<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.19367" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family: Tahoma;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 612.0pt 792.0pt; margin: 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
P.MsoAcetate {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
LI.MsoAcetate {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
DIV.MsoAcetate {
FONT-SIZE: 8pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text Char"
}
SPAN.BalloonTextChar {
FONT-FAMILY: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; mso-style-priority: 99; mso-style-link: "Balloon Text"; mso-style-name: "Balloon Text Char"
}
SPAN.EmailStyle19 {
COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-style-type: export-only
}
DIV.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1
}
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-CA vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Srinandan, Dear John and All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>At the Vienna Information Summit, I will present a
paper in the Symmetry Section of Gyuri Darvas entitled "Symmetry and
Information; Brothers in Arms". I wished by this title to convey the idea that
symmetry and information somehow emerged together from a prior state of some
kind. I do not state explicitly that asymmetry IS information and I was not
aware of John's work on symmetry, even if I had seen reference to it
earlier. But then, is it not possible to be aware of John's work 'all at once'.
It requires several iterations; I have purchased Muller's book to get myself to
the next stage of knowledge here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The point and possible value of the Logic in
Reality approach, what it brings to the table, still can I believe be seen in
some of the implications of John's note: some people talk only of the
laws/symmetries, others only of asymmetries. Darvas clearly shows that one
cannot be considered without the other, and LIR states that it logical hence
scientific that both the energetic partly symmetricalsubstrate of information
and its ontological and epsitemological properties influence one another
(interact). </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Laws are both information and the
final cause of the regularities in the information, and Logic in Reality
addresses and tries, with difficulty, to express in what way words like
'both' and 'at the same time' express how reality 'really'
evolves. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would be glad to forward a copy of my extended
abstract for Vienna to anyone who is interested.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thank you and best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joseph</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Collierj@ukzn.ac.za href="mailto:Collierj@ukzn.ac.za">John
Collier</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=sd@ecs.soton.ac.uk
href="mailto:sd@ecs.soton.ac.uk">Srinandan Dasmahapatra</A> ; <A
title=ulan@umces.edu href="mailto:ulan@umces.edu">ulan@umces.edu</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, May 26, 2015 11:19
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] It From Bit
video</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Dear
Srinandan,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">He
relation of geometry to information theory (and also of particle theory in the
Standard Theory) is by way of group theory. Groups describe symmetries, which
are reversible. What is left over are the asymmetries, which are the
differences that can be identified as information. This is worked out in some
detail by my former student, Scott Muller, in <I>Asymmetry: The Foundation of
Information</I>. Springer: Berlin. 2007. Seth Lloyd relates the information
concept to quantum mechanics via group theory and other means in his
<I>Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the
Cosmos</I>. More direct connections can be made via the entropy concept where
the information is the difference between the entropy of a system and its
entropy with all internal constraints relaxed, but it comes to the same thing
in the end. There are several convergent ways to relate information to form,
then, in contemporary physics. But basically it is in the
asymmetries.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">As
far as the relation between the asymmetries and symmetries go, I think this is
still a bit open, since the symmetries represent the laws. Some physicists
like Paul Davies talk as if the symmetries add nothing once you have all the
asymmetries, so the laws are a result of information as well. I don’t see
through this adequately myself as yet, though.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">John<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><A name=_MailEndCompose><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></A></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN lang=EN-US
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">
Srinandan Dasmahapatra [mailto:sd@ecs.soton.ac.uk] <BR><B>Sent:</B> May 26,
2015 10:20 PM<BR><B>To:</B> ulan@umces.edu; John Collier<BR><B>Cc:</B>
fis<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] It From Bit
video<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Re: boundary conditions, etc.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>I struggle to understand many/most of the posts on this
list, and the references to boundary conditions, geometry and information
leave me quite befuddled as well. Is it being claimed that geometry the same
as information? That the requirement of predictions makes the focus on
physical laws irrelevant unless the boundary conditions are specified? Or even
that the continuum is at odds with the speed of light, considering classical
electromagnetism is a well-defined continuum field theory. As for galactic
distances, the only scientific basis upon which we conceive of the large scale
structure of the universe is via the field equations of gravity, which brings
a coherent package of causal thinking built into it. I did understand the bit
