Re: Free-will

["James N Rose" <***>]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:27:20 -0500, Tim Gwinn <***> wrote:

>> [Jamie]
>> The first thing we have to do is throw out and rebuild extant notions
>> about 'information'.   The model for doing this comes from energy
>> mechanics: transduction, the activity of energy moving through
>> different forms or incarnations and being retrievable.  Eg, audible voice,
>> to vibrating molecules in a receiver, to electrical impulse(s), then
>> to vibrating molecules in conductor, back to audible air vibrations
>> as sound.  Where the 'message content' is "deshaped" and
>> retrievably "reshaped".
>
>Ok.
>
>> Through any such transforms, an 'intrinsic' information remains
>> even through all the changes.
>
>Ok.
>
>> With this in our kitbag, we turn to the Calculus .. integration
>> and differentiation.  By doing these functions we generate
>> different numerical groups - different 'information's as it were.
>> For example, a linear slope is not a curve is not the area
>> under a curve and so on.  Different information.  But is it?
>
>Assuming we are talking about continuous functions and exact differentials,
>differentiating and integrating would seem to neither add nor remove
>information.

It does and it doesn't.  as discussed further along.

>> In the first instance of 'transform' some kind of information
>> stays invariant even through the changes.  So why can't the
>> same be reasonably happening in the transforms of the
>> Calculus, where you can move through different transformations
>> and yet come back and retrieve the original 'extrinsic'
>> information form.
>
>Ok. You are talking about certain kinds of mathematical transformations
>which are reversible.

Yes.  Where reversible=retrievable=reconstitutable


>> What starts taking precedence is not the mappings
>> between the considered 'extrinsic' informations, but the
>> consistently applicable operators that the different contents,
>> forms or extents are subject to.
>
>What are these "operators"?

Rules of information transformation/transduction.  Performance instructions,
as it were.

>> That's sort of the Short Course, Tim, for looking toward
>> the 'relations' between states and systems rather than
>> their comparative completeness.


>My primary question is twofold:
>1) what is the material basis (or, the material counterparts) of this
>"information" and "operators"?
>2) do we have any measurable phenomena in the material world that is unique
>evidence of this view? (that is, can science study it?)

I think there is, but it takes evaluating 'form as function', in a most
fundamental way. Which methodology isn't known or practiced today/yet.

My singular example (generic depiction) is of stereo-configurations
of some metabolic molecule.  Say that a protein will generate both
left chiral and right chiral configurations and throw them in to some
metabolic soup.  One twist form meshes with companion molecules
and can engage in electron and atom transfers and exchanges.  The
other doesn't, the electromagnetic fields don't lock and key with
those metabolic-loop components.  The two physical molecule forms
effectively become "instructions", one being "yes, do the next step"
the other being "no, stop the production line right here".


But your question also goes to the underlying principles, and that
is something I'm actively working on, to identify specific transforms
of information, one set of dimensions into another.

I've tentatively identified one translation equation:  the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle.  I've decomposed it into a transform constant
and a trnasformation rule, which intercodes linear orthogonal information
with polar/radial information.  Essentially, the HUP cross translates
2 one-dimensional terms with 1 two-dimensional term, with the
translation constant being planck's constant over pi squared.

I think this last term is the porper form for that universal constant,
rather than just 'h'.

>Regards,
>Tim

Jamie
11/12/03