<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-AT">Dear FIS,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="DE-AT"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The noble conquest of
choosing the right method of understanding information divides this learned
society. Some argue that pre-Platonic approaches towards understanding Nature
are pre-scientific and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Let us imagine that
the Neanderthals have maintained a hidden existence (or reappear in the form of
visiting aliens). They have not followed the Sumer ideas of abstracting <i>similar</i> properties of <i>different</i> things, and thereby arriving
at the concept of “one that is like the other”, and then inventing two and
three, etc.; no, the Neanderthal-aliens have organised their perceptions on the
idea of <i>different</i> properties of <i>similar</i> things. It is a pre-conception,
dictated by our neurology, that we use the similarity properties of things as
the commonly accepted right way to look at things.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The aliens make
patterns and observe the differences among the patterns that can be made. They
have built a completely different basic approach to mathematical logic. To
understand how they calculate much more exactly than us mainstream Sumer disciples,
it is necessary that one be ready to accept as an ordering principle a detail that
one was taught to disregard. This is no small matter, because the realignment
of fundamental principles of logic, of deeply habituated patterns of cognition,
is a long process and the rewards come in variable portions.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Do tell, do you see a
difference between a+b=c and b+a=c? If one says that it makes no difference,
then one negates the advances in management of trade flows, of logistics as a
science. The First In First Out principle cannot be evaluated over the First In
Last Out principle, in pure mathematics, because the sequence of the summands
has no relevance to the result of the additive operation. We see that applied
science calmly disregards the doctrinal ban on distinguishing on sequence among
summands, so people do use and know how to use the sequential properties of
abstract entities. One may also ask, what kind of mathematics will evolve if
the sequences allow for results of other operations than addition. Order of
summands is not relevant for operation of addition. Order of summands is
relevant for which operation?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In all respect, the present-day
way of dealing with a small detail of a+b=c, the basis of all logic, is not
very scientific. Why is it necessary to define that a+b is the same as b+a?
There are some little doubts, against which explicitly rules this an
ex-cathedra declaration, doubts that could be addressed, if only one had the simple-minded
attitudes of a pre-scientific, instinctive, biological animal. Let us be less ethno-centric:
who says that it is of a moral superiority to heap things together and weigh
them as a sum of alike objects, than the other way of making, by un-heaping and
ordering, sequential, planar and spatial arrangements based on subtle
differences among individual objects? The former method knows the quantities;
the latter knows the places. In case there are anthropologists among the FIS,
please organise a field trip to a forgotten tribe of natives, who count by
comparing the differences among patterns. The Establishment will be surprised
to learn the practicability of some of the inventions these savages have found in
their pre-scientific fixation on some details of logical operations.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Pre-historic or culturally alien approaches need not be inferior. <br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Karl<br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-11-14 9:59 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All,<br>
<br>
It is fascinating to watch the evolution of ideas about information as a function of some new theories which beg for critique:<br>
<br>
1. Andrei gives a correct explanation of the origin of Irreducible Quantum Randomness. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to assume that randomness at the quantum level has the properties of APPARENT randomness at the cognitive level, that is, apparent free will. Any cognitive equivalent of non-locality is a cognitive projection.<br>
<br>
2. Karl returns to a Platonic world of numbers which are causally effective. I think the appropriate term for this approach is pre-scientific.<br>
<br>
3. Alex sees the same form of causal effectiveness in Fisher information, as interpreted by Frieden. A critique exists of Frieden's inventions which seems correct to me. The new concepts (e.g. "bound information") and gaps in Frieden's theory are exactly those which can be filled with the real dynamic properties of energy/information. The discussion of these is far from exhausted.<br>
<br>
As an inhabitant of space-time, I am glad that it does not seem to require any of the entities of theories 2. and 3. as its BASIS. If it did, I might not exist.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Joseph<br>
<br>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Khrennikov" <<a href="mailto:andrei.khrennikov@lnu.se" target="_blank">andrei.khrennikov@lnu.se</a>><br>
