[Fis] Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine, truth and trust

[Prof. Dr. Thomas Görnitz]

  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!TwJR2bXGts8DEGGFy8geXZqWgfb2a-aUs4hfLDgDJ8B_Ga5vfU4pudMTQhK9RRIYy46-ZnEnHrwqema2fjlo-1GWP_f1bQ$ 
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!TwJR2bXGts8DEGGFy8geXZqWgfb2a-aUs4hfLDgDJ8B_Ga5vfU4pudMTQhK9RRIYy46-ZnEnHrwqema2fjlo-1GWP_f1bQ$ 
 
Allen alles Gute und beste Grüße
Thomas Görnitz
 
 

Quoting JOHN TORDAY <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 flow//s// 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> 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 flow//s// 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> on behalf of
>> "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
>> DATE: Sunday, 18 May 2025 at 14:18
>> TO: JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu>, Mark Johnson
>> <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>, "Levin, Michael"
>> <michael.levin at tufts.edu>, Bill <wbmiller1 at cox.net>, "Pedro C.
>> Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>, 
>> "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____________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________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> 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> 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*5B1*5D__;JSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TwJR2bXGts8DEGGFy8geXZqWgfb2a-aUs4hfLDgDJ8B_Ga5vfU4pudMTQhK9RRIYy46-ZnEnHrwqema2fjlo-1FFP-50kQ$ )
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________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> 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>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________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> 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
>>>>>> 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%5B2%5D 
>>>>>> 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%5B2%5D 
>>>>> 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
>>>> Blog:  https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com*3*__;W10!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TwJR2bXGts8DEGGFy8geXZqWgfb2a-aUs4hfLDgDJ8B_Ga5vfU4pudMTQhK9RRIYy46-ZnEnHrwqema2fjlo-1GVUHhe0w$ 
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>> 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%5B2%5D 
>>> 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 
>>> ----------
>>> ________________________________________________________________________________________________



Links:
------
[1]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/youtu.be/Mc6YFUoPWSI?feature=shared__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Wsl84qM48TWmEsBlAC9YhD2IHxjMVlFr6erxin6en2yFgbYBGQlM8a5NGAk5ong88K_SAvMIBduo89SVofc%24
[2]
https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
[3]
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Wsl84qM48TWmEsBlAC9YhD2IHxjMVlFr6erxin6en2yFgbYBGQlM8a5NGAk5ong88K_SAvMIBduo1JSG9f0%24

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!TwJR2bXGts8DEGGFy8geXZqWgfb2a-aUs4hfLDgDJ8B_Ga5vfU4pudMTQhK9RRIYy46-ZnEnHrwqema2fjlo-1EKh0AizA$ 

Fachbereich Physik
J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250518/530d4d73/attachment-0001.html>