on Noether, as energy conservation is indeed a consequence of time translation
invariance, but that comes embedded in a continuum description,
typically.<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>In biological systems, energy input makes the picture
specific to the system one cordons off for study, and often it is hard to
adequately describe phenomena by scalar potentials alone due to the currents
in the system. And Noether cannot deliver
reversibility. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>To me the message of Sean Carroll in the YouTube video that
an equivalent redescription of physics (or biology) in terms of information is
not enough, strikes me as sane. <o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Cheers, <o:p></o:p></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Srinandan<o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><BR>-------- Original message --------<BR>From: "Robert
E. Ulanowicz" <BR>Date:26/05/2015 16:16 (GMT+00:00) <BR>To: John Collier
<BR>Cc: fis <BR>Subject: Re: [Fis] It From Bit video <BR><BR>I would like to
strongly reinforce John's comments about boundary<BR>conditions. We tend to
obsess over the laws and ignore the boundary<BR>statements. (Sort of a shell
game, IMHO.) If boundary conditions cannot be<BR>stated in closed form, the
physical problem remains indeterminate! (The<BR>aphorism from computer
science, "Garbage in, garbage out!" is appropriate<BR>to reversible laws as
well.)<BR><BR>Then there is the issue of the continuum assumption, which was
the work of<BR>Euler and Leibniz, not Newton. Newton argued vociferously
against it,<BR>because it equated cause with effect. The assumption works
quite well,<BR>however, whenever cause and effect are almost simultaneous, as
with a<BR>force impacting an object, where the force is transmitted over
small<BR>distances at the speed of light. It doesn't work as well when
large<BR>velocities are at play (relativity) or very small distances and
times<BR>(quantum phenomena) -- whence the need arose to develop the
"exceptional"<BR>sciences, thermodynamics, relativity and quantum
physics.<BR><BR>I would suggest it doesn't work well at very large distances,
either.<BR>Consider galaxies, which are on the order of 100,000 or more light
years<BR>in diameter. (I was surprised to learn recently that we really don't
have<BR>decent models for the dynamics of galaxies.) Gravitational effects
are<BR>relatively slow to traverse those distances, so that cause and effect
are<BR>not immediate. (Sorry, I don't think quantum entanglement is going
to<BR>solve this conundrum.) If cause and effect are widely separated, then
the<BR>continuum assumption becomes questionable and by
implication,<BR>reversibility as well. Now Noether demonstrated that
reversibility and<BR>conservation are two sides of the same coin. So I see it
as no great<BR>mystery that we encounter problems with conservation of matter
and energy<BR>at galactic scales or higher -- witness "dark" matter and "dark"
energy.<BR><BR>Of course, I am neither a particle physicist nor an
astrophysicist, but<BR>merely someone writing from my armchair. So I invite
anyone on FIS to put<BR>me straight as regards my speculations on these
issues.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Bob U.<BR><BR><BR>> Interesting question, Ken. I
was not overly impressed with the video<BR>> because it didn’t explain
one of the most crucial points about the use<BR>> of information in dealing
with quantum gravity, for which we as yet have<BR>> no good theory. The
issue with both black holes and the origin of the<BR>> universe process is
that the boundary conditions are dynamical. You can<BR>> have as many laws
as you could want and still not have a physics if the<BR>> boundary
conditions are ignored. Usually they are added in as an initial<BR>> state,
or sometimes ad hoc but when they are changing, especially if they<BR>> are
mathematically inseparable from the laws, there is a problem with<BR>>
relying on the laws alone to explain. With black holes there is a
question<BR>> of whether or not information disappears at their event
horizon. There is<BR>> a similar issue for the observable portion of the
universe at any given<BR>> time. It is hard to see how the questions can
even be posed without<BR>> referring to information. Any boundary in basic
physics can be conceived<BR>> the same way, and if all masses and energies
come from geometry (in a<BR>> Unified Theory) then information is all there
is in basic physics.<BR>><BR>> I have argued for some time now that
biological systems are much more<BR>> defined by their boundary conditions,
which are typically dynamical and<BR>> changing, than by their energy
flows, so information flows dominate,<BR>> though energy flows place
limits, so I have talked of the information and<BR>> energy budgets being
partially decoupled in biological systems. So<BR>> information is important
to biology because understanding its flow can<BR>> answer questions about
dynamical boundaries, just like in basic physics.<BR>> The energy (and
matter) flows I will leave to the biophysicists, but the<BR>> paragraph
above suggests that these are information flows as well. I like<BR>> the
potential for unification here.<BR>><BR>> Cheers,<BR>>
John<BR>><BR>> From: Fis [<A
href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es">mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</A>]
On Behalf Of Ken Herold<BR>> Sent: May 26, 2015 12:30 AM<BR>> To:
fis<BR>> Subject: [Fis] It From Bit video<BR>><BR>> Released
recently--what about the biological?<BR>><BR>> <A
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATWa2AEvIY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ATWa2AEvIY</A><BR>><BR>>
--<BR>> Ken<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>>
Fis mailing list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR>> <A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR>><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR><A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><o:p></o:p></P></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>