<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV><FONT size=4>Dear Mark and FIS Colleagues,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>First of all. I support the idea of Mark to write a paper and
to publish it in IJ ITA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It will be nice to continue our common work this
way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>At the second place, I want to point that till now the
discussion on </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT size=4><B>Is information physical?</B><BR>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'><FONT
size=4 face=Calibri>was more-less chaotic – we had no thesis and antithesis to
discuss and to come to some conclusions.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>I think now, the Mark’s letter may be used as the
needed thesis.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>What about the ant-thesis? Well, I will try to
write something below.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>For me, physical, structural and mental are
one and the same.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Mental means physical reflections and physical
processes in the Infos consciousness. I.e. “physical” include
“mental”.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Structure (as I understand this concept) is
mental reflection of the relationships “between” and/or “in” real (physical)
entities as well as “between” and/or “in” mental (physical)
entities.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>I.e. “physical” include “mental” include
“structural”.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Finally, IF “information is physical,
structural and mental” THEN simply the “information is
physical”!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV><FONT size=4
face=Calibri>Friendly greetings</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri>Krassimir</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mburgin@math.ucla.edu
href="mailto:mburgin@math.ucla.edu">Burgin, Mark</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 17, 2018 5:20 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis@listas.unizar.es</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical
analysis</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
Dear FISers,<BR> It was an interesting discussion, in which many
highly intelligent and creative individuals participated expressing different
points of view. Many interesting ideas were suggested. As a conclusion to this
discussion, I would like to suggest a logical analysis of the problem based on
our intrinsic and often tacit assumptions.<BR><BR> To great extent,
our possibility to answer the question “Is information physical? “ depends on
our model of the world. Note that here physical means the nature of information
and not its substance, or more exactly, the substance of its carrier, which can
be physical, chemical biological or quantum. By the way, expression “quantum
information” is only the way of expressing that the carrier of information
belongs to the quantum level of nature. This is similar to the expressions
“mixed numbers” or “decimal numbers”, which are only forms or number
representations and not numbers themselves.<BR> <BR> If we assume
that there is only the physical world, we have, at first, to answer the question
“Does information exist? “ All FISers assume that information exists. Otherwise,
they would not participate in our discussions. However, some people think
differently (cf., for example, Furner, J. (2004) Information studies without
information).<BR><BR> Now assuming that information exists, we have
only one option, namely, to admit that information is physical because only
physical things exist.<BR> If we assume that there are two worlds -
information is physical, we have three options assuming that information
exists:<BR>- information is physical<BR>- information is mental<BR>- information
is both physical and mental <BR><BR>Finally, coming to the Existential
Triad of the World, which comprises three worlds - the physical world, the
mental world and the world of structures, we have seven options assuming that
information exists:<BR>- information is physical<BR>- information is mental<BR>-
information is structural <BR>- information is both physical and
mental <BR>- information is both physical and structural <BR>-
information is both structural and mental <BR>- information is physical,
structural and mental <BR> <BR>The solution suggested by the general
theory of information tries to avoid unnecessary multiplication of essences
suggesting that information (in a general sense) exists in all three worlds but
… in the physical world, it is called <B>energy</B>, in the mental world, it is
called <B>mental energy</B>, and in the world of structures, it is called
<B>information</B> (in the strict sense). This conclusion well correlates with
the suggestion of Mark Johnson that information is both physical and not
physical only the general theory of information makes this idea more exact and
testable.<BR> In addition, being in the world of structures,
information in the strict sense is represented in two other worlds by its
representations and carriers. Note that any representation of information is its
carrier but not each carrier of information is its representation. For instance,
an envelope with a letter is a carrier of information in this letter but it is
not its representation.<BR> Besides, it is possible to call all
three faces of information by the name energy - physical energy, mental energy
and structural energy.<BR> <BR> Finally, as many
interesting ideas were suggested in this discussion, may be Krassimir will
continue his excellent initiative combining the most interesting contributions
into a paper with the
title<BR>
<B>Is information physical?</B><BR> and publish it in his esteemed
Journal.<BR> <BR> Sincerely,<BR> Mark
Burgin<BR><BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix>On 5/11/2018 3:20 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid:CA+nf4CUW+VwxERX1Tmz3-duGgYVyx5J-mR04ptqk2C-DboNQ4w@mail.gmail.com
type="cite">
<DIV>Dear Arturo,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There were some reports in clinical psychology, about 30 years ago, that
relate to the question whether a machine can pretend to be a therapist. That
was the time as computers could newly be used in an interactive fashion, and
the Rogers techniques were a current discovery.</DIV>
<DIV>(Rogers developed a dialogue method where one does not address the
contents of what the patient says, but rather the emotional aspects of the
message, assumed to be at work in the patient.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>They then said, that in some cases it was indistinguishable, whether a
human or a machine provides the answer to a patient's elucidations. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Progress since then has surely made possible to create machines that are
indistinguishable in interaction to humans. Indeed, what is called "expert
systems ", are widely used in many fields. If the interaction is
rational, that is: formally equivalent to a logical discussion modi
Wittgenstein, the difference in: "who arrived at this answer, machinery or a
human", becomes irrelevant. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Artistry, intuition, creativity are presently seen as not possible to
translate into Wittgenstein sentences. Maybe the inner instincts are not yet
well understood. But!: there are some who are busily undermining the current
fundamentals of rational thinking. So there is hope that we shall live to
experience the ultimate disillusionment, namely that humans are a
combinatorial tautology. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Accordingly, may I respectfully express opposing views to what you state:
that machines and humans are of incompatible builds. There are hints that as
far as rational capabilities go, the same principles apply. There is a rest,
you say, which is not of this kind. The counter argument says that irrational
processes do not take place in organisms, therefore what you refer to belongs
to the main process, maybe like waste belongs to the organism's principle.
