Friam

Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Classic

List

Threaded

20 messages Options

Robert Wall

Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Thanks, Robert,

I have informed some other folks, as well.

Can you say a few words about the Santa Fe Philosophical Society? I’ve been here a dozen years and this is the first I have known of it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

Nick Thompson

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

In reply to this post by Robert Wall

Robert,

I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers. I didn’t see the link (as a link).

I will make every effort to be there. Sunday night is my cooking night for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to finesse it.

I always imagined that you were from some far distant place! Like Australia, or something. Have you been here the whole time? Have you ever come to FRIAM?

I look forward to meeting you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

Robert Wall

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Hi Nick,

No worries. I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the Santa Fe Philosophical Society that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have been a member of the SFPS for about four years and joined about a year after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated discussion. I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is older, very friendly, and philosophically curious. Many are ex-pats from LANL, but not all ... like me.

If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just add you as my guest to the sign-up list. Then, if you like what you see and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to these meetings. The member headcount determines the dues that are paid annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources. Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take a lot of money to run this Meetup group. Mim has a very large accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D. graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer. 😎 Many times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared, linked material from the website.

Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other time(s). I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 😎

BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years ago after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a percolating interest of mine. Steven replied that that made six now who read the paper, or something like that. 😊 Even as a perhaps too infrequent contributor--but frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list has many thoughtful contributors that seem to know one another fairly well. And, I imagine the FRIAM at St. Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with a similar degree of familiarity. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop by the FRIAM group at least on my way to join the St. John's library, as they have the best philosophical library in these parts. If memory serves, you meet at 9:30 a.m. every Friday.

For some reason, I thought you were on the east coast near Boston or something like that. But, yes, I would enjoy meeting you as well, having enjoyed your contributions to the forum, especially as you go about explaining Peirce. So, I have been waiting for Peirce to appear on the menu at the SFPS and it has finally arrived. William James, another pragmatist, about whom I am also very curious. Dewey? Maybe, so ...

Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.

Cheers,

Robert

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Robert,

I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers. I didn’t see the link (as a link).

I will make every effort to be there. Sunday night is my cooking night for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to finesse it.

I always imagined that you were from some far distant place! Like Australia, or something. Have you been here the whole time? Have you ever come to FRIAM?

I look forward to meeting you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Robert Wall

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Oh; you already signed up, Nick! Very cool! 😎

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Robert Wall <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Nick,

No worries. I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the Santa Fe Philosophical Society that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have been a member of the SFPS for about four years and joined about a year after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated discussion. I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is older, very friendly, and philosophically curious. Many are ex-pats from LANL, but not all ... like me.

If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just add you as my guest to the sign-up list. Then, if you like what you see and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to these meetings. The member headcount determines the dues that are paid annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources. Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take a lot of money to run this Meetup group. Mim has a very large accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D. graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer. 😎 Many times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared, linked material from the website.

Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other time(s). I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 😎

BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years ago after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a percolating interest of mine. Steven replied that that made six now who read the paper, or something like that. 😊 Even as a perhaps too infrequent contributor--but frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list has many thoughtful contributors that seem to know one another fairly well. And, I imagine the FRIAM at St. Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with a similar degree of familiarity. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop by the FRIAM group at least on my way to join the St. John's library, as they have the best philosophical library in these parts. If memory serves, you meet at 9:30 a.m. every Friday.

For some reason, I thought you were on the east coast near Boston or something like that. But, yes, I would enjoy meeting you as well, having enjoyed your contributions to the forum, especially as you go about explaining Peirce. So, I have been waiting for Peirce to appear on the menu at the SFPS and it has finally arrived. William James, another pragmatist, about whom I am also very curious. Dewey? Maybe, so ...

Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.

Cheers,

Robert

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Robert,

I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers. I didn’t see the link (as a link).

I will make every effort to be there. Sunday night is my cooking night for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to finesse it.

I always imagined that you were from some far distant place! Like Australia, or something. Have you been here the whole time? Have you ever come to FRIAM?

I look forward to meeting you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

In reply to this post by Robert Wall

Robert,

Friam starts a little earlier than 9.30; closer to 9.10. I like to come early so I can get a seat in the middle (hearing problems), but that might not be a factor for you, so come any time. The group is very eclectic – sometimes we do old fart stuff, and sometimes we do really interesting stuff. We have several mathematicians, and when they get going, I just have to Sit In Wonder.

I note your interest in teleonomy. Through a weird coincidence, I ran into a blog run by some middle eastern folks who made me read Jacques Monod’s CHANCE AND NECESSITY. (I have a PDF, if you would like to read it.) I was astounded because “Teleonomy” is the key term of Monod’s exposition, and I had written some papers on it in the eighties (e.g. The Misappropriation of Teleonomy) without ever finding his book. Anyway, if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.

I have been trying to write something on Peirce for months now but need a collaborator to keep me honest. Perhaps the group has one.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Hi Nick,

Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.

Cheers,

Robert

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Robert,

I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers. I didn’t see the link (as a link).

I will make every effort to be there. Sunday night is my cooking night for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to finesse it.

I always imagined that you were from some far distant place! Like Australia, or something. Have you been here the whole time? Have you ever come to FRIAM?

I look forward to meeting you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Robert Wall

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Nick,

Thanks for the offer; I do have a copy of Jacques Monod’s Chance and Necessity. As I remember, it was not easy to find at the time as a new copy.

Your request:

... if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.

