energy and matter can be constructed from abstract and meaning-free quantum bits has not yet penetrated scientific understanding as much as it needs to. But only then can we understand that information has an action in living things.

In biology, the following has been true up to now: matter is not energy. It has also been true that energy is not information. Only when we understand that these two statements are only approximate and not fundamental statements can life be understood.

Life is information processing aimed at strengthening, not diminishing, the continued existence of the unstable system known as “living beings.”
Living beings are dynamic equilibriums which, unlike machines, depend on good information processing that must be essentially geared towards their self-preservation.

Just as it is not the paper that is essential to a newspaper (or at least should be), but rather the information it contains, so too are “growth factors” molecules, but it is not their mass that is essential, but rather their properties.

Life is characterized by its instability, which causes it to react not only to matter and energy, but in many cases to mere properties thereof.
Through the reaction of living beings, these properties become meaningful information.

In this context, I would like to point out that meaning is something that belongs to living beings. For inanimate objects, only energy exists as an active entity. Only for living beings can information also acquire meaning. Meaning cannot be objective. At best, it is intersubjective. Consider, for example, the meaning of the four letters G, I, F, T in this order in German and English. (The meaning of “Gift” in German is poison.)
Catalysts and, in biology, enzymes do not act on chemical processes in their vicinity via energy, but via their properties. Chemistry thus becomes an “information chemistry.”
If enzymes acted through energy, they would have to be in a different state after such a process than before. However, the significant thing about catalysts and enzymes is that after such a chemical process, they are in the same state as before this action. In such processes, the properties become the information that is meaningful for this process.

Information that is to be stored for a longer period of time requires a material carrier. In living beings, this factual storage takes place with the structures of DNA.

Of course, these properties require virtual and often real photons to become effective, as is the case when reading a newspaper. But the energy of the photons is not the essential thing, but rather the information they transmit. The information, like this text, may or may not be meaningful to the recipient.

I would like to refer you once again to an article that provides much more detailed information:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0303-2647(25)00077-2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RCv3r4mMQNR_BJSYGRHZoFUF6EKEjSh_w1v7DUYPlDz4B3NDiry7udG3aeOc_w56npGjZYW3fjzOoZcAVEVDOVaUc6Mud73U$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0303-2647(25)00077-2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VFwo5U3iaF-5sSf6FPmlsPYL4XzL9ierjznjeMql2Ku8vp5D6dOUqA7Zr5k1mrM0GEz7IoUEEKBctMCvbeFZVMHO38LKh-Hw$>
All the best and kind regards,
Thomas Görnitz


Dear John, Gordana, Pedro and fis,
ich möchte über meinen Beitrag vom 14. Mai hinaus zur aktuellen Diskussion und den Fragen Gravitation und Holismus noch etwas aus physikalischer Sicht ergänzen.

Der Gegenstandsbereich derjenigen Naturwissenschaft, die sich mit den komplexesten Strukturen befasst, der Biologie, ist bisher nur unsere Erde.
Der Anwendungsbereich der Chemie sind solche Bereiche im Kosmos, die nicht so heiß sind, dass entstehende Moleküle sofort wieder zerlegt werden.
Der Geltungsbereich derjenigen Zusammenhänge, die so einfach sind, dass sie überall im gesamten Kosmos gelten, ist derjenige der Physik. Ihre Erkenntnisse liefern auch Grundlagen für das Verstehen chemischer und biologischer Zusammenhänge.

Die von der Physik gefundenen zutreffenden Zusammenhänge sind grundsätzlich immer und überall wirksam.
Daher möchte ich aus Sicht der Physik zu zwei Hinweisen etwas ausführen:

»In my opinion, these observations speak to life being 'greater than the sum of its parts' or a 'holism', unlike a machine, which is the literal sum of its parts."
Dieser Hinweis von John ist wichtig. Alle Lebewesen sind „mehr als die Summe der Teile“, in die man sie zerlegen kann oder für die man erklären kann, dass sie daraus aufgebaut sein würden.
Alles Leben ist in diesem Sinne holistisch.
Allerdings ist dies nur eine notwendige Bedingung.
Wie die Quantentheorie zeigt, sind alle Systeme, die man mit Quantentheorie beschreibt, holistisch. Die wenigsten davon sind Lebewesen.
Holismus ist also notwendig für Leben, aber nicht hinreichend.