This view draws a picture of a functional biotope, in which the waste of one
kind of organism is raw material for a different kind. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Karl </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:tozziarturo@libero.it"
moz-do-not-send="true">tozziarturo@libero.it</A>> schrieb am Do., 10. Mai
2018 15:24:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px" dir=ltr>Dear Bruno, <BR>You state: <BR>"IF
indexical digital mechanism is correct in the cognitive science,<BR>THEN
“physical” has to be defined entirely in arithmetical term, i.e. “physical”
becomes a mathematical notion.<BR>...Indexical digital mechanism is the
hypothesis that there is a level of description of the brain/body such that
I would survive, or “not feel any change” if my brain/body is replaced by a
digital machine emulating the brain/body at that level of description".</P>
<P dir=ltr>The problem of your account is the following:<BR>You say "IF" and
"indexical digital mechanism is the HYPOTHESIS".<BR>Therefore, you are
talking of an HYPOTHESIS: it is not empirically tested and it is not
empirically testable. You are starting with a sort of postulate: I,
and other people, do not agree with it. The current neuroscience does
not state that our brain/body is (or can be replaced by) a digital
machine.<BR>In other words, your "IF" stands for something that possibly
does not exist in our real world. Here your entire building falls
down. <BR></P>
<DIV id=m_1048372877214317129mail-app-auto-default-signature>
<P dir=ltr>--<BR>Inviato da Libero Mail per Android</P></DIV>giovedì, 10
maggio 2018, 02:46PM +02:00 da Bruno Marchal <A
href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be" rel=noreferrer target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true"><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:marchal@ulb.ac.be">marchal@ulb.ac.be</A></A>:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=m_1048372877214317129mail-app-auto-quote
style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #85af31 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"
cite=http://15259565360000035165>
<DIV
class="m_1048372877214317129js-helper
m_1048372877214317129js-readmsg-msg">
<DIV>
<DIV id=m_1048372877214317129style_15259565360000035165_BODY>
<DIV class=m_1048372877214317129class_1525973693>
<DIV>(This mail has been sent previously , but without success. I resend
it, with minor changes). Problems due to different accounts. It was my
first comment to Mark Burgin new thread “Is information physical?”.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>Dear Mark, Dear Colleagues,
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Apology for not answering the mails in the chronological orders, as
my new computer classifies them in some mysterious way!</DIV>
<DIV>This is my first post of the week. I might answer comment, if any, at
the end of the week.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On 25 Apr 2018, at 03:47, Burgin, Mark <<A
href="mailto:mburgin@math.ucla.edu"
rel=" noopener noreferrer noreferrer" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">mburgin@math.ucla.edu</A>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Dear Colleagues,</P>
<P style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">I would like to suggest
the new topic for discussion</P>
<P
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">
Is information physical?<BR></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That is an important topic indeed, very close to what I am working
on. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My result here is that </DIV>
<DIV><B><U><BR></U></B></DIV>
<DIV><B><U>IF</U></B> indexical digital mechanism is correct in the
cognitive science, </DIV>
<DIV><B><U><BR></U></B></DIV>
<DIV><B><U>THEN</U></B> “physical” has to be defined entirely in
arithmetical term, i.e. “physical” becomes a mathematical notion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The proof is constructive. It shows exactly how to derive physics
from Arithmetic (the reality, not the theory. I use “reality” instead of
“model" (logician’s term, because physicists use “model" for
“theory").</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Indexical digital mechanism is the hypothesis that there is a level
of description of the brain/body such that I would survive, or “not feel
any change” if my brain/body is replaced by a digital machine emulating
the brain/body at that level of description.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Not only information is not physical, but matter, time, space, and
all physical objects become part of the universal machine phenomenology.
