ANPA 41 Web Conference 2

17:17:38 From Cosmic Sojourner : Planets are number in magic squares.

17:19:10 From Enrico Mazzi : can we free some bandwidth by shutting down our videos?

17:19:39 From Mark Johnson : Is it a problem?

17:20:31 From Enrico Mazzi : today it is for the first time, maybe it¡¯s just my internet

17:20:54 From Mark Johnson : I’ll turn mine off

17:22:06 From Graham : no problem my end but I’m on a fast connection

17:30:10 From Cosmic Sojourner : Love cannot be fully comprehended without the geometric form of the Chestahedron as the heart center of the Platonic solids, as earth anagram.

17:30:41 From Louis H Kauffman : Francoise Chatelin

17:31:22 From Lauri Love : Qualitative Computing A Computational Journey into Nonlinearity https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/7904

17:34:03 From Mark Johnson : wonderful! Thank you!

17:38:31 From Louis H Kauffman : Spencer Brown: Contraction of reference leads to expansion of awareness; expansion of reference leads to contraction of awareness.

17:38:58 From Graham : ISB: “Whatever you think it’s more than that ¡¦ “

17:39:26 From johntorday : Krishnamurti rails agains ¡®ego¡¯ getting in the way of Consciousness, for example¡¦¡¦so ego ¡®kills¡¯ Consciousness

17:42:21 From Cosmic Sojourner : Perhaps ego is consciousness, defined by the seven of astrology, and awareness is the incarnate spirit within, undefinable. One never steps in the same river twice.

17:43:40 From johntorday : In Bohmian terms, I think ego = Explicate, subjective, whereas consciousness = Consciousness of Cosmos

17:45:08 From Mark Johnson : yes – that fits with saying that the explicate doesn’t exist until the cell exists.

17:45:17 From Cosmic Sojourner : Perhaps awareness then is the awareness the cosmos is within?

17:46:10 From Lauri Love : Who, if I cried out, would hear me among the angels’ hierarchies? and even if one of them pressed me against his heart: I would be consumed in that overwhelming existence. For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we still are just able to endure, and we are so awed because it serenely disdains to annihilate us. Every angel is terrifying.¡±

17:46:34 From Lauri Love : ¡ª Rainer Maria Rilke, Duino Elegies

17:47:17 From Louis H Kauffman : Conciousness, as a word, slides in the meaning we give it from simple awareness to detailed articulations. For example some traditions say ¡°Knowledge is structured in consciousness.¡± and it is a matter of viewpoint how that knowledge is held.

17:47:38 From johntorday : Yes, because that¡¯s actually how embryology as the way we are ¡®constructed¡¯ works, through endogenization of physical factors that have posed existential threats, that iterative process being what we think of as the evolution of physiology¡¦..in the aggregate, our physiology as cell-cell communication emulates consciousness as the personal Consciousness of the Cosmos¡¦.i.e. both physiology and the Cosmos operate based on the same Laws of Nature

17:49:30 From Cosmic Sojourner : Consciousness is the circle, in first principle the point of the matter.

17:49:57 From Lauri Love : consciousness can be the egoic/self-other-distinguishing, mundane, point-focussed, causality-imputing and survival/comfort-orientated (ergotropic) modality, or it can be in transcendence of some or all of these restrictions, which might be what is being counterposed as awareness, up to the point of cosmic consciousness of identity-transparency (non-dual participation mystique)

17:50:32 From Lauri Love : (indeed communion)

17:53:09 From Lauri Love : i heard it once speculated that consciouness has an informational bottleneck (limited ‘baud-rate’), which would accord with it being restricted usually to things which require immediate attention in reponse to circumstance

17:53:22 From johntorday : Transcendence is the key, because that cross-cuts space-time, factoring out the material, leaving the energy flow from the Cosmologic Consciousness to our consciousness as a continuum, mediated by our cellular physiology. It is in this way of understanding that the cell and the atom are both based on Quantum Mechanics as deterministic and probabilistic

17:54:25 From Lauri Love : is this quantum -> atom -> cellular -> organic/organismic integration idea articulated anywhere i can access?

17:55:26 From johntorday : ¡¦.consciousness is constrained by independent calcium fluxes which can attain a wave collapse in what Maslow refers to as a Peak Experience, for example, i.e. where those independent calcium flows coalesce as one unified flow of calcium, emulating the sectoral flow of the Cosmos

17:55:58 From johntorday : Vectoral Flow

17:56:05 From Lauri Love : reminded now of Dino’s reference yesterday to Hestenes reading Clifford on the varieties of interpretation of number – something i am interested in wrt to numbers having shapes and comopsites bearing information about areas despite being conventually flattened into linear extent

17:56:20 From Cosmic Sojourner : In embryology, consider the primacy of the heart and blood cell in in development of life. The heart is primary to the mind development.

17:57:15 From johntorday : The heart may be ¡®primary¡¯ because in my opinion it references the pulsatility fo life

17:57:19 From Lauri Love : hmm, GABA / glutamate neurotransmission affecting chemicals often work through calcium channel modulation

17:57:38 From Richard : Emotions shape the Universe

17:58:02 From Lauri Love : (NMDA rather sorry)

17:58:33 From Cosmic Sojourner : All is number Lauri! It is not to weigh, measure, count, in primacy it is essence

17:58:51 From Lauri Love : accepted

17:58:53 From johntorday : Evolution of physiology is dependent on such receptors because the ¡®rate-limiting¡¯ step in physiology that connects us to the environment. For example, there were three hormone receptor duplications that occurred during the water-land transition that were existential for adaptation for land….

18:00:11 From Louis H Kauffman : Here is a puzzle for you. Squares of Fibonacci numbers are rightly viewed as areas. And the sum of the squares of the first n Fibonacci numbers is equal to a product of Fibonacci numbers because these squares pave a rectangle. For example 1^2 + 1^ 2 + 2^2 + 3^ 2 + 5^2 = 5 x 8. But also the sum of the squares of two consecutive Fibonacci numbers is another Fibonacci number. For example 5^2 + 8^2 = 25 + 64 = 89. This means that each individual Fibonacci number (with odd index) can be seen as an area. Further insight is welcomed.

18:00:56 From Lauri Love : as regards conjunctions, there’s a chap called Pensinger who has a theory that complex angular momentum interchange with the sun and other bodies is essential to life. i recently had the thought that when we feel the reaction force from the earth, we are also feeling it through the earth from the sun, and thence the galactic centre, supercluster centre, etc.

18:02:32 From Cosmic Sojourner : I am VERY interested in Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions!

18:02:32 From johntorday : Lou, I think the Fibonaci numbers emulate the sectoral flow of the expanding Cosmos, and the ¡®we¡¯ are following that trajectory. The ¡®area¡¯ is the expression of our three dimensional being as followers of that trajectory

18:03:05 From johntorday : Vector, not sector¡¦..

18:03:27 From Cosmic Sojourner : Absolutely John!

18:03:46 From Louis H Kauffman : Thank you John. I should add that all Fibonacci numbers are interpreted as areas. The even indices are differences of squares.

18:04:14 From Doug Matzke : I have a question about 12.

