Re: disconnected points

Dear Edwina and members of the FIS discussion,
unfortunatly, for professional reasons i was unable to participate more actively in the interesting discussion. but these words of edwina really motivated me to come back.
yes, i agree absolutely with edwina: i am happy to read these words: we cannot limit our idea of evolution (and so far information processing) starting only with the living cell.
we know actually that chemical elements and consequently all the infinite number of different structures of the universe are products of a long process of evolution, where information processing plays such an important role as energy and mass.
what is the really interesting and outstanding point about the whole discussion about information is exactly to construct the theoretical and conceptual bridge between organic and inorganic evolution processes.

Norbert Fenzl
Director of the Institute for Environment
Federal University of Par�
Bel�m, Par�, Brazil
www.amazonia21.org

-----Mensagem Original-----
De: "Edwina Taborsky" <taborsky@primus.ca>
Para: "Multiple recipients of list FIS" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Enviada em: segunda-feira, 17 de dezembro de 2001 13:51
Assunto: disconnected points

> In reply to Pedro's post of today, and the suggestion that we limit
> our examination of information processes by considering the living
> cell as 'the zero system' to start the analysis, my perspective of
> information processes actually seeks to include physics. I include
> physical processes within information and consider it a grave error to
> set up physical processes as closed 'Laws' rather than evolving
> Rules. That is, to set up an analysis of reality as operating within a
> dyadic frame that has physical processes as inviolate Laws on one
> side, and evolutionary processes on the other side, is to me, an
> error.
Are physical processes immune to evolution? Do they exist 'per
> se', by themselves, or do they work within the biological to 'evolve'
> in a type of secondary form? Do we really know? My concern is that if
> we view physics as essentially formal, because its actions add nothing
> to the processes of biology, then, I think we may mislead ourselves. I
> don't think that physics is purely formal, ie, Lawful.
>
> As Pedro says, we may have to revise the central tenets of physics and
> we can't do this by beginning only with the living cell. That, in a
> sense, continues the 'imperialism of physics' of which Pedro speaks,
> for we, by ignoring its nature, accept that nature as as an area
> closed to further research.
However, in physics itself, researchers
> are finding that the processes which were previously thought of as
> inviolate Laws are not that fixed. I am most certainly not proposing
> that we define the processes of physics as 'biological', just as we
> don't define the processes of biology as 'physical'. However, physical
> processes are a vital component of the biological; they provide its
> capacity for expansion (within the processes of quantum mechanics) as
> well as its capacity for closure (within the processes of classical
> mechanics) and we should explore these physical processes and see how
> the biological and the social realms have transformed these 'Laws'
> into 'Rules' which can be entangled to develop more complex
> interactional capacities.
>
>
>
>
> Edwina Taborsky
> 39 Jarvis St. #318
> Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
> (416) 361.0898
>
>
>
Received on Mon Dec 17 17:34:27 2001