Damit zur zweiten Bemerkung, die ich diskutieren möchte.
Mechanik und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie sind beides Theorien der klassischen Physik. In der klassischen Mechanik ist für die Vorstellung von Holismus kein Platz. Das gibt die dort verwendete Mathematik nicht her.
Der Holismus der Quantentheorie hat die mathematische Ursache, dass wechselwirkende Strukturen in einem Zustandsraum beschrieben werden müssen, welcher als das Tensor-Produkt der Zustandsräume der Teile konstruiert wird.
Diese multiplikative Struktur, die aus Teilen zu einem Ganzen führt, sorgt dafür, dass in der Quantentheorie ein Ganzes immer mehr ist als die Summe der Teile, aus denen es aufgebaut wurde oder in die es zerlegt werden kann.
Das kann übrigens in vielen Fällen aus einem Anfang zu recht unterschiedlichen Ergebnissen führen. Ein Quantensystem kann in völlig andere Teile zerfallen als diejenigen, aus denen es aufgebaut wurde.

» In my opinion, the 'greater than' is the consequence of the force of gravity that caused the transition from non-life to life in the first place «
Für diese Aussage kann ich in der Mathematik der Gravitation keine Begründung finden.
Aber natürlich ist Gravitation ebenfalls nothwendig für Leben. Im gravitationsfreien Vakuum des interstellaren Raumes kann sich Leben nicht entwickeln und ist dort ohne technische Hilfsmittel auch nicht möglich.
Leben entwickelt sich nicht auf Sonnen, sondern auf Planeten und ähnlich kühlen Himmelskörpern, die aber nicht zu kalt sein dürfen. Alle Planeten besitzen ein Gravitationsfeld.
Gravitation ist also ebenfalls notwendig fürs Leben, aber ebenfalls nicht hinreichend. Fast überall wo es Gravitation gibt, gibt es kein Leben.

Wenn Leben entstanden ist, dann ist die Gravitation auch nicht mehr zwingend notwendig. Sowohl Menschen als auch Einzeller überleben viele Monate in der ISS, in der es keine Gravitation gibt.

Natürlich hat John recht, wenn er feststellt:
»bearing in mind that the growth factors are not information. «

growth factors sind Moleküle. Auch eine Zeitung ist keine Information, sondern Papier. Aber wir begreifen durch bestimmte Eigenschaften der Zeitung, dass sie ihren Buchstaben als Träger von Information interpretiert werden kann. Auch die growth factors sind Träger wichtige Eigenschaften.
Dabei kommt es darauf an, dass diese Information bei Lebewesen mittels Photonen von der Quelle zum Ziel gelangt.

Alle Lebensvorgänge haben eine biochemische Basis, weil im Leben, im Gegensatz zu allen bisherigen Maschinen, die Informationsverarbeitung nicht vor allem durch den Transport von Elektronen, sondern durch Veränderungen an Molekülen und Ionen vonstatten geht.
D.h. die biologische Informationsverarbeitung bewegt mindestens das 10.000 fache an Masse als ein technisches Gerät der Informationsverarbeitung.
Deswegen ist die biologische Informationsverarbeitung untrennbar mit dem betreffenden materiellen Substrat des Lebewesens verbunden.
Daher kann biologische Informationsverarbeitung im Gegensatz zur elektronischen nicht von ihrer materiellen Basis getrennt werden. Biologie kennt keine Trennung zwischen Hard- und Software.

»Energy is not information, it is the capacity for maintaining 'self' in an ever-changing environment, due to an expanding Cosmos. The primary purpose of the organism is to detect meaningful change (for itself), and either adapt or become extinct. «

Auch dazu liefert die Quantentheorie zusätzliche Hinweise.
In der Biologie und überhaupt in allen chemischen Vorgängen gibt es noch eine klare Trennung zwischen Materie und Energie. Das liegt daran, dass sämtliche chemischen Vorgänge so energiearm sind, dass dabei keine Materie erzeugt werden kann.
Trotzdem ist es für das Verständnis der ganzen Angelegenheit äußerst wichtig, dass wir seit über 100 Jahren wissen, Materie kann in Energie und Energie kann in Materie verwandelt werden, aber, wie gesagt, nicht in der Chemie und der Biologie.
Wenn wir die Zusammenhänge genauer verstehen wollen, ist ein Blick auf die Grundlagen der Quantentheorie und die Grundlagen der Kosmologie notwendig.
Naturwissenschaftliches Erklären führt vom Einfachen zum Komplexen und Komplizierten. Die kompliziertesten Strukturen der Physik sind die Quantenfeldtheorien. Sie beschreiben als Struktur von beliebig vielen Quantenteilchen deren Erzeugen und Vernichten. Sie sind also wesentlich komplizierter als die Quantenmechanik, die mit einer festen Teilchenzahl und einem klassischen elektromagnetischen Feld rechnet.