18:04:34 From Louis H Kauffman : What about 12. It is not a Fibonacci number.

18:04:37 From johntorday : Life evolves in response to an every-changing environment, of which the Saturn-Jupiter conjunction would be a part¡¦..gravity is essential for life as we know it, so the gravity waves from those planets would affect evolution

18:05:10 From Vanessa : 12=dodecahedron in my mind…

18:05:46 From Cosmic Sojourner : YES!!!

18:05:56 From Cosmic Sojourner : 12 is the singing spheres of music!

18:06:28 From Cosmic Sojourner : The vector equilibrium 12 tensegrity?

18:07:24 From Enrico Mazzi : that¡¯s an Astrolabe Louis!

18:09:10 From Cosmic Sojourner : http://whatmusicreallyis.com/

18:09:19 From Mark Johnson : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalcroze_eurhythmics

18:09:24 From Louis H Kauffman : We won¡¯t exclude 12 just because she is not a Fibonacci!

18:11:28 From Vanessa : dodec is full of golden section though Lou?

18:17:47 From Louis H Kauffman : Yes. So 12 via the codec is a Fibonacci Relative.

18:15:20 From Graham : Yes, see (e.g.) ‘The Divine Proportion’ by Huntley

18:15:29 From Vanessa : hehe yes!

18:15:58 From Vanessa : Hunley-a good one

18:16:12 From Vanessa : Huntly, sorry

18:16:13 From Graham : He taught me maths at school

18:16:32 From Graham : and was a lay preacher

18:16:40 From Cosmic Sojourner : .

18:17:09 From Vanessa : notes of Iamblichus is a good one re quality of numbers

18:19:02 From Cosmic Sojourner : This all speaks to Gnostic principle of correspondence; the fractal. As above so below, as within so without.

18:19:33 From peter rowlands : There are twelve nilpotents in the Dirac algebra.

18:19:45 From Cosmic Sojourner : 12 semitones

18:20:52 From Cosmic Sojourner : -1/12?

18:20:56 From Vanessa : I thought I saw some paper proposing the universe is dodecahedral…

18:21:02 From Cosmic Sojourner : Fermat

18:22:01 From Graham : always 24 in the cone?

18:22:06 From Grenville Croll : 12 is 0110 in trinary it is an n-periodic number

18:22:46 From Cosmic Sojourner : Coincidence is Gods way of remaining anonymous per AE

18:22:58 From johntorday : Milk drop relies on surface tension¡¦.which has to be reduced for life to occur

18:23:55 From Graham : well hey I was born on the 12th

18:24:23 From Mark Johnson : I was born on the 13th 🙁

18:24:36 From Lauri Love : http://100photos.time.com/photos/harold-edgerton-milk-drop

18:24:36 From Richard Heiberger : 12 lunar months in a solar year (approx)

18:24:41 From Graham : close but no cigar 😉

18:24:43 From Lauri Love : https://medium.com/cantors-paradise/the-ramanujan-summation-1-2-3-1-12-a8cc23dea793

18:24:50 From Enrico Mazzi : The Astrolabe is one of the first examples of calculator. Make your own:

18:24:51 From Enrico Mazzi : https://in-the-sky.org/astrolabe/

18:24:55 From Richard Heiberger : use your thumbs a pointer, then it can count 12 bones on the other four fingers

18:26:19 From johntorday : 3,4,5 are the smallest values for the Pythagorean Theorem

18:26:35 From johntorday : Oh, and they add up to 12!

18:26:54 From Doug Matzke : random points in high dimensional cube (n>>100) then the standard radius from mid point to random point is sqrt(N/12)

18:28:05 From Doug Matzke : Nicole, thanks for talking about awareness over consciousness! I agree

18:28:46 From Richard : Moon Circumference = 12 **7 feet and Moon Radius = 11!/7 feet

18:29:15 From Lauri Love : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmoxis

18:29:21 From Doug Matzke : number of strands in anu=10

18:29:52 From Cosmic Sojourner : And earth:moon is my birthday 3/11=0.2727272727… and central to my TOE in NEYEN!

18:30:46 From peter rowlands : There are 12 fundamental particles: 6 quarks and 6 leptons

18:31:05 From johntorday : BTW, awareness is the fundament of epigenetic inheritance, which is necessary for evolution. The ¡®phenotype¡¯ is an agent for collecting data from the environment, particularly those data which signal for change relative to the organisms¡¦..that¡¯s awareness as distinguishing signal from noise¡¦..that in turn informs consciousness

18:32:50 From Vanessa : quark properties follow the same as movements of the corner cubies of a rubic cube..

18:33:12 From Cosmic Sojourner : 12 is in the quantum as well

18:33:48 From Lauri Love : http://www.malinc.se/m/MobiusDoyle.php Mobius transforms of a Doyle spiral (apollonius circle packing)

18:34:11 From Lauri Love : you can see the where there is one locus (the origin) after the rotation in the riemann sphere there are two loci: the point at infinity is the counterpart to the origin

18:34:17 From Cosmic Sojourner : Mobius Band is the 12 in 2 and 3!

18:34:20 From Lauri Love : the point at which all phases converge to degeneracy

18:34:31 From Lauri Love : if you go infinitely in *any* direction, you end up at the same point

18:37:16 From Cosmic Sojourner : Names are not labels

18:38:48 From Richard : Telepathy avoids names

18:39:21 From Cosmic Sojourner : When you name me you create me, when you label me you negate me~S©ªren Kierkegaard

18:40:16 From Doug Matzke : right about telepathy, but what is the “representation” that supports telepathy?

18:40:49 From Vanessa : the Robin’s mechanism of gps is thought to be quantum

18:41:13 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : Perhaps it¡¯s time to wheel out William James with direct experience here? In Zen we have three nens: the first is experiencing, the second cognition, and the third one is where your discussion about names is¡¦ (Barbara)

18:41:20 From Rachel Moore : A great book about experiments regarding the effects of the electromagnetic field on humans https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/709958.Infinite_Mind

18:42:05 From Doug Matzke : doug@quantumdoug.com

18:42:07 From Rachel Moore : rachel@rachelmoore.net

18:42:11 From johntorday : jtorday@ucla.edu

18:42:16 From Lauri Love : lauri.love@gmail.com

18:42:18 From Cosmic Sojourner : chris@scobba.net

18:42:36 From Graham : Lovely talk Nicola – thank you!

18:42:59 From Graham : graham@ellsbury.com

18:43:00 From Doug Matzke : I like the time

18:43:08 From Vanessa : Vanessa_whil@hotmail.com

18:43:17 From Louis H Kauffman : This is a good time for me.

18:43:26 From johntorday : Thank you Nicola for that ¡®cleansing¡¯ talk

18:43:27 From Graham : I like this time

18:43:41 From Richard : Lovely talk Richard.llewellyn.jones@gmail.com

18:43:52 From Enrico Mazzi : Thanks Nicola, that was wonderful

18:44:04 From chary : chary.r@usask.ca

18:44:11 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : This time is good for me. My email is jikai7@pm.me (Barbara)

18:45:16 From Vanessa : woops made mistake in email. this is correct one Vanessa_whill@hotmail.com

18:46:23 From Graham : Happy weekend all!

