<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Joseph, Bob, and Otto --and All,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the responses. First to Joseph and Bob: my
interpretation of Conrad's is not literal, at least at the time
being, as I think that the information themes are changing very
fast in the quantum --recent interpretations of entanglement and
black holes by the group IT FROM QUBIT say extremely interesting
"generative" things about space-time-info and cosmology. See Juan
Maldacena (Sci. Am. Nov. 2016) and Clara Moskowitz (Sci.Am. Jan.
2017). The way I take Conrad's is as a call to a new way of
thinking on physical information, biologically inspired, rather
than the common opposite direction. And also I extend it to
reconsider the nature of physical reality and of "laws of nature"
themselves--the distributed "genomes" of this cosmos. Our
recurrent discussions on what's info cannot consolidate until we
adumbrate a good portion of such new way of thinking--I am not
criticizing them, but asking for augmented doses of tolerance and
patience. Let me be a little provocative: none of us has walked
yet the extra mile(s) needed. We have to recognize that we are far
from the new info paradigm and must keep circling around Jericho
walls...<br>
<br>
Unless until the little thing that Otto is warning knocks in our
doors. I cannot respond to the symmetry difference and to the
probability arguments--the main question to debate indeed. Sure
that the previous scientific generation would have entered
nonchalantly to this debate. But not the business-politics
oriented figures of today (social networks panic). Well, at least
I can comment on the last paragraphs on the framework surrounding
the frustrated discussion. The global health and adaptability of
the scientific enterprise seem to be in jeopardy. Coincidentally,
we are lead to remind Conrad's tradeoff between computation and
adaptability/evolvability? As computing has enormously increased
its efficiency and social reach, the social adaptability via new
thought and new research is decreasing and surrounding itself in a
tunnel vision. See for instance what are the coming flagship
programs in the EUnion after the Human Brain Project: "Future of
[digital] Healthcare" and "Robot Companions for Citizens." Yeah, a
lot of people --elderly-- will be alone: let's make nice robots
for them. Even they will learn to smile and laugh, and we will
create bonds with them as the Szilamandee paper from Otto
says--and also my own research on laughter (see link below).
Techno-pseudo-happiness for everybody... Yes, fresh new views from
social science and humanities would have plenty to say.<br>
<br>
Best wishes--Pedro<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026">http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/K-02-2016-0026</a><br>
<font size="+2"><br>
</font><br>
El 21/01/2017 a las 9:32, Joseph Brenner escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAD726C5CC8E4B0FA0C8C8B3529E9221@PCdeJoseph"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.19567" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Dear Pedro and All,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Thanks to Pedro again for this
thought-provoking theme. We are all in states of greater or
lesser ignorance regarding it!</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Here is just, again, a thought
about your quote of Conrad: <font face="Times New Roman">"<em>when
we look at a biological system we</em> are looking at the
face of the underlying <em>physics of the universe</em>."</font> </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">I.M.H.O., this statement is true
but only partially so. There are non-thermodynamic parts of
the underlying physics of the universe that are not visible at
the biological level of reality, and a coupling between them
remains to be demonstrated. Quantum superposition and
self-duality have analogies in macroscopic physics, but
quantum non-locality and sub-quantum fluctuations do not.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Of course, if you allow slightly
altered laws of nature, many things may be possible as Smolin
suggests. However, I suggest that the domain of interaction
between actual and potential states in our everyday 'grown-up'
world also has things to tell us, <em>e.g.</em>, about
information, that can be looked at more easily.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Best wishes,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Joseph</font> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<div style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" title="pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es"
href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">Pedro C. Marijuan</a>
</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="fis@listas.unizar.es"
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">'fis'</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 20, 2017 1:58 PM</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Fis] A Curious Story</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1">Dear Otto and
colleagues,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the curious story and sorry that my absorption in
low level administrative themes has knocked me down-down
during these weeks. But not being a physicist, and even not a
third rate aficionado, I can contribute very little to the
exchanges. At least I will try to remark a couple of lateral
aspects:<br>
<br>
First, when I heard about this story, I was amazed how
hysterical the web records were. On the one side, the tabloid
style comments and the malicious personal attacks, and on the
other side the offended, irritated scientists. That your
opinion deserved a "Charge of the Nobel Brigade" with all
those big names hurried together to smitten any possible
doubt, was sort of humorous. Wasn't <span class="spell">from
Horace that saying of "vociferant montes et parturient
ridiculus mus"? My impression is that all those hyperactive
new media have deteriorated the exchange and maturation of
scientific opinion. The fate of your position on those
hypothetic risks was </span></font><font size="-1"><span
class="spell">irrationally </span></font><font size="-1"><span
class="spell">discounted.<br>
<br>
And about the theme itself, I join one of the initial
comments on the energy of singular cosmic rays,
probabilistically having to cause such microscopic
destructive black holes in The Moon and somewhere else. The
wide swaths of the cosmos we watch today do not show sudden
instances of planet or star disappearance. As many
thousands and millions of those are well followed nowadays
without reports of sudden destruction: can this "stable"
cosmos be an extra argument in the discussion? Let me
improvise some further views: Black holes relate "quite a
bit" to information matters. The controversy between
Hawking, Penrose, etc. about the fate of the quantum
information engulfed seemingly emitted is not the end of the
story I think. If everything should make functional sense in
an integrated "organismic" cosmos, the functionality of
black holes is really enigmatic. They just become a
reservoir of dark matter for gravity? In this point our
common friend Michael Conrad (1996) put</span></font><span
class="st"><font size="-1"> "<em>when we look at a biological
system we</em> are looking at the face of the underlying <em>physics
of the universe</em>." Thereupon, I have always thought
about the similarity between cellular proteasomes (protein
destructing machines) and the cosmic (destructive) black
holes. But the former RECYCLE and emit single amino acid
components for reuse, and then would the latter provide only
residual gravity? Lee Smolin said something bold: they
recycle too, and produce "baby universes" with slightly
altered laws of nature. Our planet final blimps would have
some more fun incorporated (with the big IF, of course)... <br>
<br>
Best wishes<br>
<br>
--Pedro<br>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
</span> lEl 11/01/2017 a las 11:33, Otto E. Rossler escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:758571736.964009.1484130786180@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="FONT-SIZE: 16px; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY:
HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida
Grande, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483728784718_258451"><span>I like
this response from Lou</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
------------------------------------------------- </pre>
</body>
</html>