Die aus mathematischen Gründen einfachstmöglichen Quantenstrukturen haben einen zweidimensionalen Zustandsraum. Sie werden daher oft als Quantenbit bezeichnet.
Aus solchen Quantenbits lassen sich die Quantenteilchen der Energie und der Materie erzeugen.

Mit der modernen Quantentheorie wird deutlich, dass nicht nur Energie in Materie verwandelt werden kann und somit Materie als eine spezielle Form von Energie verstanden werden kann, sondern dass darüber hinaus sogar eine noch bedeutungsfreie und kosmisch fundierte Quanteninformation die Grundlage für diese beiden im Alltag so deutlich unterschiedenen Erscheinungen ist.
Eine abstrakte, absolute und somit noch bedeutungsfreie Quanteninformation ist die physikalische Grundlage für eine Erklärung von Materie und Energie.

Im Alltag wird im Gegensatz dazu Information immer mit Bedeutung verknüpft. „Bedeutungsfreie Information“ ist eine sehr schwierige Forderung an die Abstraktion.

Dass Energie in Materie verwandelt werden kann, das spielt in der Biologie keine Rolle. Dass diese Äquivalenz von Materie und Energie aber als Grundlage dafür verstanden werden kann, dass Energie auf Materie einwirken kann, das ist auch für die Biologie bedeutsam.

Dass die Quantenteilchen von Energie und von Materie aus abstrakten und bedeutungsfreien Quantenbits konstruiert werden können, das ist noch nicht in das naturwissenschaftliche Verständnis so eingedrungen, wie es notwendig wäre. Aber erst damit wird verstehbar, dass Information im Lebendigen Wirkungen erzielt.

In der Biologie galt bisher: Materie ist keine Energie. Ebenso galt dort auch: Energie ist keine Information. Erst wenn man versteht, dass diese beiden Aussagen nur genäherte und keine grundsätzlichen Aussagen sind, erst dann wird Leben verstehbar.
Leben ist Informationsverarbeitung, die darauf gerichtet ist, den Fortbestand des instabilen Systems „Lebewesen“ zu bestärken und nicht zu vermindern.
Lebewesen sind Fließgleichgewichte, die – im Gegensatz zu den Maschinen – auf eine gute Informationsverarbeitung angewiesen sind, die auf ihren Selbsterhalt wesentlich ausgerichtet sein muss.

So wie an der Zeitung nicht das Papier, sondern die Information das Wesentliche ist (oder zumindest sein sollte) so sind natürlich auch „growth factors“ Moleküle, an denen aber nicht die Masse, sondern die Eigenschaften das Wesentliche sind.

Leben ist dadurch ausgezeichnet, dass es so instabil ist, dass es nicht nur auf Materie und Energie reagiert, sondern in vielen Fällen auf bloße Eigenschaften davon.
Durch die Reaktion des Lebewesens werden diese Eigenschaften zu bedeutungsvoller Information.

In diesem Zusammenhang darf ich darauf verweisen, dass Bedeutung etwas ist, was zu Lebewesen gehört. Für Unbelebtes gibt es nur Energie als wirkende Entität. Erst für Lebendiges kann Information auch eine Bedeutung erhalten. Bedeutung kann nicht objektiv sein. Sie ist im besten Fall intersubjektiv. Man denke beispielsweise an die Bedeutung der vier Buchstaben G, I, F, T in dieser Reihenfolge im Deutschen und im Englischen. (Die Bedeutung von "gift" im Englischen ist Geschenk)

Katalysatoren und in der Biologie die Enzyme wirken nicht über Energie, sondern über ihre Eigenschaften auf chemische Prozesse in ihrer Nachbarschaft. Chemie wird damit zu einer "Informations-Chemie".
Wenn Enzyme über Energie wirken würden, dann müssten sie nach einem solchen Prozess in einem anderen Zustand sein als zuvor. Das Bedeutsame an Katalysatoren und Enzymen ist aber, dass sie nach einem solchen chemischen Prozess im gleichen Zustand sind wie vor diesem Einwirken. Bei solchen Prozessen werden die Eigenschaften zu der für diesen Prozess bedeutungsvollen Information.