17:17:27 From Lauri : life as transimmiscibility

17:15:57 From Lauri : exaptation – the process by which features acquire functions for which they were not originally adapted or selected.

17:18:50 From Lauri : . o O { life/evolution as/with teleological attractor – Aristotelian ‘final cause’ – transactional evolution as opposed to only advancing witihout being informed by the future}

17:21:21 From Keith to Mark Johnson(Privately) : What is your email address? K

17:27:46 From Lauri : “Chemiosmosis is the movement of ions across a semipermeable membrane, down their electrochemical gradient. An example of this would be the formation of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by the movement of hydrogen ions (H+) across a membrane during cellular respiration or photosynthesis.”

17:34:35 From Lauri : (rather than ‘recapulation’ of phylogeny by ontogeny, instead consider [self-]similar/superposed dynamics and patterns at multiple spatiotemporal scales, wherein regions of stability, or edge-of-chaos as in a fractal are mutually defined by the chaotic/agitational/dyshomeostatic regions which counterpose the homeostatic equilibria)

17:42:18 From Lauri : (interfaces intristically capture up to holography the informational relationship between inside and outside (consider Huygens surfaces of secondary sources) so lipid/water interfaces may facilitate the harnessing of negentropy the accessibility of interface interactions somehow, an “as above, so below” resource)

17:42:41 From Lauri : (echoes of laws of form)

17:43:30 From Douglas Matzke : also holarchry and holons from Rupert sheldrake

17:44:25 From Lauri : An amphiphile (from the Greek αμφις, amphis: both and φιλíα, philia: love, friendship) is a chemical compound possessing both hydrophilic (water-loving, polar) and lipophilic (fat-loving) properties. Such a compound is called amphiphilic or amphipathic.

17:46:02 From Lauri : microgravity may disrupt surface waves due to changing the balance between surface tension and the relative weight of fluids at interfaces

17:53:26 From Lauri : anecdotally [some] peak experiences require strong vertical alignment of nervous/energetic/informational meridia, particular the spine / central channels, suggesting a connection between verticality and informational integration through the gravitaitonal/momentum/Machian matrix

18:00:56 From Lauri : In chemistry, a zwitterion, also called an inner salt, is a molecule that contains an equal number of positively- and negatively-charged functional groups. With amino acids, for example, in solution a chemical equilibrium will be established between the “parent” molecule and the zwitterion. -Wikipedia

18:05:12 From Vanessa : went into deeeep level of consciousness….

18:05:25 From Graham : Question for John later: Did I understand correctly that some meteorites are pulsar generated?

18:05:38 From Colin Rourke : My email (Colin) cprourke@gmail.com

18:06:23 From Enrico Mazzi : I have a question about X-Ray Cristallography!

18:07:08 From Enrico Mazzi : Crystallography….

18:09:54 From Astrid Johnson : Why did John T. say that biology mimics physics?

18:10:39 From Douglas Matzke : does anyone know who the “Keith” that was on before.

18:10:55 From Louis H Kauffman : Keith Bowden

18:11:19 From Grenville Croll : I have to leave. battery low. recommend john t takes a look at my kazuo kondo work

18:12:56 From Douglas Matzke : ok, I was wondering if that was him.

18:13:05 From andrew crompton : Andrew crompton

18:13:20 From andrew crompton : andrew@narrowroom.com

18:22:07 From Vanessa : consciousness back to cell…maybe that represents us genetic engineers?

18:22:17 From Astrid Johnson : Seb, watch your French. 😉

18:22:52 From Astrid Johnson : So sorry, have to go to another meeting. Would have loved to stay and hear more discussion.

18:27:10 From Lauri : Homeorhesis, derived from the Greek for “similar flow”, is a concept encompassing dynamical systems which return to a trajectory, as opposed to systems which return to a particular state, which is termed homeostasis.

18:28:06 From peter rowlands : Keith Bowden, long-time member of ANPA, and organizer of many meetings.

18:30:14 From Vanessa : plenty of cloning Lou!

18:36:27 From Rachel Moore : Sounds like maybe a Platonism vs intuitionism debate ????

18:43:53 From Rachel Moore : Book about a technique called Continuum that has the opposite theory about healing in a way, she believes that trying to experience consciousness of primordial beings and of water results in peak experiences and healing https://www.amazon.com/Life-Land-Continuum-World-Renowned-Self-Discovery/dp/1556436459

18:50:13 From Vanessa : smoker bacteria live under greater Gs…

18:50:27 From Vanessa : and 300 C temp

19:05:56 From Vanessa : so how do the calcium channels relate to different brain waves types eg alpha beta delta gamma?

19:10:18 From Elizabeth Maitland to Mark Johnson(Privately) : This has been great – I’m going to have to step away, as I need to get moving on dinner…speak soon and thank John for me!

19:13:25 From Lauri : “Now, the original life as we know it, biologically is an animal that feeds, a monocell, which we know in the amoeba which then elongates itself as we see in the paramecium and this elongated form became symbolised in the snake, the serpent. Now the serpent represents the triple S, sensuous, self satisfaction. It is devoted entirely to a hedonistic view of life. It doesn’t want to know anything painful. The life-force itself, moves towards pleasures and away from pains. We demonstrate this in the case of the single cell like the amoeba by putting food particles in the water near it and we see that it pushes out a filament of protoplasm called a pseudopodium, a false foot, and it engulfs that material that we put into the water; but if we drop some lemon juice, the same foot that advanced to the food, being stung by the bite of the acid, will withdraw. So in the monocell we see a very simple demonstration of what sensuality means, it means moving towards pleasure and away from pain.”

19:13:33 From Lauri : – http://www.eugene-halliday.net/ishval-transcripts/EH_Two_Serpents_67_ml.doc

19:16:10 From Vanessa : perhaps higher states are reached by shutting down certain types of brain function. My son was hit by a car and when he came out of coma state he was in a state of being in the moment and could not remember what happened minutes previous….many people said how sage like he was as he enjoyed each moment at a time…perhaps higher states are reached by abstaining certain brain activity.

19:16:47 From Vanessa : I should say he recovered and is normal now!

19:19:03 From Vanessa : dolphins and elephants and chimps humans have spindle cells which allows ability not seen in other animals

19:19:56 From Pat Toms : Thank you John

19:20:12 From Sebastian Fiedler : thanks John!

17:13:03 From Graham : Is there any possibility of improving the sound quality?

17:37:39 From Keith : Sound quality is very good here.

17:38:37 From Graham : Verging on unlistenable here – and I’m on a fast link

17:39:31 From Mark Johnson : I’m afraid there’s not much we can do about it. It’s ok here, but the recording should be ok

17:40:29 From Keith : Mark – was my microphone too loud?

17:41:33 From Douglas Matzke : greetings keith, just wanted to say hi.

17:41:51 From Keith : Hi Doug!

17:42:34 From Keith : Hi Everybody! 🙂

17:45:14 From Vanessa : coool

17:49:00 From Vanessa : exactly….wow!

17:51:54 From Vanessa : thankyou very much!!

17:54:18 From Keith : To unmute do I hold the space bar down or just tap it?