Physics is reduced to arithmetic, or, equivalently, to any Turing-complete
machinery. Amazingly Arithmetic (even the tiny semi-computable part of
arithmetic) is Turing complete (Turing Universal).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The basic idea is that:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1) no universal machine can distinguish if she is executed by an
arithmetical reality or by a physical reality. And,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2) all universal machines are executed in arithmetic, and they are
necessarily undetermined on the set of of all its continuations emulated
in arithmetic. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That reduces physics to a statistics on all computations relative to
my actual state, and see from some first person points of view (something
I can describe more precisely in some future post perhaps).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Put in that way, the proof is not constructive, as, if we are
machine, we cannot know which machine we are. But Gödel’s incompleteness
can be used to recover this constructively for a simpler machine than us,
like Peano arithmetic. This way of proceeding enforces the distinction
between first and third person views (and six others!).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have derived already many feature of quantum mechanics from this
(including the possibility of quantum computer) a long time ago. I
was about sure this would refute Mechanism, until I learned about quantum
mechanics, which verifies all the most startling predictions of Indexical
Mechanism, unless we add the controversial wave collapse reduction
principle.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The curious “many-worlds” becomes the obvious (in arithmetic) many
computations (up to some equivalence quotient). The weird indeterminacy
becomes the simpler amoeba like duplication. The non-cloning of matter
becomes obvious: as any piece of matter is the result of the first person
indeterminacy (the first person view of the amoeba undergoing a
duplication, …) on infinitely many computations. This entails also that
neither matter appearance nor consciousness are Turing emulable per se, as
the whole arithmetical reality—which is a highly non computable notion as
we know since Gödel—plays a key role. Note this makes Digital Physics
leaning to inconsistency, as it implies indexical computationalism which
implies the negation of Digital Physics (unless my “body” is the entire
physical universe, which I rather doubt).</DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">My opinion is presented
below:<BR></P>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN><SPAN>
</SPAN>Why some people erroneously think that information is
physical</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN><SPAN>
</SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN><SPAN>
</SPAN>The main reason to think that information is physical is the
strong belief of many people, especially, scientists that there is only
physical reality, which is studied by science. At the same time, people
encounter something that they call information.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN><SPAN>
</SPAN>When people receive a letter, they comprehend that it is
information because with the letter they receive information. The letter
is physical, i.e., a physical object. As a result, people start thinking
that information is physical. When people receive an e-mail, they
comprehend that it is information because with the e-mail they receive
information. The e-mail comes to the computer in the form of
electromagnetic waves, which are physical. As a result, people start
thinking even more that information is physical.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN><SPAN>
</SPAN>However, letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all physical
objects are only carriers or containers of information.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN><SPAN>
</SPAN>To understand this better, let us consider a textbook. Is
possible to say that this book is knowledge? Any reasonable person will
tell that the textbook contains knowledge but is not knowledge itself.
In the same way, the textbook contains information but is not
information itself. The same is true for letters, e-mails,
electromagnetic waves and other physical objects because all of them
only contain information but are not information. For instance, as we
know, different letters can contain the same information. Even if we
make an identical copy of a letter or any other text, then the letter
and its copy will be different physical objects (physical things) but
they will contain the same information.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN><SPAN>
</SPAN>Information belongs to a different (non-physical) world of
knowledge, data and similar essences. In spite of this, information can
act on physical objects (physical bodies) and this action also misleads
people who think that information is
physical.</SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>OK. The reason is that we can hardly imagine how immaterial or non
physical objects can alter the physical realm. It is the usual problem
faced by dualist ontologies. With Indexical computationalism we recover
many dualities, but they belong to the phenomenologies.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-FAMILY: consolas; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><SPAN><SPAN>
</SPAN>One more misleading property of information is that people can
measure it. This brings an erroneous assumption that it is possible to
measure only physical essences. Naturally, this brings people to the
erroneous conclusion that information is physical. However, measuring
information is essentially different than measuring physical quantities,
i.e., weight. There are no “scales” that measure information. Only human
intellect can do this.</SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>OK. I think all intellect can do that, not just he human one.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, the reason why people believe in the physical is always a form
of the “knocking table” argument. They knocks on the table and say “you
will not tell me that this table is unreal”.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have got so many people giving me that argument, that I have made
dreams in which I made that argument, or even where I was convinced by
that argument … until I wake up.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When we do metaphysics with the scientific method, this “dream
argument” illustrates that seeing, measuring, … cannot prove anything
ontological. A subjective experience proves only the phenomenological
existence of consciousness, and nothing more. It shows that although there
are plenty of strong evidences for a material reality, there are no
evidences (yet) for a primitive or primary matter (and that is why, I
think, Aristotle assumes it quasi explicitly, against Plato, and plausibly
against Pythagorus).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mechanism forces a coming back to Plato, where the worlds of ideas is
the world of programs, or information, or even just numbers, since very
elementary arithmetic (PA without induction, + the predecessor axiom) is
already Turing complete (it contains what I have named a Universal
Dovetailer: a program which generates *and* executes all programs).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So I agree with you: information is not physical. I claim that if we
assume Mechanism (Indexical computationalism) matter itself is also not
*primarily* physical: it is all in the “head of the universal
machine/number” (so to speak).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And this provides a test for primary matter: it is enough to find if
there is a discrepancy between the physics that we infer from the
observation, and the physics that we extract from “the head” of the
machine. This took me more than 30 years of work, but the results obtained
up to now is that there is no discrepancies. I have compared the quantum
logic imposed by incompleteness (formally) on the semi-computable (partial
recursive, sigma_1) propositions, with most quantum logics given by
physicists, and it fits rather well.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bruno</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR><A href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" rel=noreferrer target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR><A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel=noreferrer
target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" rel=noreferrer
target=_blank moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR><A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET class=mimeAttachmentHeader></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE wrap="">_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>