To: "'FIS Webinar'" <<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>><br>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 10:48 AM<br>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear all,<br>
I make the last remark about "physical information". The main problem of quantum physics is to justify so called<br>
IRREDUCIBLE QUANTUM RANDOMNESS (IQR). It was invented by von Neumann. Quantum randomness, in contrast to classical,<br>
cannot be reduced to variations in an ensemble. One single electron is irreducibly random.<br>
<br>
The operational Copenhagen interpretation cannot "explain" the origin of IQR, since it does not even try to explain anything,<br>
"Shut up and calculate!" (R. Feynman to his students). Nevertheless, many top experts in QM want some kind of "explanation". The informational approach to QM is one<br>
of such attempts. Roughly speaking, one tries to get IQR from fundamental notion of "physical information" as the basic blocks of Nature.<br>
<br>
This is very important activity, since nowadays IQR has huge technological value, the quantum random generators are justified through IQR. And this is billion Euro<br>
project.<br>
<br>
Finally, to check experimentally the presence of IQR, we have to appeal to violation of Bell's inequality. And here (!!!) to proceed we have to accept the existence of<br>
FREE WILL. Thus finally the cognitive elements appears, but in very surprisingly<br>
setting....<br>
<br>
Yours, andrei<br>
<br>
Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics,<br>
Int. Center Math Modeling: Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive Sc.<br>
Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden<br>
My RECENT BOOKS:<br>
<a href="http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p1036" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.worldscientific.com<wbr>/worldscibooks/10.1142/p1036</a><br>
<a href="http://www.springer.com/in/book/9789401798181" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.springer.com/in/boo<wbr>k/9789401798181</a><br>
<a href="http://www.panstanford.com/books/9789814411738.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.panstanford.com/boo<wbr>ks/9789814411738.html</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cambridge.org/cr/academic/subjects/physics/econophysics-and-financial-physics/quantum-social-science" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.cambridge.org/cr/ac<wbr>ademic/subjects/physics/econop<wbr>hysics-and-financial-physics/<wbr>quantum-social-science</a><br>
<a href="http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783642051005" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.springer.com/us/boo<wbr>k/9783642051005</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>__________<br>
From: Fis [<a href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</a>] on behalf of John Collier [<a href="mailto:Collierj@ukzn.ac.za" target="_blank">Collierj@ukzn.ac.za</a>]<br>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 9:19 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net" target="_blank">loet@leydesdorff.net</a>; 'Alex Hankey'; 'FIS Webinar'<br>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?<br>
<br>
More on Quantum information and emergent spacetime, this time by Erik P. Verlinde:<br>
Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe<<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/abs<wbr>/1611.02269</a>><br>
<br>
There is a less formal review at<br>
<a href="http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11<wbr>-theory-gravity-dark.html</a><br>
<br>
I consider the idea very speculative, as I have seen no work on information within a spacetime boundary except for this sort of work.<br>
<br>
Of course, meaning need not apply. I doubt that it is bounded by language, but it at least has to be representational. Perhaps more is also required. I am reluctant to talk of meaning when discussing the semiotics of biological chemicals, for example, but could not find a better word. A made up word like Deacon’s “entention” might work best, but it still would not apply to the physics cases, even though the information in the boundaries in all cases but the internal information one can tell you about the spacetime structure within the boundary. That seems to me that it is like smoke to fire: smoke doesn’t mean fire, despite the connection.<br>
<br>
John Collier<br>
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate<br>
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal<br>
<a href="http://web.ncf.ca/collier" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://web.ncf.ca/collier</a><br>
<br>
From: Fis [mailto:<a href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">fis-bounces@listas.uni<wbr>zar.es</a>] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff<br>
Sent: Saturday, 12 November 2016 9:29 PM<br>
To: 'Alex Hankey' <<a href="mailto:alexhankey@gmail.com" target="_blank">alexhankey@gmail.com</a>>; 'FIS Webinar' <<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?<br>
<br>
Dear Alex and colleagues,<br>
<br>
Thank you for the reference; but my argument was about “meaning”. “Meaning” can only be considered as constructed in language. Other uses of the word are metaphorical. For example, the citation to Maturana.<br>
<br>