17:54:38 From Nicola : tap the mute button

17:54:52 From Keith : Thanks

17:55:40 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : Mike thank you for this fascinating lecture – the best bit for me is NO Big Bang! Sorry to leave but my internet connection is getting more and more unstable have a good evening, Barbara

17:57:22 From Vanessa : tapered spirals…..wonder what affect

17:57:50 From John Hyatt : Thank you so much, Mike. I have another meeting at 6.00, so will have to leave unfortunately. I thoroughly enjoyed the talk and wish you every success with the experimental testing.

17:58:47 From Douglas Matzke : Thermophoresis

17:59:56 From Samuel Lomonaco : Thanks, Mike: Great talk! Very mind provoking.

18:01:14 From Graham : Douglas – do you have a reference for that?

18:03:18 From Douglas Matzke : Fung, Frankie, Mykhaylo Usatyuk, B. J. DeSalvo, and Cheng Chin. “Stable Thermophoretic Trapping of Generic Particles at Low Pressures.” Appl. Phys. Lett. 110 (University of Chicago), January 2017.

18:04:04 From Graham : Thank you Douglas

18:05:03 From Vanessa : Mark I didn’t get the last vid link so please can you check I am on the email list as Vanessa_whill@hotmail.com thanks

18:06:52 From Vanessa : yes thanks Mike!

18:06:53 From Keith : Mike – Have you seen the work of Owen Maroney on extracting heat from quantum systems by creating random numbers (adding information)? Also do you know the work of Dave Roscoe at Sheffield?

18:06:59 From Richard Heiberger : Mark I haven’t received any video lists

18:07:04 From Richard Heiberger : rmh@temple.edu

18:07:13 From Pat Toms : wheres Lous pdf file of book?

18:07:35 From Louis H Kauffman : Sent book to ANPA CHAT

18:07:45 From Vanessa : Lou please could you send me the pdf book#

18:07:46 From Pat Toms : Thanks

18:07:46 From Douglas Matzke : great job mike

17:13:07 From Joseph Saviri : Look forward to meeting you Andrew

17:17:50 From Astrid Johnson : In the Bing Bang Theory Sheldon also used a dice to make all his decisions. It did not end so well.

17:16:05 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : Dice can be loaded!

17:28:26 From David McGoveran : As can people!

17:28:50 From Keith : Hello Erk

17:30:05 From M. Erk Durgun : Hello 🙂

17:32:06 From Keith : Transparent rather than invisible?

17:32:40 From Astrid Johnson : Lego just brought out the first braille bricks.

17:33:26 From Pat Toms : Lou did you put Mike McCullochs pdf book on Anpa Chat. I can’t see it there! Where do I find it?

17:34:00 From Keith : Lou, neither can I. Can you email it please?

17:34:05 From Louis H Kauffman : Just so the blank page is transparent to our writing, but also (as Enrico Mazzi remarks) we should consider both sides of a sheet, and I say we should use transparent sheets! Then you can do mathematics on a Mobius strip or a Klein bottle.

17:34:30 From Samuel Lomonaco : These principles must have been uncounsciously used in the design of knot mosaic tiles.

17:36:09 From Louis H Kauffman : I sent the book in email to ANPA Chat.

17:37:31 From Pat Toms : Oops, I get the emails from Anton but never got the book!

17:38:41 From Vanessa : neither did I Pat….not sure why.

17:38:42 From johntorday : Warhol’

17:38:53 From Richard Heiberger : Lou: i am not yet on anpa chat, can you send the book to me : rmh@temple.edu

17:38:55 From johntorday : Warhol’s soup cans

17:39:11 From Marc Pierson : When it comes to belief in modes, I preference the face over the voice and writing.

17:39:17 From Louis H Kauffman : Use b-ok.org and you can get it yourself.

17:40:01 From Keith : Lou – but wouldn’t that be illegal? 🙂

17:40:20 From Louis H Kauffman : in that case do not use it.

17:40:31 From Joseph Saviri : Amazing. Amazon Echo.

17:41:17 From johntorday : Hemlines and the Stock Market?

17:41:49 From Keith : The fashion in bikini tops is to wear them upside down! 🙂

17:42:37 From Douglas Matzke : harmany is lack of objections

17:43:25 From Louis H Kauffman : I will send one copy to Mark Johnson. He can put it on ANPA CHAT.

17:43:42 From Pat Toms : Thanks, much appreciated

17:43:55 From Joseph Saviri : Type of music matters – hip hop, Beatles, Rap?

17:44:05 From Louis H Kauffman : Or you can send me an email (kauffman@uic.edu) and I will send it directly.

17:45:50 From Samuel Lomonaco to Mark Johnson(Privately) : Mark: What about the entropy of symbols?

17:46:43 From johntorday : Are we talking about aesthetic architypes?

17:47:51 From Douglas Matzke : the face becomes a gestalt

17:49:07 From johntorday : Agree with you Doug, but do the gestalts derive from Nature? Never a bad patter in Nature….

17:50:23 From Richard Heiberger : the magic number 7, plus or minus two

17:50:43 From johntorday : If aliens evolve the same we do by endogenizing stuff in their environment, and their environment is different from ours, they will not see patterns in he same way innately

17:50:54 From Keith : I’m not sure my brain is very similar to Peter’s.

17:52:21 From Douglas Matzke : mayan’s had base 13 and 20 for their counting

17:52:34 From Vanessa : didn’t playing cards come from the Tarot?

17:53:01 From Keith : Two bases? Must have been confusing!

17:53:55 From Douglas Matzke : and 20*13=260, which is the gestation period of humans

17:55:26 From Vanessa : sumerians used base 6 I think…

17:56:11 From Richard Heiberger : british money is multi-base 12 x 20 x infiinity

17:56:34 From Keith : Hmm. I think we stopped that now.

17:56:48 From johntorday : Perhaps interfaces interface because they are all derivative of Natural patterns

17:56:52 From Douglas Matzke : if we had only 8 fingers, then we would be counting in a binary representation 2**3=8

17:57:05 From Richard Heiberger : babylonians use base 60: hence 60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour, 360 degrees per circle

17:57:33 From John Hyatt : Thanks Andrew. Your talks have a particular flavour which is always very tasty. I have to go now to another meeting. Thanks, again!

17:57:40 From Vanessa : oops yes I meant 60!

17:57:52 From Richard Heiberger : we have 10 fingers, hence it is easy to count to a 1023 on our fingers. there is a standard Chinese was of thing that.

17:58:03 From Dai Griffiths : Some capital letters are different from lower case in shape. Some are not. Would it be ‘better’ if they were all the same, or if they were all different?

17:58:14 From johntorday : The interfaces are innately understood

17:58:47 From Douglas Matzke : how can we have meaning without language?

17:59:53 From Keith : Doug – there is meaning “in the now”.

18:00:33 From Douglas Matzke : Mikey mouse only has 8 fingers

18:00:59 From Keith : Computers were originally invented by toons.

18:01:01 From Joseph : The Huthis in Islam read meaning inevery human feature

18:01:21 From Joseph Saviri : Dressing = taste.

18:01:36 From Vanessa : yes sign language could bcme universal language

18:01:52 From Keith : Hmm. But it’s still language.

