HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kramer@umigw.miami.edu (Jack Kramer)
Subject: MSDOS mapmaker
Organization: University of Miami, RSMAS
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 00:56:59 GMT

Has there been any reply to the request for info on an MSDOS version
of Mapmaker?  I have users who would also be interested.
From: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
Subject: Re: The It from Bit: Quantum Logic and Information Theory
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:40:36 GMT
Reply-To: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester UK

In article <3597@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.042628.8536@fcom.cc.utah.edu> burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu
>(Paul Burchard) writes:
>|modern version of  the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.  In  
>A buncha junky thinking.  Too bad it's so popular.
>| So it's as if the universe  
>|has effectively split into two independent time lines, which are mathematically  
>|joined but causally separated.
>More mumbo jumbo.

Steady on, old chap!  :-)
Better still, could you explain *why* you think the Many Worlds theory is
wrong/unnecessary/irrelevent/etc?

(A recent documentary on the BBC mentioned that it as a controversial theory,
and said that a poll of scientists, throughout the world, had been conducted.
I can't remember what the figures were, but they were something like 30% of
most scientists, only, saw any truth in the theory... except in the discipline
of cosmology, where 70% found it a useful and productive tool).
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
Subject: Re: A Soup Computer
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 21:06:14 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Jul17.201002.18409@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <62306@cup.portal.com>
  <5426@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>

Malcom Shute writes:
: Is this the sort of thing you meant?
: [Then AgSO4 can represent a third state, and FeSO4 a fourth, etc, etc?]

Yes indeedy.

: It sounds very remeniscent, in my mind, to using Conway's game of Life
: as a computing automaton (it has been shown to be possible).  One pattern
: would represent one state, and a different pattern another.
: 
: It's like having a counting system to base-infinity (i.e. the integers
: from zero to infinity are each represented by a unique single digit).
: In your case, the atoms in the molecules would be marking out the shape
: of the digit (the name of the state).

Well, it's also a fuzzy Markov process, isn't it?

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | how DARE they cancel Dennis Miller?             |
| poisoned electric head |                               andrew palfreyman |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
From: burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu (Paul Burchard)
Subject: Re: The It from Bit: Quantum Logic and Information Theory
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 08:17:24 GMT

In article <3597@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)  
writes:
>In article <1992Jul19.042628.8536@fcom.cc.utah.edu>  
burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu
>(Paul Burchard) writes:
>
>|Suppose scientist A is trying to measure quantum object X, which has states  
X0  
>|and X1.  For our purposes, the scientist's brain has two states A0 and  
A1---in  
>|state A0 he has decided that X must be in state X0 (and correspondingly for  
>|A1).  So in this experiment we think of the universe as having 4 states,  
among  
>|which probabilities are typically fairly evenly divided at first:
>|
>|	   |   X0  |   X1  
>|	---+-------+-------
>|	A0 | 0.251   0.250
>|	---+
>|	A1 | 0.250   0.249
>|
>|This is the quantum picture of the universe before the measurement.
>|
>|Now a measurement process is started, whose end effect is supposed to be that  
>|the scientist knows what state X is in.  Do we have to "collapse the wave  
>|function" to do this?  Or worry about mind/body problems?  No.  A  
"measurement  
>|process" is simply a physical process that evolves the probabilities to  
>|something like this:
>|
>|	   |   X0  |   X1  
>|	---+-------+-------
>|	A0 | 0.501     0  
>|	---+
>|	A1 |   0     0.499
>
>There is nothing "quantum" about this at all in my view.  The first situation
>has an uncertainty BEFORE of Hb = 2 bits, the later situation has
>an uncertainty AFTER of Ha = 1 bit, so the selection of the system
>is Hb - Ha = 1 bit.
>
>Thanks for the nice clear example.

You're welcome.  This brings up another question though.  I guess the above  
can't really be the entire universe, even quantum mechanically, due to the  
entropy decrease?  (Hmmm...how does the Schrodinger eq. evolve the entropy?).

To have a physically complete example of a measurement process, we probably  
need to include the state of the "experimental apparatus" Y which was used to  
measure the state of X.  For example we could imagine 1 extra bit of state for  
Y.  It seems the apparatus Y must be assumed to be "prepared" in a low entropy  
state so that we have one free bit of information to futz with in the  
measurement process.