Informationen, die für längere Zeit faktisch gespeichert werden soll, bedarf eines materiellen Trägers. In Lebewesen erfolgt diese faktische Speicherung mit den Strukturen der DNA.

Natürlich bedürfen diese Eigenschaften für das Wirksamwerden virtuelle und oft auch reale Photonen, sowie beim Lesen einer Zeitung. Aber die Energie der Photonen ist nicht das Wesentliche, sondern die von ihnen übermittelte Information. Die Information, so wie auch dieser Text, kann beim Empfänger bedeutungsvoll werden – oder auch nicht.

Ich darf noch einmal auf den Link zu einem Artikel verweisen, der wesentlich ausführlicher ist:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0303-2647(25)00077-2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RCv3r4mMQNR_BJSYGRHZoFUF6EKEjSh_w1v7DUYPlDz4B3NDiry7udG3aeOc_w56npGjZYW3fjzOoZcAVEVDOVaUc6Mud73U$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0303-2647(25)00077-2__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VFwo5U3iaF-5sSf6FPmlsPYL4XzL9ierjznjeMql2Ku8vp5D6dOUqA7Zr5k1mrM0GEz7IoUEEKBctMCvbeFZVMHO38LKh-Hw$>

Allen alles Gute und beste Grüße
Thomas Görnitz






Quoting JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu<mailto:jtorday at ucla.edu>>:



Dear Gordana, Mark, Michael, Bill, Joe, Tom, Pedro and fis, I will reply to your thoughtful email in [brackets] as best I can, bearing in mind that many of my comments are the same as those I stated in my replies to Joe Brenner.



"Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking remarks and the fascinating perspective you've developed regarding gravity as a fundamental driver in the origin and evolution of life. Your work on PTHrP as a gravisensor, and the broader implications you draw from it, raise important questions about how we conceptualize life's emergence from a physical and developmental standpoint.



[I just wanted to interject as 'Proof of Principle' that the PTHrP Receptor duplicated (amplified) during the water-land transition, explaining how/why the skeleton, lungs, kidney and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis evolved in that time-frame, facilitating the vertebrate cellular-molecular physiologic adaptation to land. This was not Darwinian 'random mutation', it was internal selection due to stress, dysregulating homeostasis in the organs of interest, causing the cells involved to produce radical oxygen species, known to cause context-specific mutations and duplications.....it is that mechanism that allows for evolution of the tissues and organs in order to adapt. It is Maturana and Varela's self-referential self-organization, for which they did not provide a mechanism.]



I wanted to offer a collegial and constructive view from my perspective that complements your argument by considering the foundational role of information in biological systems—especially in the context of cognition, learning, and adaptation at the cellular level.



[I appreciate your effort to find consilience between information and energy. Not to be argumentative, just the contrary, to hopefully provide a mechanism that is continuous from the inert to the living, information is secondary to energy, as I stated in my reply to Joe Brenner, beginning with the microgravity effect on cellular phenotypic evolution, which by definition was depriving the cell of energy, not information. And beyond that, I have stated that the Fibonacci sequence for the Elements produced by Stellar Nucleosynthesis, or how/why stars are formed, the Elements as their by-products, is a story of the energy for those mechanisms. But it must be said that the sequencing of the Elements in their exact order of their atomic masses is information that is the 'logic' of the Cosmos. But Life makes the Elements 'organic' through Symbiogenesis, mediating the 'serial homeostatic balance of the cell' in adapting to its environment as evolution, in contradistinction to Darwinian 'random mutations'. ]



While I fully agree that gravity, as well as other forms of energy— electrical, chemical, thermal and mechanical are crucial in shaping the physical environment that made life possible, I would suggest that these energy forms are enabling conditions for a more fundamental transition: the emergence of systems capable of processing, storing, and responding to information.