18:01:57 From Joseph Saviri : Thanks for sharing about Mickey..

18:02:17 From Keith : How do you have meaning without it?

18:02:29 From Douglas Matzke : 2**10 = 1024, which is still a binary power

18:02:41 From Louis H Kauffman : How can we have meaning without language? How can we have meaning without experience? How can we have experience without language?

18:03:11 From Keith : Experience may be meaning without language.

18:04:12 From David McGoveran : Rather depends on how inclusive your use of the term “language” is…

18:05:02 From Louis H Kauffman : In order for you to have and know you have experience you at least need enough language to acknowledge the experience. Language could be as simple as that experencer/experienced. World opens up for a moment and closes again. One distinction become language.

18:05:45 From Keith : Experience may be meaning without language.

18:09:24 From Douglas Matzke : source of randomness

18:10:23 From Keith : quantum mechanics

18:11:23 From Douglas Matzke : and random and probabilities is not intuitive

18:12:23 From Keith : Andrew Crompton – good talk!

18:12:43 From Rachel Moore : ????

18:13:18 From Joseph Saviri : Thanks Andrew, Mark and colleagues. Dropping off now.

18:13:56 From Samuel Lomonaco : Andrew, thanks for a great talk

18:17:32 From Marc Pierson : Ashby’s mechanical homeostat also used randomness to test next steps.

18:17:47 From Graham : thank you Andrew – very thought provoking

18:15:05 From Marc Pierson : Is randomness a way to explore nothingness?

18:15:10 From Elizabeth Maitland : Fascinating Andrew – raises interesting questions about heuristics and their origins

18:15:59 From Louis H Kauffman : Asking about randomness in relation to quantum theory is certainly a way to explore no thing ness.

18:13:05 From Anton Vrba : Thank you David — most informative talk!

18:

19:49 From Louis H Kauffman : Alex Comfort, Reality and Empathy – Physics, Mind and Science in the 21st Century (Published in 1984).

18:28:14 From Rachel Moore : Thanks Lou!

18:38:06 From johntorday : As a minority representative for Biology, which David mentioned was one of the topics for ANPA, how much biology has been presented at ANPA? Just Sayin’…..

18:41:05 From andrew crompton : Very interesting, and thank you, I like the sound of light hearted philosophy.

18:41:19 From andrew crompton : that was me ,andrew

18:44:29 From Pat Toms : Mark, what was the book ‘cell homologue of atom’?

18:50:07 From Rachel Moore : Thanks David, hoping that your home is okay

18:50:40 From Douglas Matzke : for and aside “who created this” see paper “Quantum Physics and Metaphysics: If God used information/computing “

17:21:37 From Keith : At Physcomp94 I believe were Pierre, Lou, Dick Shoup, me, Mike and Doug (and Vaughn Pratt who was also at ANPA West)33

17:21:57 From Louis H Kauffman : C’est Vrai!

17:22:23 From Keith : The 33 was a typo 🙂

17:23:09 From Louis H Kauffman : 33 is canonical type. 17 is canonical random number.

17:24:37 From Keith : Where type is a canonical typo, I assume (and Vaughn should be Vaughan)

17:25:17 From Louis H Kauffman : This is your theory of typos.

17:36:54 From Keith : Hello Barbara! Hello Vanessa!

17:37:19 From Vanessa : Hi Keith, hope all is good with you.

17:37:38 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : Hello Keith! Nice to ‘see’ you again

17:37:44 From Keith : Except car battery! 🙂

17:37:57 From Keith : And you?

17:38:43 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : Things are fine as they are 🙂

17:39:31 From Nicola : Hope your physio battery is ok

17:39:49 From Keith : B – you mean without my picture? 🙂

17:41:50 From Keith : N – all my other batteries are fine 🙂

17:44:58 From Keith : Hmmm – maybe Mike-Doug theory is what we need for a simple proof of the four colour theorem

17:45:59 From Louis H Kauffman : Why do you need a proof of the 4CT? Maybe you don’t believe it. Could be false you know.

17:46:11 From Keith : I said simple proof!

17:46:28 From Louis H Kauffman : Do you know any proof?

17:46:38 From Keith : And I won’t fully believe it until then

17:47:01 From Keith : Hmm. Do I know any proof of anything?

17:47:09 From Louis H Kauffman : Ah. Ok then. So until you see a proof, it might be false.

17:48:17 From Keith : Hmm. I thought the computer proof theory proof rather clinched it.

17:48:31 From Louis H Kauffman : So they say.

17:48:42 From Keith : 🙂

17:50:22 From Nicola : Proof depends on what gives you the AHA!

17:51:21 From Louis H Kauffman : Yes. A proof (for an individual) is an argument (or situation) that is completely convincing (to that individual).

17:52:11 From Keith : It is. But proofs are shared. And the simpler they are the more there is a shared belief.

17:52:53 From Nicola : Yes. We have different belief communities

17:53:26 From Keith : That complicates things.

17:53:58 From Nicola : Things are complicated!

17:54:20 From Keith : The shared computer science-mathematical community is more likely to believe the existing 4CT proofs.

17:54:32 From Louis H Kauffman : Yes. Proofs are shared. And in order for a proof to be shared it has to BE a proof for each person in the group of persons who share that proof. Of course there are lots of social situations where a proof is not really shared. Often the only people who actually know a proof are the author of the paper and one referee who actually read it. The case of the 4CT is that no one can read that proof, but with engineering assumptions about computer programs, a number of people have gone through all the details including checking and rechecking the programs.

17:55:14 From Nicola : So there is a compliance, an acceptance without the AHA!

17:55:19 From Keith : But most people can be convinced of Pythagoras proofs.

17:55:30 From Nicola : Ah yes!!!

17:56:36 From Louis H Kauffman : No one should accept results just because someone else states them. New students keep arising in active fields and they keep looking and asking questions. This keeps things honest.

17:57:18 From Keith : It does.

17:57:24 From Nicola : Absolutely

17:58:48 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : Yes in the antideluvial times when I was a student we were expected to reproduce calculations (proofs) before moving on new things. That of course poses some limitations but it means you don’t take anything on faith

17:59:20 From Nicola : A lot to be said for old school

17:59:37 From Louis H Kauffman : Old style teaching of geometry was enlightening for those who got the hang of it!

17:59:55 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : And what a kick when you got it right!

18:00:07 From Louis H Kauffman : 🙂

18:00:58 From Keith : I have seen very little about the CONSEQUENCES of the Four Colour Theorem (like for Electrical Engineering or particle scattering). Certainly people are more likely to believe things that have consequences.

18:01:35 From Nicola : Yes. That would be interesting,…

18:02:09 From Louis H Kauffman : Aha. We can talk about these contexts. There is a HUGE amount in the context. Start with the paper “Applications of Negative Dimensional Tensors” by Roger Penrose.

18:05:37 From Keith : I see something about Intuitionistic logic but not about 4CT. Did he say something about this?

18:06:04 From Louis H Kauffman : Nothing about intuitionist logic in the Penrose paper.

18:06:08 From johntorday : I don’t know if this is relevant to ‘context’, but if everything is running off the Consciousness of the Cosmos, there is a universal context, like synesthesia

18:07:13 From Joseph : Let’s go beyond geometry . .and intuitionist logic .