Comments?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard	<burchard@math.utah.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
Subject: Re: The It from Bit: Quantum Logic and Information Theory
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:57:16 GMT
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

In article <5428@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute) writes:
>In article <3597@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul19.042628.8536@fcom.cc.utah.edu> burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu
>>(Paul Burchard) writes:
>>|modern version of  the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.  In  
>>A buncha junky thinking.  Too bad it's so popular.
>>| So it's as if the universe  
>>|has effectively split into two independent time lines, which are mathematically  
>>|joined but causally separated.
>>More mumbo jumbo.
>
>Steady on, old chap!  :-)
>Better still, could you explain *why* you think the Many Worlds theory is
>wrong/unnecessary/[irrelevant]/etc?
>
>(A recent documentary on the BBC mentioned that it as a controversial theory,
>and said that a poll of scientists, throughout the world, had been conducted.
>I can't remember what the figures were, but they were something like 30% of
>most scientists, only, saw any truth in the theory... except in the discipline
>of cosmology, where 70% found it a useful and productive tool).

The idea is that when a quantum collapse occurs the universe splits in two
and both universes proceed - I am in one and a different me in the other.

The trouble is that there must be enormous numbers of splits happening
every microsecond.  Just about every point in the universe is splitting.
So there must be unbelievable numbers of universes being spawned all the time.
Um, is there really lots of empty space in 4 dimensions?  What about conservation
of energy/matter?

Further, each split cannot (presumably) propagate faster than the speed of
light.  So do all the individual split points merge?  Do they ignore each
other?  It's a super onion skin mess.

This is a proposal to explain our confusion about what is going on at the
atomic level?  It's ridiculous!

Look.  A light wave strikes a surface.  Light is like a self contained
set of waves.  It's not really a particle, and it's not really a wave.

The surface absorbs the light at one point.  This is a wave collapse
(as I understand it).  It is what has people so puzzled.

But imagine that the surface actually consists of lots of atoms (or molecule).
Not every atom is the same as every other.  That is, each atom is vibrating
(thermal noise!  heat!  neutrinos!  vacuum fluctuations!), and they are all out
of sync.  Some atoms are in the wrong orientation and current energy to absorb
the photon.  Other atoms are in the right one.  "May the best one win".  An
atom which is perfectly tuned to the incoming photon (if there is any) absorbs
the photon.  If not, the photon goes through.

No wave collapse.  :-)

Tell me if I made a mistake.

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
From: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
Subject: Re: A Soup Computer
Date: 21 Jul 92 11:08:11 GMT
Reply-To: mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester UK

In article <62306@cup.portal.com> lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
>People seem to be assuming that I want to build neurons somehow with
>this device; this is not so. I want to simulate the computation of
>DNA/RNA transcription and translation and the feedback to this system
>engendered by the very enzymes it produces.
>
>Malcolm Shute postulates using electron density as local reagent density;
>unfortunately this will not suffice, there being so many reagents and only
>one type of electron!
Ah... can I have another go then?  Have I *now* got hold of the right end of
the stick?

You want a switching device that can have several possible internal states,
each one represented by a different chemical.  E.g. in the system:

	CuSO4 + Zn <==> ZnSO4 + Cu

The presence of CuSO4 could represent one state, and ZnSO4 the other, and some
combination representing some intermediate state.  (Similarly with organic chemicals,
but I can remember my inorganic chemistry better!)

Is this the sort of thing you meant?

Then AgSO4 can represent a third state, and FeSO4 a fourth, etc, etc?

It sounds very remeniscent, in my mind, to using Conway's game of Life
as a computing automaton (it has been shown to be possible).  One pattern
would represent one state, and a different pattern another.

It's like having a counting system to base-infinity (i.e. the integers
from zero to infinity are each represented by a unique single digit).
In your case, the atoms in the molecules would be marking out the shape
of the digit (the name of the state).
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all
From: toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
Subject: Re: The It from Bit: Quantum Logic and Information Theory
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:39:01 GMT
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

In article <1992Jul21.081724.13932@fcom.cc.utah.edu> burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu
(Paul Burchard) writes:

|>Thanks for the nice clear example.
|
|You're welcome.  This brings up another question though.  I guess the above  
|can't really be the entire universe, even quantum mechanically, due to the  
|entropy decrease?  (Hmmm...how does the Schrodinger eq. evolve the entropy?).

No, it can't be the whole system.  For the entropy to have decreased by 1
bit in this system, the surroundings must have increased by at least 1 bit.
That is, the heat flow out of the experimental area increases the entropy
of the surrounding universe.

|To have a physically complete example of a measurement process, we probably  
|need to include the state of the "experimental apparatus" Y which was used to  
|measure the state of X.  For example we could imagine 1 extra bit of state for  
|Y.

But if Y is strongly correlated with the other variables, then that doesn't
change the problem much.

| It seems the apparatus Y must be assumed to be "prepared" in a low entropy  
|state so that we have one free bit of information to futz with in the  
|measurement process.

No, Y must be prepared in a HIGH entropy state!  Think of Y as a magnetic
coin.  Heads is north and tails is south (or, as they say, "heads I win,
tails you lose!").  Then flip it to put it in a "prepared state".
Now let it drop through a tube through which is a magnetic field of unknown
direction.  The field orients the coin, which means that the coin must lose
some kinetic energy.  That energy is dissipated away as heat.  The coin
slides out the bottom in an orientation that tells us the direction of that
unknown magnetic field.