[I must take exception to the role of information as primary, because it is derivative of the energy flows, primarily because I am of the opinion that not unlike classical v quantum mechanics, if you need to use different explanations for each, you're not using the correct explanation. The ontology and epistemology must be internally consistent to understand the meaning of both/and each. The experiment done by Claassen and Spooner (Claassen DE, Spooner BS. Liposome formation in microgravity. Adv Space Res. 1996;17(6-7):151-60) showing that in microgravity micelles, or protocells, are heterogeneous.....so like soap bubbles, it they are not uniform the biggest one will 'eat' all the smaller ones, eliminating that 'platform' for life.]



Cells, even the simplest ones, are not passive reactors to external forces; they sense, interpret, and adapt to their environment.



This requires:

  *   Internal representations of their state (e.g., energy levels, osmotic pressure, etc.),
  *   Interpretation of signals (via receptors and transduction pathways),
  *   Decision-making logic (e.g., feedback control, signal integration),
  *   Forms of memory and adaptive behavior.

These capacities reflect informational architectures—structured, rule-governed processes that allow organisms to maintain homeostasis, respond to novelty, and evolve complexity.
These processes are not reducible to energy flows alone, even though they are energetically instantiated.


To take your Newtonian analogy a step further: just as force requires mass to produce acceleration, energy requires an informational structure, a network or system capable of interpreting and responding to that energy, for it to lead to life-like behavior.
Without that, physical processes remain inanimate.



[I am an advocate for Schrodinger's "What is Life", in which he stated that life is negative entropy within the cell, entropy in the environment, acting as a dialectic state of energy as the ab origine form of the cell, the subsequent Symbiogenic mechanism (Sagan, 1967) sustaining and perpetuating that state epistemologically.]


Both Mike and Bill have written extensively on cellular information processing and cognition, and you in your book Consciousness-Based Evolution are emphasizing the role of communication that is information exchange.



[With all due respect, all the articles and books I have published regarding cellular-molecular evolution emphasize the role of cell-cell communication as energy exchanges, not information. And Mike and Bill do not provide a mechanism for their work that would make it amenable to testing scientifically whereas my work is totally testable, as I and others have shown]



I find great resonance in your broader point that life must be understood as a holistic, dynamical phenomenon, not merely a sum of parts. My aim is not to oppose that view, but to emphasize that information, context-sensitive, functional information, is one of those essential parts, and arguably what makes life different from non-life."



[Thank you for recognizing the value in recognizing life as holism. I recently published an article explaining 'how ane why' Symbiogenesis is evidence for our origin in a non-dual monistic holism (Torday JS. Symbiogenesis redicts the monism of the cosmos. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2024 Sep;191:58-62). I am of the opinion that we should be striving to understand the holism of our 'being'.]



Again, I share these thoughts in the spirit of consilience....



Cordially, John



John S. Torday

Professor of Pediatrics

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Evolutionary Medicine

UCLA



Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts



On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 9:26 AM Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se<mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>> wrote:

Dear John, and All,



Thank you for sharing your thought-provoking remarks and the fascinating perspective you've developed regarding gravity as a fundamental driver in the origin and evolution of life. Your work on PTHrP as a gravisensor, and the broader implications you draw from it, raise important questions about how we conceptualize life's emergence from a physical and developmental standpoint.



I wanted to offer a collegial and constructive view from my perspective that complements your argument by considering the foundational role of information in biological systems—especially in the context of cognition, learning, and adaptation at the cellular level.



While I fully agree that gravity, as well as other forms of energy— electrical, chemical, thermal and mechanical are crucial in shaping the physical environment that made life possible, I would suggest that these energy forms are enabling conditions for a more fundamental transition: the emergence of systems capable of processing, storing, and responding to information.



Cells, even the simplest ones, are not passive reactors to external forces; they sense, interpret, and adapt to their environment.



This requires:

  *   Internal representations of their state (e.g., energy levels, osmotic pressure, etc.),
  *   Interpretation of signals (via receptors and transduction pathways),
  *   Decision-making logic (e.g., feedback control, signal integration),
  *   Forms of memory and adaptive behavior.

These capacities reflect informational architectures—structured, rule-governed processes that allow organisms to maintain homeostasis, respond to novelty, and evolve complexity.
These processes are not reducible to energy flows alone, even though they are energetically instantiated.


To take your Newtonian analogy a step further: just as force requires mass to produce acceleration, energy requires an informational structure, a network or system capable of interpreting and responding to that energy, for it to lead to life-like behavior.
Without that, physical processes remain inanimate.