18:07:16 From Keith : I hear you! 🙂

18:08:42 From Joseph : Is there a beginning of the universe?

18:09:16 From Barbara Jikai Gabrys : Sorry folks have another call Doug thank you for the lecture

18:09:47 From johntorday : There is a beginning to the Explicate universe. It began with the first cell

18:10:05 From Nicola : God/ the ineffable, the Divine

18:10:53 From Keith : Or the first distinction?

18:11:08 From johntorday : To be clear, before there was life there was only Bohm’s Implicate Order

18:11:23 From peter rowlands : I am reminded of Peter Cook asking Jeffrey Archer, ‘Is there any beginning to your talents?’

18:11:40 From Louis H Kauffman : Spencer-Brown say “Abandon truth to indication, indication to distinction and distinction to void.”

18:12:15 From Nicola : ah the hidden variables …

18:12:35 From Keith : Jeffrey Archer? Really? 🙂

18:12:46 From Louis H Kauffman : The Tao.

18:13:18 From Joseph : NOW we’re talking!

18:13:25 From Keith : My brother once went to a garden party at Jeffrey Archer’s house. He was at the gate collecting the entrance fees. 🙂

18:18:11 From Keith : (Archer, not my brother. 🙂 )

18:18:56 From Keith : Thanks, Doug.

18:19:55 From Nicola : Nice to see you, Peter. Clearly all went well. Go gently x

18:21:12 From Joseph : Thanks, Doug. Goodbye All for today.

18:23:25 From peter rowlands : They were ahead of schedule, so I was able to make the second half. It went fine, so I’m OK.

18:23:50 From peter rowlands : Concerning Jeffrey Archer, he certainly has a talent for making money.

18:24:58 From Vanessa : all life is coded by DNA….

18:25:27 From Louis H Kauffman : You can start anywhere with any major distinction and unfold all the rest.

18:26:21 From Vanessa : imo DNA is life…

18:26:43 From Vanessa : and all life forms are a part of that DNA life form

18:28:22 From Louis H Kauffman : Yes. You can see that the big distinction that you have chosen is inevitable. It can be awareness itself,, or DNA, or information. The whole is circular in the forms of its explanations. That does not preclude the fact that each of these fundamental distinctions is in the form the “first” distinction.

18:30:02 From johntorday : With all due respect, IMHO DNA is derivative of lipids forming micelles in water spontaneously……DNA does not control, it is controlled by the cell

18:33:03 From Enrico Mazzi : What is the support for information?

18:33:15 From johntorday : BTW, Sir Paul Nurse has a new book coming out soon in which he weighs in on the primacy of the cell….which is coming out of epigenetic inheritance

18:34:09 From Louis H Kauffman : If you insist on the primacy of “something” then you have to ask “of what is it made”. Eventually, the answer has to be no-thing.

18:35:37 From Nicola : No-thing – being beyond

18:35:44 From johnwilliamson : Everything is nothing, nothing is everything

18:36:02 From Vanessa : I don’t think DNA is primacy but inevitable to arise and bcomes life

18:36:17 From Louis H Kauffman : No-thing means not a thing. Beyond assumes it is something somewhere. Could be, but then you have not reached the end.

18:36:49 From Vanessa : on pluto amino acids drop out of the atmosphere due to content of that atmoshphere and UV light…so cool

18:37:13 From Enrico Mazzi : the answer can also be: beyond description

18:37:42 From Nicola : yes

18:37:58 From johntorday : I think that the divide between nothing and something is the ‘recoil’ of the Big Bang as in ‘every action has an equal and opposite reaction…..that is homeostasis, without which there would be no matter in the Cosmos. It is the equals sign in all balanced equations

18:38:20 From Louis H Kauffman : yes. we can ask questions whose answers go beyond any present language that we have, and possibly beyond any language we can have.

18:39:20 From Nicola : probably beyond any language that we can have

18:39:27 From johntorday : Regarding DNA, it is another example of how evolution begins with Jacob’s ‘tinkering’ ad hoc, but then eventually becomes DNA/RNA/Protein, the Dogma of Biology

18:40:13 From Enrico Mazzi : silence is the support for language?

18:40:23 From Nicola : yes

18:40:32 From Louis H Kauffman : Best not to say anything at that point.

18:40:37 From johntorday : Language is constrained by the First Principles of Physiology as cell-cell communication

18:40:53 From Richard Heiberger : https://templatetraining.princeton.edu/sites/training/files/the_last_question_-_issac_asimov.pdf

18:41:11 From Enrico Mazzi : ahahahah…nono, but we can recognize that silence can be a shared experience

18:41:31 From Enrico Mazzi : in this way it can have some common value

18:41:40 From Louis H Kauffman : Yes. We can share silence. And we share that in all time.

18:41:53 From johntorday : Silence is the ‘ineffable’, or a negative ‘F bomb’

18:42:35 From Vanessa : the virus imo was selected for by gain of function research and is not a natural one…

18:42:42 From Nicola : What’s an F bomb?

18:43:08 From Enrico Mazzi : is there another experience we can share without the need to describe it?

18:43:27 From Vanessa : or is natural if you want to include human intervebtion

18:43:39 From Enrico Mazzi : like the experience of light? can we call it an experience?

18:44:48 From johntorday : Daniel Fels has shown the direct effect of photons on cell division, for example

18:46:01 From Enrico Mazzi : I wonder if there is a non reductive way to describe the experience of light to a blind person

18:46:46 From Nicola : I don’t think so

18:47:20 From Enrico Mazzi : so, in that way, a blind person is inferior

18:47:26 From Enrico Mazzi : by definition

18:47:40 From Enrico Mazzi : I hope it is not the case

18:47:44 From johntorday : When people have handicaps, there are compensatory mechanisms….if that took the form of super hearing, for example, it could mimic light, perhaps

18:48:26 From Vanessa : UV light affects DNA itself and triggers many changes eg allows virus to start replicating..

18:48:29 From Louis H Kauffman : Recall the story of Helen Keller. She was reconnected to the world through language of touch.

18:48:36 From Nicola : No. we are heterogeneous becomings. Hearing is not seeing but blind people do experience more acutely in other senses

18:48:46 From johntorday : Bats ‘see’ using echo-location, for example, so that would be an equivalent of ‘seeing’ using sound, right?

18:49:54 From Nicola : Equivalence is equal valuing – equality has a quantitative nature. The senses are heterogeneous

18:50:11 From Enrico Mazzi : exactly, the support for those mechanisms maybe has something in common with light

18:51:01 From Enrico Mazzi : it may be projective in nature

18:51:34 From johntorday : Enrico, I think your question falls under the heading of how organisms adapt to niches….the senses allow for such adaptations on an ad hoc basis, if you get my drift

18:52:20 From Nicola : Thank you, Richard, for the Asimov link x x x

18:53:40 From Enrico Mazzi : yes john, the support for adaptation is very powerful indeed

18:54:39 From johntorday : I don’t know if this is helpful, but I am convinced that the cell membrane of unicellular life has given rise to all physiology, seeing, hearing, smelling

18:56:30 From Vanessa : Max do you want to add your email address?