This gedanken experiment would be impossible to do with the coin in a low
energy state to start with - SOMEHOW the coin has to get enough energy to
switch.  Correcting your statement, we have:

"It seems the apparatus Y must be assumed to be "prepared" in a HIGH entropy  
state so that we have one free bit of UNCERTAINTY to futz with in the  
measurement process."

This is now consistent with a definition of information which is
a decrease of uncertainty (or entropy).

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
From: dpiponi@bach.mth.kcl.ac.uk (Daniele Piponi)
Subject: Soup Computers and Genetic Switches
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Keywords: genetic switch
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:02:15 GMT
X-Posted-From: bach.mth.kcl.ac.uk
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

For a detailed but readable account of what is effectively
a biological transistor circuit I'd recommend the wonderful
book "The Genetic Switch" by Mark Ptashne.

--
/\___/\    mail --> udah001 @ elm.cc.kcl.ac.uk
\/o o\/
 \_._/ Dan Piponi  dpiponi @ maths1.mth.kcl.ac.uk
From: toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
Subject: Re: The It from Bit: Quantum Logic and Information Theory
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:42:32 GMT
Organization: Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center

In article <1992Jul22.000211.25966@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu (Paul Burchard) writes:

>Actually, the free bit of uncertainty we want to futz with is the state of the  
>scientist's mind (A)---this is what acts in the role of your coin to measure  
>the unknown state (X).  And you are right that therefore A must be prepared in  
>a high entropy state.

good.

>The purpose of the third bit (Y), however, is to absorb the extra energy that  
>is dissipated in the measurement process (as you describe).  Maybe  
>"experimental apparatus" is a bad name for it, but the point is that  
>*something* in the universe must be "prepared" in a *low* entropy state so that  
>it is capable of absorbing this energy.  "Heat death" prevents any measurements  
>from being performed.

Right, although calling it a "bit" can be somewhat misleading.  When energy is
dissipated, AS HEAT, it's very tough to get it back into one spot.  It's
vibrating the molecules of the support structure of the machine, it's radiated
away into space.  You can't get ahold of it again without dissipating even more
energy (ie, second law constraint).  The low entropy state is a "resource" that
you allow heat to flow into.  You just relax and let it go.

If the "resource" is a stream next to your nuclear power plant, it might not
be quite so good to look at it that way!  The fish might not like it.

A nice example is cooling a Cray computer.  You prepare some cool stuff (low
entropy reservoir) into which the computer can dump its waste heat.  The thing
is, of course, to make the cool stuff, you had to heat something else - the
atmosphere - even more.

>Actually, this discussion is providing a nice clarification of the  
>info-theoretically necessary components of any measurement.

Yes, it has been helpful!

  Tom Schneider
  National Cancer Institute
  Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
  Frederick, Maryland  21702-1201
  toms@ncifcrf.gov
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
From: dpiponi@bach.mth.kcl.ac.uk (Daniele Piponi)
Subject: Re: The It from Bit: Quantum Logic and Information Theory
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 11:58:47 GMT
X-Posted-From: bach.mth.kcl.ac.uk
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <3619@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom  
Schneider) writes:
> ...
> The trouble is that there must be enormous numbers of splits happening
> every microsecond.  Just about every point in the universe is splitting.
> So there must be unbelievable numbers of universes being spawned all the  
time.
> ...
> Tell me if I made a mistake.

The title "Many Worlds Interpretation" is, I think, an unfortunate
misnomer. If you go back to the original papers on the subject,
"Many Worlds" isn't really about many worlds at all.I think a better
title would be the "Superposition of Observers Interpretation".

The point is this: QM as taught at university has two postulates
1) QM systems evolve by a linear equation in a continuous way
   until
2) they are observed and then they collapse into states with definite
   values for some observable.

In "Many Worlds" a simplifying assumption is made, the second postulate
is ditched. No extra postulates about extra universes are put in. 
Postulate number two is simply dropped. That's all.

Now what happens if we just have (1)? Suppose we have an experiment to
observe an electron spin state. What is does is map an initial state
|Observer brain=?>  |spin state=x> into
|Observer brain=x>  |spin state=x>. Ie. after an experiment the
observer's brain becomes correlated with the electron. Suppose
the initial electron is in a superposition of states. Then at the
start we have
|brain=?> (|spin=up > + |spin=down>).
Assuming our evolution equation is linear we end up with
|brain=up>|spin=up>+|brain=down>|spin=down>.
In English that means we have two observers, superimposed, each of
whom sees an electron in a definite state, apparently having observed
a wavefunction collapse even though we know that overall the whole
system has evolved continuously.

