further themes

Dear colleagues,

I was preparing a posting when Andrei's message has arrived. I very much
like his summary, and am joining Karl and him along that path. My only
additional suggestion is the need for a parallel track of info research on
empirical grounds (firms, brains, cells...). Having said that I continue
with a few further themes that I would like to hear about, not necessarily
now, maybe in future discussions.

1. ENTERING THE OBSERVER. In most branches of science the observer is left
out the picture (eg, mechanics, Shanon's communication theor., economics)
notwithstanding the curious, and very different, idealized properties
he/she may be endowed. But in info science the observer intrudes into the
picture quite crudely (e.g., meaning)... and so the mess. My contention is
that if he/she enters with the usual, idealized properties, it means the
end of the interesting business �the different reductionist approaches to
info finally win the day. But if the observer is admitted within sort of a
'limited prehension' framework (superseding the 'principle of rationality'
so dear for physicists--Anderson, Gell-Mann), a few curious consequences
may follow. I have briefly explored this issue regarding the info dynamics
of the sciences and the emergence of interdisciplinary overlappings,
somehow it becomes an expansion on what is contemporarily called in AI & AL
'swarm intelligence', or a new version of Ortega y Gasset's
perspectivism... I was reminded the theme by some recent comments (Gyuri
and Juan) about info and the limitations of the observer in physics itself,
and by Koichiro's comments on book-keeping. But apart from us, limited
human observers, at least another couple of paradigmatic observers have to
enter into the info science picture: cells and firms... Economist
Schumpeter 'creative destruction' in economic systems becomes quite an
interesting piece of reflection about the structural peculiarities inherent
in these informational observers.

THE STATUS OF NATURAL LAW. One of the problems I have for a meaningful link
of my own bio-inspired info views with physics (and with realism), derive
from the 'nature' of natural law. I bluntly summarize: the structural
state-info interacts with the boundary conditions via e.g. differential
equations that interconnect the mutual 'force' parameters (mass for
gravitation and inertia, electric charge, etc.). At least we have particles
and waves to visualize the existentiality of the state, but close to
nothing about the Law �it is just a naked mathematical expression, floating
everywhere in emptiness. Thus, where could we situate the set of natural
laws, its realistic 'seat' into space�time? And how could we depict its
mechanistic or existential 'texture' in relation with the vividness of the
state info and the force concept (undoubtedly, crucial for the popular
explanatory appeal of mechanics)? The way natural Law is handled by
realists implies for me a dualistic-Platonic scheme... The 'it from bit'
views could suggest, at least, a partial 'genomic' parallel with the
structural, generative & communicational info flavors I distinguish for
the bio, neuro and economic entities 'always in the making'. (I would
appreciate responses from physicists, but not exactly re-stating my simple
mechanical picture into quantum mechanics or quantum field terms)

MOLECULAR RECOGNITION (addressed to Shu-Kun and Andrei): So many info
processes in bio & neuro realms are depending on molecular items
'recognizing' with almost complete specificity the forms and properties of
other molecules within an exquisitely-gauged affinity: enzymes, receptors,
channels, transcription factors, antibodies, signaling complexes,
ribosomes, proteasomes... I would further say that molecular recognition is
but the whole 'bread and butter' of life. However there is very few
theoretical discussion, at least in biology, on the basis of this crucial
property underlying biomolecular specificity and affinity. Does the
molecular recognition of motifs depend on classical effects (coulomb,
electroweak forces?); or do we need to go to the quantum? My superficial
knowledge on the topic says that, for instance 'molecular machines'
(Schneider) basically goes for the classic (and Shannonian), while the
non-demolition measurement approach (Andrei) points to the quantum.
Besides, Shu-Kun applies, in relation with the germane molecular-similarity
theme, quite an intriguing array of molecular statistical concepts �it is
in this context where the 'L' concept has to be meaningfully situated?

Bye fisers, have a good weekend.

Pedro

PS. Thanks to those who have welcome the two postings per week
self-discipline. It belongs to our chairs to announce the rule as
compulsory when needed. Technically, CPD (a funny new acronym: Compulsive
Posting Disorder) creates some troubles in the management of our list.
=========================================
Pedro C. Mariju�n
Fundaci�n CIRCE
CPS Univ. Zaragoza, 50018 Zaragoza, Spain
TEL. (34) 976 762036-761863, FAX (34) 976 732078
email: marijuan@posta.unizar.es
=========================================
Received on Fri May 24 10:49:06 2002