Both Mike and Bill have written extensively on cellular information processing and cognition, and you in your book Consciousness-Based Evolution are emphasizing the role of communication that is information exchange.



I find great resonance in your broader point that life must be understood as a holistic, dynamical phenomenon, not merely a sum of parts. My aim is not to oppose that view, but to emphasize that information, context-sensitive, functional information, is one of those essential parts, and arguably what makes life different from non-life.



Looking forward to continuing the conversation and exchanging ideas on this deep and fascinating topic.



Best regards,

Gordana





From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>> on behalf of "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch<mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch<mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>>
Date: Sunday, 18 May 2025 at 14:18
To: JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu<mailto:jtorday at ucla.edu>>, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com<mailto:johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>>, "Levin, Michael" <michael.levin at tufts.edu<mailto:michael.levin at tufts.edu>>, Bill <wbmiller1 at cox.net<mailto:wbmiller1 at cox.net>>, "Pedro C. Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com<mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>>, "goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de<mailto:goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de>" <goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de<mailto:goernitz at em.uni-frankfurt.de>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine, truth and trust





Dear John,



I wish to apologize for not having recognized previously my failure to see and express the fundamental role played by gravity in science and philosophy as you have now expressed it. Please let me expand a little (like the universe, at this point) by calling attention to the fact that the force of gravity, or gravitational field, is inhomogeneous. We also exist by capitalizing (storing) the potential energy available from the differences in the strength of the field between two space-time points. We drink by catching part of a waterfall, converting gravitational energy from actual to potential in our cupped hands.



However, to explain the further development of phenomena to the point at which one can start to talk about information requiires an additional fundamental principle, the Lupasco principle of Dynamic Opposition: all systems move from states constituted by more potential and less actual energy - gravitational, electromagnetic, electrostatic - to the reverse, reciprocally and sinusoidally, without ever returning to exactly the point of origin. (Machines are also subject to this principle, but at short time scales it can be ignored to all intents and purposes - just a little wear at a microscopic level).



I thus am forced to a position that information is not more (but also not less) than the epistemic descriptions of those states. However our knowledge of these states as information is also not static. It is an ontic process of knowing which is itself subject to movement between actual and potential, becoming causally effective when transduced to muscle cells, etc. Other cognitive examples of the operation of this principle are our changing views of part and whole, or figure and ground.



Please let me know if you see any merit in this proposed synthesis of our ideas.



Thank you and best wishes,

Joe

Le 18.05.2025 11:48 CEST, JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu<mailto:jtorday at ucla.edu>> a écrit :





To Mark, Mike, Bill, Joe, Tom, fis,

I wanted to remark on the heels of the comments by Mark, Joe, Tom regarding machines vs organisms, that simply put, organisms are 'holisms' that are greater than the sums of their parts, machines are just the sums of their parts, without something 'greater than' themselves. In my opinion, the 'greater than' is the consequence of the force of gravity that caused the transition from non-life to life in the first place (Torday JS. Parathyroid hormone-related protein is a gravisensor in lung and bone cell biology. Adv Space Res. 2003;32(8):1569-76). I would like to point out that that experiment and that of others showed that it is the energy of gravity that is necessary for evolution, not information, with all due respect. There is no singular piece of information that one could deprive the cell by doing a so-called 'knockout' experiment that would have the same fundamental effect. And as for ontology and epistemology, I am of the opinion that to identify the fundamental nature of life, both of them must be accounted for by the same mechanism, as in the case of the effect of gravity, causing the protocell to react as an 'equal and opposite reaction' (Newton's Third Law of Motion). Subsequently, life is constituted by serial homeostatic control of energy by the organism, facilitated by Symbiogenesis, Lynn Sagan's explanation that, for example, bacteria were assimilated by archaea to form eukaryotes in order to maintain homeostatic balance in an ever-changing environment due to an expanding Cosmos.



Best, John





John S. Torday

Professor of Pediatrics

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Evolutionary Medicine

UCLA



Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts



On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 5:25 PM Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com<mailto:johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Bill, Mike and John



First of all thank you to Bill and Mike for continuing the very stimulating discussion that began in the video call a few weeks ago.



There are, as is often the case on FIS, a number of ontological assertions flying around which make navigating this space rather difficult. Mike does his best to address this head-on in his identification of two fundamental problems: "First, the belief that we can objectively and uniquely nail down what something is. And second, that our formal models of life, computers or materials tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations."