Information, in my opinion, can be defined content-free (a la Shannon, etc.) and then be provided with meaning in (scholarly) discourses. I consider physics as one among other scholarly discourses. Specific about physics is perhaps the universalistic character of the knowledge claims. For example: “Frieden's points apply to quantum physics<br>
as well as classical physics.“ So what? This seems to me a debate within physics without much relevance for non-physicists (e.g., economists or linguists).<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Loet<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>__<br>
Loet Leydesdorff<br>
Professor, University of Amsterdam<br>
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)<br>
<a href="mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net" target="_blank">loet@leydesdorff.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net" target="_blank">loet@leydesdorff.net</a>> ; <a href="http://www.leydesdorff.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leydesdorff.net/</a><br>
Associate Faculty, SPRU, <<a href="http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/</a><wbr>> University of Sussex;<br>
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ.<<a href="http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.zju.edu.cn/en<wbr>glish/</a>>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <<a href="http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/br<wbr>ief_en.html</a>> Beijing;<br>
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck<<a href="http://www.bbk.ac.uk/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.bbk.ac.uk/</a><wbr>>, University of London;<br>
<a href="http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://scholar.google.com/cita<wbr>tions?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en</a><br>
<br>
From: Alex Hankey [mailto:<a href="mailto:alexhankey@gmail.com" target="_blank">alexhankey@gmail.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 8:07 PM<br>
To: Loet Leydesdorff; FIS Webinar<br>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?<br>
<br>
Dear Loet and Fis Colleagues,<br>
<br>
Are you aware of Roy Frieden's<br>
'Physics from Fisher Information'.<br>
His book was published in the 1990s.<br>
I consider it a very powerful statement.<br>
<br>
Ultimately everything we can detect at<br>
both macroscopic and microscopic levels<br>
depends on information production from<br>
a quantum level that forms Fisher Information.<br>
<br>
Frieden's points apply to quantum physics<br>
as well as classical physics.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Alex Hankey<br>
<br>
<br>
On 12 November 2016 at 18:56, Loet Leydesdorff <<a href="mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net" target="_blank">loet@leydesdorff.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net" target="_blank">l<wbr>oet@leydesdorff.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
Dear Marcus,<br>
<br>
When considering things in terms of "functional significance" one must confront the need to address "meaning" in terms of both the living and the physical . . . and their necessarily entangled nature.<br>
<br>
“Meaning” is first a linguistic construct; its construction requires interhuman communication. However, its use in terms of the living and/or the physical is metaphorical. Instead of a discourse, one can this consider (with Maturana) as a “second-order consensual domain” that functions AS a semantic domain without being one; Maturana (1978, p. 50):<br>
<br>
“In still other words, if an organism is observed in its operation within a second-order consensual domain, it appears to the observer as if its nervous system interacted with internal representations of the circumstances of its interactions, and as if the changes of state of the organism were determined by the semantic value of these representations. Yet all that takes place in the operation of the nervous system is the structure-determined dynamics of changing relations of relative neuronal activity proper to a closed neuronal network.”<br>
<br>
Failing to "make that connection" simply leaves one with an explanatory gap. And then, once connected, a further link to "space-time" is also easily located . . .<br>
<br>
Yes, indeed: limiting the discussion to the metaphors instead of going to the phore (that is, language and codification in language) leaves one with an explanatory gap. Quantum physics, for example, is a highly specialized language in which “mass” and “information” are provided with meanings different from classical physics.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Loet<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fi<wbr>s@listas.unizar.es</a>><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)<br>
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,<br>
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle<br>
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India<br>
Mobile (Intn'l): <a href="tel:%2B44%207710%20534195" value="+447710534195" target="_blank">+44 7710 534195</a><br>
Mobile (India) <a href="tel:%2B91%20900%20800%208789" value="+919008008789" target="_blank">+91 900 800 8789</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>______________________________<br>
<br>
2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy<<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.scienced<wbr>irect.com/science/journal/<wbr>00796107/119/3</a>><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a> <br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>