Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your intersting comment:
throw interesting new light on the several fascinating topics
> around
> the necessarily \"social\" construction of human knowledge...
In this way we turn back to the concluding topic of our discussion (that
might be a starting point of a new discussion) -- about <<reality of
information laws>>. In my picture of reality <<information reality>> is
not less real than <<material reality>>. You wrote about
social construction of human knowledge... In my book <<transformers of
information>> are not less objective than electrons or photons. Roughly
speaking this imply that <<transformers of information>> with
completely different physical realization would generate the same social
structure of science, just because the objectivity of information laws.
But, as I wrote, this idscussion induces deep philosophic questions...
All the best, Andrei
> Dear Andrei and colleagues,
>
> Thanks a lot for your re-capping of the session. It is a very
> thoughtful
> perspective on information from the quantum side. My only comments
> would
> relate to your (partial) identification of models, reality, and
> mathematics. It sounds too strong to my hears. We have cut science
> from its
> human origins, and then we resort to very curious reification myths.
> How
> does the practice of science relate to our human nature? The
> tentative new
> branch of \"neuromathematics\" (it has already surfaced in past
> discussions)
> could throw interesting new light on the several fascinating topics
> around
> the necessarily \"social\" construction of human knowledge...
>
> I join your concerns when you state:
>
> >I am trying to sell the idea that the whole quantum enterprise is
> about
> >simplification of description of extremely complex physical
> phenomena.
> >I developed models in that the quantum probabilistic model appears
> as a
> >projection of more complex classical statistical model.
> >Then I proceed: Wau! In such a case it seems that quantum
> probability
> >theory and quantum information could be used everywhere where we
> could
> >not provide the complete description of phenomena and we just try
> to
> >create a simplified representation in complex Hilbert space.
> >So one can apply quantum information theory everywhere, from
> financial
> >mathematics to genetics.
>
> Months ago, when discussing on biomolecular networks, I argued that
> rather
> than a classical \"state\" the central info construct of the
living
> cell
> should be the \"cycle\", then implying the advancement of a
\"phase\"
> (recapitulating and somehow making continuous the classical
> biomolecular
> views of Start, Gap1, Mitosis, Gap2 as discrete phases of the cell
> cycle)
> maintaining at the same time a continuous adaptation of the inner
> molecular
> population to the environmental demands. These biological sentences
> may
> sound very different from quantum statements, but I do not think so.
> My
> opinion is that the the living cell and other genuine
\"informational\"
>
> entities share a fundamental \"adaptability\" problem, having
to fit
> with
> with limited processing resources to an open ended environment, and
> then
> having to tune their production-degradation engines to cope with
> both
> their own phase in the cycle and their external happenstance. Michael
>
> Conrad produced great stuff on formal quantum-inspired approaches to
>
> ecological adaptability (see Kevin Kirby in this list too). And it
> could be
> done for aspects of nervous systems and economic life too...
> Unfortunately
> a Gordian knot of themes appears: sensibility, robustness,
> networking,
> fitness-value-meaning, adaptability, evolvability (to mention but a
> few).
> The future will tell whether we are able to trascend formal analogies
>
> between realms and achieve a new, more catholic approach to
> information
> --none of the current approaches has achieved a breakthrough yet, so
> the
> need for our exchange of views!
>
> I also think that recent developments in string theory are a good
> help
> --and quite inspiring-- for our problems. See Leonard Suskind, with
> his
> \"Landscape\" approach (The Cosmic Landscape, 2005). Breaking
the
> continuous
> at the Planck scale means also a new hint on \"where\" we can
situate
> fundamental laws of nature \"physically\" --a question not
responded
> yet in
> the discussion, for my taste.
>
> Thanking your inspiring comments,
>
> Pedro
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Sep 14 17:32:15 2006