In principle this could be tested because we could observe interference
between the two different observers with different brain states :-)

I know some theoretical physicists who believe the above model and think
it so obvious they resent it having a special name like "Many Worlds"
and wouldn't show up in any poll!


--
/\___/\   
\/o o\/
 \_._/ Dan Piponi  dpiponi @ bach.mth.kcl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: bionet.info-theory
From: burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu (Paul Burchard)
Subject: Re: The It from Bit: Quantum Logic and Information Theory
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:02:11 GMT

In article <3600@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> toms@fcs260c2.ncifcrf.gov (Tom Schneider)  
writes:
> | It seems the apparatus Y must be assumed to be "prepared" in a low entropy  
> |state so that we have one free bit of information to futz with in the  
> |measurement process.
> 
> No, Y must be prepared in a HIGH entropy state!  Think of Y as a magnetic
> coin.  Heads is north and tails is south (or, as they say, "heads I win,
> tails you lose!").  Then flip it to put it in a "prepared state".
> Now let it drop through a tube through which is a magnetic field of unknown
> direction.  The field orients the coin, which means that the coin must lose
> some kinetic energy.  That energy is dissipated away as heat.  The coin
> slides out the bottom in an orientation that tells us the direction of that
> unknown magnetic field.
> 
> This gedanken experiment would be impossible to do with the coin in a low
> energy state to start with - SOMEHOW the coin has to get enough energy to
> switch.  Correcting your statement, we have:
> 
> "It seems the apparatus Y must be assumed to be "prepared" in a HIGH entropy  
> state so that we have one free bit of UNCERTAINTY to futz with in the  
> measurement process."

Actually, the free bit of uncertainty we want to futz with is the state of the  
scientist's mind (A)---this is what acts in the role of your coin to measure  
the unknown state (X).  And you are right that therefore A must be prepared in  
a high entropy state.

The purpose of the third bit (Y), however, is to absorb the extra energy that  
is dissipated in the measurement process (as you describe).  Maybe  
"experimental apparatus" is a bad name for it, but the point is that  
*something* in the universe must be "prepared" in a *low* entropy state so that  
it is capable of absorbing this energy.  "Heat death" prevents any measurements  
from being performed.

Actually, this discussion is providing a nice clarification of the  
info-theoretically necessary components of any measurement.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard	<burchard@math.utah.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Newsgroups: bionet.general
Subject: Usenet news feed. How to?
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:42:57 GMT
Reply-To: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


Could someone offer me some clues (or even solid information) about where
and how to get a good newsgroup feed.  Right now my campus, SUNY@Stony
Brook, gets newsgroup information that curiously has large gaps and
deletions.  A newsgroup, such as the bionet groups, might be listed but no
articles will ever appear.  Read news software is apparently set up here by
whatever interested undergraduate happens to come through the door and
there hasn't been any sitings of the creatures lately.  Right now I'm
telneting to Cleveland Freenet but the cost of the I/O charges quickly
drains my account to nothing.  So I, some other
molbio grad student types and some interested faculty (not many of the
latter) are interested in taking matters into our own hands.  Lacking that,
we'd appreciate any information regarding someone else's news feed that we
could grap via telnet.  Any clues as to what to look for and where to look
will be greatly appreciated.

-- 
E-mail: mhollowa@ccmail.sunysb.edu (mail to freenet is forwarded)
phone:  (516)444-3612
I would claim to speak for my university but no one is likely to
believe it.
From: nick@unvax.umc.edu
Newsgroups: bionet.general
Subject: test, please ignore
Date: 25 Jul 92 23:17:59 GMT

fdsdfs
sdfsdfsf
testttttttttttt
From: AJB@UK.AC.DARESBURY.DLVH
Newsgroups: bionet.general
Subject: Re: High volume newsgroups
Date: 24 Jul 92 23:30:00 GMT
Distribution: bionet

Forgive me for injecting a note of caution....

METHODS is probably the flagship of BIOSCI as it deals with matters of
immediate interest to the experimental molecular biologist and the group
has therefore attained a certain `critical mass'. The suggestion to
subdivide this group into specialities (paraphrasing)  is risky; any
subcategories of METHODS would have to be kept exceedingly broad to avoid
the loss of valuable input.

I do not believe the traffic on METHODS currently warrants such partitioning.


Alan Bleasby
SERC Daresbury Laboratory
Warrington WA4 4AD
UK
From: cliff@WATSON.IBM.COM ("Cliff Pickover")
Newsgroups: bionet.general
Subject: Pycnogonids
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:22:44 GMT
Distribution: bionet

I'm interested in learning whether there is any interesting
literature, books, or recent research on the Pycnogonids.

If anyone answers this admittedly obscure question, I would be grateful
if you send your replies to cliff@watson.ibm.com

Thanks, Cliff