17:38:00 From johntorday : Is LIR ‘testable/refutable’ ?

17:40:30 From johntorday : If LIR cannot connect with Quantum Mechanics, is it valid?

17:40:49 From Mark Johnson : What does valid mean?

17:41:14 From johntorday : Valid= relevant

17:44:54 From johntorday : If philosophy engenders Bohm’s Implicate Order as the purest form of Reality, there must be a way to bridge it with the Explicate Order. I don’t see how Joe’s philosophy offers such an option

17:45:28 From David McGoveran : Diederick Aertz (sp?) used to be part of ANPA

17:46:14 From FredricSYoung : Hi David spelled Aerts

17:49:12 From David McGoveran : Thx! Senior moment!

17:50:44 From FredricSYoung : I never met him. Pierre used to talk about him and I’ve read some of his papers.

17:51:59 From johntorday : Between phenotype and genotype is development. We now know that most of the evolutionary changes in phenotype/genotype are due to epigenetic inheritance, which is due to interaction of the organism with its environment, i.e. the ‘logic of reality’ is interactive and experimentally demonstrabel

17:52:22 From Mark Johnson : and dialectical

17:52:43 From johntorday : yes, but not material, energetic, I think

17:53:08 From Mark Johnson : Joseph said something very similar to this

17:54:13 From johntorday : But based on opinion, not science. Gotta ‘test’ hypotheses or its just a lot of speculations, correlations and associations, not Causation

17:55:25 From Nicola : What about teleology?

17:55:30 From johntorday : The consensus is that Quantum Mechanics is what Reality is constituted by, so once we align biology with it, we no longer need to speculate as to what the Truth is

17:56:27 From johntorday : If we can move from the Big Bang vectorially to physics and physiology and evolution, that is not teleology because it has a beginning, a middle and an end IMHO

17:58:14 From johntorday : Einstein provided the ‘bookends’ of existence as energy and mass….once we fill in the middle piece with evolution, it obviates the need for philosophy

17:59:25 From Colin Rourke : There is a lot of evidence against the big bang. so probably a good idea not to depend on it!

18:00:16 From johntorday : OK, no Big Bang, but the Cosmos is expanding, correct, which infers an origin

18:03:19 From Colin Rourke : It’s contracting as well. So no origin. The basic philosophical imperative of the full Copernican principle says all points and times are equivalent!

18:03:31 From johntorday : Certainly you would agree that we have a ‘beginning, middle and end’, and we are adapting to the physical world in some way or another. I have argued that the unicellular is mimicking the Singularity, the cytoskeleton determining the state of the cell as homeostatic, mitotic or meiotic, all in turn determined by the Target of Rapamycin gene

18:04:22 From johntorday : The only biologic ‘contraction’ I know of in humans is the degradation of the Y chromosome!

18:04:51 From Louis H Kauffman : In using toopological objects for phialsophical discussion it may help to restrict to such objects that are fully in three dimensional space so that there is no debate about their “reality” in the usual sense. Thus the Borommean rings ARE an example of a three fold relation and the Mobius band is an example of a surface with locally two sides but globally one side. These are examples that can be directly apprehended and so are useful amplifiers for philosophical poiints.

18:14:22 From johntorday : We humans exist due to negative entropy. Without that there would be no logic, physics, chemistry, biology

18:16:38 From Mark Johnson : Is it our logic that determines this though… we’re in the ouroboros…

18:17:38 From johntorday : With all due respect Mark, it’s the logic of the Cosmos that ultimately determines this IMHO

18:18:51 From FredricSYoung : negentropy is information which was called the most fundamental level in the talk yesterday

18:18:58 From Wolfgang Baer : negative entropy is associated with growth I believe that the universe is also trying to grow at our expanse so there is a conflict which is never admitted

18:20:35 From johntorday : Perhaps Ouroboros symbolizes that lipid micelle that launched life in the Cosmos?

18:21:34 From johntorday : The only aspect of negentropy that occurs against us is cancer, which is an alternative to adaptation

18:21:36 From Mark Johnson : yes it could do

18:22:44 From Louis H Kauffman : Is he referring to the fact that ~~A is not A in intuitionistic logic, but ~~~A = ~A in that logic?

18:23:33 From johntorday : Wolfgang, I think the ‘conflict’ is between entropy and negative entropy, which is our ambiguous origin, but that’s the ‘animus’ that drives us to remain ahead of the environmental change that is inevitable

18:25:17 From Wolfgang Baer : cancer yes but think of friction – we loose energy or I should say we loose action because we do not pay attention – then the universe picks it up , but to grow we need to gain action in our interactions – its a struggle between equals.

18:28:24 From Bob Bishop : Excel;lent session – thanks Joe, Mike Mark for setting up the session – I have another commitment right now. Bye!, BB.

18:29:19 From Wolfgang Baer : Yes neg entropy is the opposite flow of action we interact with the universe if we gain action we grow if we loose action we shrink our life AND EVOLUTION IS THEN A STORY OF the struggle of growing

18:37:50 From Louis H Kauffman : The way to understand the bridging of implicate and explicate is look at the many examples of this that we know in all areas of articulation.

18:39:06 From Vanessa : viruses are type of drivers of evolution…

18:43:07 From Louis H Kauffman : We are not looking at it backward. The problem is not that there is some one correct point of view. Rather, it is that we do not usually take a given point of view far enough for it to come round full circle and embrace the other point of view. Each singular view embraces all the other.s

18:43:38 From johntorday : Maslow Peak Moments, Near Death Experiences, Runner’s High are all bridges between the Implicate and Explicate

18:44:20 From Louis H Kauffman : So is the understanding that the Pythagorean Theorem depends on the underpinning of Euclidean Geometry.

18:44:43 From Louis H Kauffman : Small moments are just as important as so called great moments.

18:45:45 From Nicola : Agreed

18:46:52 From Nicola : In fact all experienced moments are collapses of the wave function – i.e. the bridging

18:47:20 From Louis H Kauffman : If you believe in the “collapse of the wave function” 🙂

18:47:53 From Nicola : Indeed

18:48:33 From Nicola : It may be a nice metaphor

18:49:34 From johntorday : With all due respect to Christine, I think it’s experimentation, driven by creativity

18:51:29 From Louis H Kauffman : Collapse of the wave function as a metaphor is the movement from Possibility to Actuality.

18:51:59 From Nicola : yes

18:53:04 From Vanessa : agree Wolfgang

18:53:28 From FredricSYoung : certainly there is decoherence

18:55:09 From Vanessa : eg Placebo affect

18:55:52 From Louis H Kauffman : So it is pointed out that eliminating the observer is a mistake. Indeed. And this is one of the steps in getting back round into the fundamental circularity associated with taking any given point of view. In order to have a point of view, the universe must divide (itself) into that which observes and that which observes. In that condition it will of necessity always elude itself. Only by returning to no-distinction and returning to other articulations can a view of the whole (elephant) be articulated.