Channelling Warren McCulloch, and perhaps in response to those who ask "what is a machine?", I would like to ask "What is a machine that we might know it, and what are we that we might know a machine?"



What follows from the formulation such a question (whether you ask about number, distinction, etc), is that any determination of "what a machine is" - the "it" of a machine - is both contingent and necessary. It is contingent because it must depend on the determination by the observer (Maturana). It is necessary because without any determination of what a machine is, we would have no machines, no science, no institutions, no coordination - the world would not be like the world we experience.



Our arguments about ontology are an expression of the contingency of definition. The fact that we keep on going at it is indicative of the necessity of definition. We perhaps should be mindful that alongside contingency, is paraconsistency in definition: it is not x OR y, information OR energy. It is probably x AND y.



This gives rise to something that doesn't often come up on this list, which I have been reflecting on, which is dialectic. If you take necessity and contingency together, you get a dialectical process. This is political. I know (I'm sure he won't mind me saying this) that behind John's passionate emphasis on energy is a personal story about the pathology of humankind, and a fear that misapprehending the underlying mechanism of evolutionary development will lead to the kind of terrible consequences we saw in the middle of the last century. Personally, I very swayed by his arguments - they run very deep.



Indeed, behind much of the anxiety of AI are political feelings, which are not properly inspected. As scientists, we are often rather too buttoned-up, pretending this is all completely rational. Well, we know it isn't. There are feasible dystopias and infeasible dystopias, and equally infeasible utopias.



The politics comes from the dialectics which comes from the contingency and necessity of definition of what a machine is. This is not to say that there cannot be coordinated stability through science. But it fundamentally requires trust and humility, and acceptance of contingency and paraconsistency. As Von Foerster pointed out many years ago, the word "truth" has the same root as the word "trust" (see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/Mc6YFUoPWSI?feature=shared__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RCv3r4mMQNR_BJSYGRHZoFUF6EKEjSh_w1v7DUYPlDz4B3NDiry7udG3aeOc_w56npGjZYW3fjzOoZcAVEVDOVaUc3kdQm4K$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/youtu.be/Mc6YFUoPWSI?feature=shared__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Wsl84qM48TWmEsBlAC9YhD2IHxjMVlFr6erxin6en2yFgbYBGQlM8a5NGAk5ong88K_SAvMIBduo89SVofc%24>)



Trust appears to be some kind of physiological process. Do machines help us to trust each other? Well, what do you think? You're in a machine right now. Do you trust me? If this wasn't email, what might we do to engender trust between us better? Could a machine help? How?



Best wishes,



Mark







On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 22:02, JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu<mailto:jtorday at ucla.edu>> wrote:

Dear Pedro, Bill and fis,with all due respect,  I have attached my replies to Bill's Information in a cellular framework – abstract for discussion

William B. Miller, Jr.



John S. Torday

Professor of Pediatrics

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Evolutionary Medicine

UCLA



Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu<mailto:jtorday at ucla.edu>>
Date: Wed, May 14, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Bill Miller's contribution
To: Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com<mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>>



Dear Pedro and Bill and fis, I have attached my responses to Bill's "Information in a Cellular Framework".....



John S. Torday

Professor of Pediatrics

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Evolutionary Medicine

UCLA



Fellow, The European Academy of Science and Arts



On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 3:45 PM Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com<mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>> wrote:

Given the archive difficulties with attached files, systematically scrubbed by the server, I am posting Bill's text as a regular message (today I finally could do that!).
It is an angle pretty different from the mechanism/non mechanism one...      Regards --Pedro
-------------------------------------------------

Information in a cellular framework – abstract for discussion
William B. Miller, Jr.

A long-standing presumption among many physicists and mathematicians is
that biology is a descriptive endeavor and any deep understanding of the
living frame must issue from their more rigorous disciplines. Nonetheless,
neither physics nor mathematics has explained the non-equilibrium living
state in which intelligent self-referential cells deploy problem-solving
competencies to sustain themselves across living scales. Consequently, some
scientists argue that the reverse may be correct: biology might productively
inform physics and mathematics, offering insights into how natural laws
might extend beyond known physical and mathematical principles.
In the same spirit, examining the specific attributes of biological
information processing and living information management as specifically
exemplified by cells might provide a productive further thrust to the
fundamental action-logic of those theoretical information systems formulated
by visionary information theorists.

To stimulate that initiative, it is proposed that information theorists might
direct their attention to the specific informational characteristics of intelligent,
measuring cells, which represent the basal strata of our living planetary
system.

Several specific attributes of biological information have been
empirically verified at the cellular level, thereby defining the informational
conditions of our living system:

--All cells are cognitive, problem-solving agents.

--Their living context is the ambiguity of information.

--The uncertain validity of environmental stimuli governs the cellular
reception, analysis, and deployment of all cellular resources.

--Imperfect information requires cells to internally measure their
received information.

--Accordingly, all cellular information is a product of infoautopoiesis,
entailing that all the information that any cell has about its external
environment is exclusive, self-referential, and self-produced.

--Cellular infoautopiesis drives an obligatory and little appreciated
derivative: each cell, and then we as cellular beings, create our
exclusive self-referential representations of reality and act upon that
self-generated purview.

--Obliged informational uncertainties stimulate the collective cellular
analysis of self-generated cellular information, driving ubiquitous
planetary multicellularity as a cellular expression of the familiar
'wisdom of crowds'.

--Cellular information processing directs toward narrowing distinctions
on the adjacents to diminish their obligatory uncertainty gap, yielding
the effective minimization of surprisal in conformity with the Free
Energy Principle.

--Every cell does work to sustain its self-directed state of homeorhetic
preferential flux.

--Narrowing the distinctions on the adjacents as the effective
minimization of surprisal enables cellular predictions and
anticipations.

--Self-referential cellular states of homeorhetic preference drive
multicellular eukaryotic macroorganic behaviors and emotions.

SOME BASIC QUESTIONS (for the discussion)

Information in the living frame has been commonly defined according to
Bateson’s familiar definition as a 'difference that makes a difference over
time.' How might that definition explain internal self reference that governs
our lives, enabling living information management? Might other definitions
serve better?

How can previously formulated information theories illuminate the cellular
living process within its obligatory context of informational ambiguity?
How do current information theories explain the presence of inference,
prediction, and anticipation.

Why do these informational cues, which must first manifest at the level of
cells as exclusive states of self-referential homeorhetic preference, exert in
multicellularity as nuanced multicellular behaviors and emotions?
Recent research confirms the remarkable competencies of diverse
intelligences across living scales. How might applying information systems
theory contribute to our debate about any categorical distinctions between the
living frame and the abiotic realm? If a fluid continuum is asserted, how
might that be rationalized?

Is our understanding of biological systems improved by asserting an
immaterial Platonic informational platform permitting cells to interrogate a
constrained portion of universal informational space-time (? phase space
partition) as part of a universal informational fabric?

Given the extraordinary competencies of current AI systems and projected
future abilities, how might information theory inform constructive responses
to inevitable social, economic, and cultural pressures?

What should govern our ethical responses to the still-developing organic constructs
 which will include synthetic combinations of digital competencies and living cells?
If 'consciousness' is determined to be a litmus of our ethical stance toward
other living entities, what practical informational threshold exists, if any?

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

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto: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<mailto: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 
----------





--

Dr. Mark William Johnson

Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health

University of Manchester



Department of Science Education

University of Copenhagen



Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)

University of Liverpool

Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com<mailto:johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>
Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RCv3r4mMQNR_BJSYGRHZoFUF6EKEjSh_w1v7DUYPlDz4B3NDiry7udG3aeOc_w56npGjZYW3fjzOoZcAVEVDOVaUc8Bc_jcD$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Wsl84qM48TWmEsBlAC9YhD2IHxjMVlFr6erxin6en2yFgbYBGQlM8a5NGAk5ong88K_SAvMIBduo1JSG9f0%24>

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto: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 
----------



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!RCv3r4mMQNR_BJSYGRHZoFUF6EKEjSh_w1v7DUYPlDz4B3NDiry7udG3aeOc_w56npGjZYW3fjzOoZcAVEVDOVaUc6aq-QsJ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/goernitzunderstandingquantumtheory.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VFwo5U3iaF-5sSf6FPmlsPYL4XzL9ierjznjeMql2Ku8vp5D6dOUqA7Zr5k1mrM0GEz7IoUEEKBctMCvbeFZVMHO3yh3sbjk$>

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 
----------
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/20250602/d304ff29/attachment-0001.html>