18:56:47 From Nicola : Many thanks, Joseph

18:57:00 From Nicola : And yes, Lou

18:57:12 From johntorday : I think the observer and the observed are one and the same

18:57:32 From Louis H Kauffman : Tat Tvam Asi

18:57:56 From johntorday : Please decode

18:58:08 From Louis H Kauffman : Thou Art That

18:58:09 From Nicola : I’m a vishistadvaitist myself x

17:11:37 From Doug Matzke : i’m not seeing anything

17:11:49 From Samuel Lomonaco : ditto

17:11:59 From Roger Anderton : cant see slides

17:11:59 From Anton Vrba : I have a blank screen too

17:12:09 From David McGoveran : ditto

17:12:23 From Fredric Young : yes screen is blank

17:14:19 From Keith Bowden : I can see two Fred Youngs. 🙂

17:14:43 From John Torday : Do both light as wave and photon have weight?

17:15:14 From Keith Bowden : Mass?

17:15:52 From Doug Matzke : bits also have an effective energy and thus an effective mass

17:16:36 From John Hyatt : should we be on slide 2 now?

17:16:41 From wolfgang baer : Have to go How do I play this back later ?

17:16:58 From Doug Matzke : not seeing slides changing

17:17:32 From Fredric Young : yes only one of my computers has a microphone. I’ve cut it down to one now

17:17:33 From Keith Bowden : Doug – do moving bits have momentum?

17:18:24 From Keith Bowden : Fred – none of my (many) computers have microphones. 🙂

17:18:29 From Doug Matzke : they show up on the surface area of a black hole

17:19:18 From Doug Matzke : this talk may be able to give some insights about how that might be done

17:19:36 From Richard Heiberger : is the weight of the internet’s data relevant to this talk? https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-the-Internet-weigh

17:20:35 From Doug Matzke : bit is related to entropy/order. so how to weigh that?

17:20:39 From Keith Bowden : THe mass of the universe will be entirely data by the end of the century?!

17:20:52 From Fredric Young : Hi Keith for some reason I can’t get audio on my windows machine with the big screen

17:20:53 From Grenville Croll : I’ve always been interested in the mass information equivalence

17:22:16 From Keith Bowden : Grenville – have you ever thought about attacking the four colour problem using bientropy?

17:23:25 From Louis H Kauffman : Careful. It may attack back. (see small poem by Piet Hein).

17:23:43 From Keith Bowden : 🙂

17:26:55 From Keith Bowden : Coo.

17:27:30 From Grenville Croll : take a look at alex misra’s paper on academia.edu. reckon it’s an easy leap between the smallest binary difference and the smallest energy quantum

17:31:08 From Grenville Croll to Mark Johnson(Privately) : can’t see slides

17:36:11 From Graham Ellsbury : That surely assumes the centre of mass of the box does not change

17:42:27 From Joseph Brenner : For reference, I hope we will get to self-duality

17:44:12 From Doug Matzke : here is the link to prdf of doran’s book. http://www.matzkefamily.net/doug/GALG/Doran_Geometric_algebra_for_physicists_lowres.pdf

17:44:23 From Doug Matzke : pdf*

17:45:15 From Louis H Kauffman : thank you!!

17:54:27 From Keith Bowden : Chris Doran used to be rather dismissive of Geometric Algebra (in favour of Clifford Algebras). I wasn’t aware of this title.

17:58:16 From Nicola Graves-Gregory : Yes. Brill x

18:10:03 From Keith Bowden : `Hello Nick!

18:12:34 From Keith Bowden : I want to hear Peter’s take on this.

18:13:30 From Nicola Graves-Gregory : Hi Keith, great that you’re here

18:15:35 From Keith Bowden : Hello Nicola. Thanks, but my greeting was to Nick who appeared briefly and then disappeared. 🙂

18:15:50 From Peter Rowlands : We intended to do that in specific meetings this summer but that didn’t happen. Still need face to face meeting.

18:16:06 From Joseph Brenner : How about ‘proof’ by philosophy?

18:16:32 From Keith Bowden : Peter – I would be interested in that.

18:16:41 From Nick Rossiter : Yes very good to see you again Keith!

18:16:50 From Keith Bowden : 🙂

18:17:12 From Peter Rowlands : If it happens we’ll let you know.

18:17:36 From Keith Bowden : John – great talk.

18:18:37 From Keith Bowden : Peter, thanks.

18:22:19 From Vanessa Hill : wow…..

18:22:22 From Chandra Roychoudhuri : John: Under what conditions, in your model, photons interact with photons?

18:22:48 From Keith Bowden : I always imagined it was pronounced Quizzical!!! 🙂

18:35:44 From Graham Ellsbury : Very interesting talk John. Apologies to everyone but have to go now and unfortunately unable to make Mark’s talk tomorrow. See you all on Monday.

18:42:38 From Doug Matzke : how to spell that site?

18:43:09 From Doug Matzke : quasical?

18:43:23 From Nicola Graves-Gregory : Quicycle.com

18:43:52 From Doug Matzke : thanks

18:45:31 From John Torday : To Joseph’s point about the interface between Quantum Mechanics and the ‘macro’, you have to see our history as an organism from its unicellular origin based on cell-cell communications as the basis for physiology

18:47:19 From John Williamson : hilgevoord

18:47:55 From John Torday : The demonstration that a retinal cell can detect one photon speaks to simultaneity

18:47:58 From Doug Matzke : physcomp link

18:48:00 From Doug Matzke : http://www.matzkefamily.net/PhysComp/PhysComp92/index.html

18:48:20 From Doug Matzke : and http://www.matzkefamily.net/PhysComp/PhysComp94/index.html

18:50:54 From Louis H Kauffman : A blast from the past.

18:51:34 From Doug Matzke : also remember physcomp81 and physcomp 96

18:51:49 From Doug Matzke : published separately

18:51:51 From Keith Bowden : Is it true that Physcomp94 was the original announcement of Shor’s Algorithm?

18:51:52 From Louis H Kauffman : do you have the papers for those?

18:52:10 From Doug Matzke : no, he presented, but was annouynced before

18:52:42 From Samuel Lomonaco : Shor’s algorithm was first published in FOCS

18:52:54 From Keith Bowden : Was it the first presentation?

18:53:05 From Samuel Lomonaco : I think so

18:53:46 From Keith Bowden : I remember being stunned by it.

18:54:03 From Doug Matzke : please don’t post those physcomp paper links, since they are IEEE-CS copyrighted, but I got them when they opened the site one time

18:54:17 From Keith Bowden : Sam – are you interested in the work of Gabriel Kron?

18:54:40 From Doug Matzke : this are privately shared links

18:55:07 From Samuel Lomonaco : I have not taken a look at Gabriel Kron. I will take a look

18:56:56 From Keith Bowden : S – I would be interested to talk with you about it.

18:57:11 From John Williamson : Tate anomaly

18:57:28 From Joseph Brenner : Is a di-electron self-dual?

18:57:45 From Samuel Lomonaco : Keitk: My email addresx is TwoKnot@gmail.com

18:58:10 From Keith Bowden : 🙂 Thanks

19:00:04 From Pat Toms : Thanks John

19:00:28 From Samuel Lomonaco : John, thanks for a great talk!

19:00:32 From Nicola Graves-Gregory : Thank you, John. Goodness x

19:00:53 From Keith Bowden : Bye