What I do still have is the text I prepared for the Santa Fe Philosophical Society as "homework" for my 20-minute presentation. So, if one reads my 20-page "Does the universe have a purpose for us?" before the presentation, they would be better prepared for the "lecture" and ensuing discussion. So it is a primer of sorts. And, it serves as a partial look at how, with the rise of Darwinism, teleonomic explanations historically and "successfully" pushed aside teleological explanations for the apparent goal directiveness of biological evolution. But I see that your 1987 paper "The Misappropriation of Teleonomy" would see this as no explanation at all. I shall read that paper to see why you say that, though, you are also saying that Jaques Monad "beat you to the punch-line." Need to re-read that one. 😊 More to come ...

I also had a two-page handout, summarizing the points in the paper. Also, the title question was posed to the group (~ 20 persons) both before and after the session. The final majority consensus was "no" but there were some minds changed as I recall. I wonder if I had changed the question to "Does life have a purpose for us?" would the consensus been different. Friedrich Nietzsche clearly lamented "no," but warned us that we had better figure out a rational one we can all agree on pretty soon. His warning seems to ask, "If we are so smart, why haven't we come up with a rational purpose (goal) for humanity?" Humans are the only teleological agents in the universe that we know about. And, we are the only organisms that can imbue rational purpose for ourselves.

Here's a sidebar ramble motivated by today's FRIAM session ... giving it more "thought":

Given what I heard you aks the FRIAM group this morning, "Is natural selection a fair process--for it must be so for it to work the way it does (careful to not say 'progress' here)?'," you might find Lee Smolin's ("testable") Cosmological Natural Selection hypothesis intriguing in the sense that your question may be applied cosmologically. Smolin's model refute's the (strong and weak) Anthropic Principle of Cosmology which is arguably teleological. So, I wonder, if your idea of "fairness" would need to satisfy an anti-teleology filter ... no goal. That does seem reasonable, but does it work?

When existing life becomes environmentally stressed (the stimulus to change or die), evolution builds on what it already has through a (non-random) re-expression of the "parts" in a way that makes the organism more fit (e.g., the grasshopper to locust phenomenon). This is also how the Hox gene circuit seems to work (and it makes the probability math work out). However, like others expressed, I do not see the word "fair" being the right selection among possible fit words ... pun not really intended, but it's curious in that, not any word will do.

Can a new organism be re-made from its initial state to fit within the moving niche (as I think Kim would put it)? Maybe the selection process is like information transmission, but through a gene expression process where an irrelevant message becomes relevant (functional) in the new context. With moving niches, time can be the enemy, which is why the process cannot be random (fair?) because the probability math does not work out, and which is why bacteria populations do so well as moving into new niches. Bacteria use short reproduction cycles (change the organism); humans use technology (change the environment, which is not natural selection, but changing our tolerance to niche movements), as was pointed out today.

Then again, this may all be a nonsensical (fair?) grope to an explanation (a solution) that will satisfy (fit) ... 🤔 (again, no pun intended). 😊

Anyway. Let me know where you would like for me to send the discussion paper and I will. It could serve as the basis for a new thread, but it might also be way too much material for such a use.

BTW, from what I learned from Frank this morning about the group dynamics is that the group interaction works more coherently--like it did today--when seeded with an interesting question or proposition. Then, it seems, all of the seated minds work simultaneously on the same "thread" so to speak. This is very similar to the underlying process of a Socrates Cafe. I think your question(s) served this purpose. 😎

Cheers,

Robert

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Robert,

Friam starts a little earlier than 9.30; closer to 9.10. I like to come early so I can get a seat in the middle (hearing problems), but that might not be a factor for you, so come any time. The group is very eclectic – sometimes we do old fart stuff, and sometimes we do really interesting stuff. We have several mathematicians, and when they get going, I just have to Sit In Wonder.
I note your interest in teleonomy. Through a weird coincidence, I ran into a blog run by some middle eastern folks who made me read Jacques Monod’s CHANCE AND NECESSITY. (I have a PDF, if you would like to read it.) I was astounded because “Teleonomy” is the key term of Monod’s exposition, and I had written some papers on it in the eighties (e.g. The Misappropriation of Teleonomy) without ever finding his book. Anyway, if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.

I have been trying to write something on Peirce for months now but need a collaborator to keep me honest. Perhaps the group has one.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Hi Nick,

No worries. I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the Santa Fe Philosophical Society that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have been a member of the SFPS for about four years and joined about a year after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated discussion. I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is older, very friendly, and philosophically curious. Many are ex-pats from LANL, but not all ... like me.

If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just add you as my guest to the sign-up list. Then, if you like what you see and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to these meetings. The member headcount determines the dues that are paid annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources. Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take a lot of money to run this Meetup group. Mim has a very large accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D. graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer. 😎 Many times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared, linked material from the website.

Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other time(s). I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 😎

BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years ago after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a percolating interest of mine. Steven replied that that made six now who read the paper, or something like that. 😊 Even as a perhaps too infrequent contributor--but frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list has many thoughtful contributors that seem to know one another fairly well. And, I imagine the FRIAM at St. Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with a similar degree of familiarity. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop by the FRIAM group at least on my way to join the St. John's library, as they have the best philosophical library in these parts. If memory serves, you meet at 9:30 a.m. every Friday.

For some reason, I thought you were on the east coast near Boston or something like that. But, yes, I would enjoy meeting you as well, having enjoyed your contributions to the forum, especially as you go about explaining Peirce. So, I have been waiting for Peirce to appear on the menu at the SFPS and it has finally arrived. William James, another pragmatist, about whom I am also very curious. Dewey? Maybe, so ...

Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.

Cheers,

Robert

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Robert,

I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers. I didn’t see the link (as a link).

I will make every effort to be there. Sunday night is my cooking night for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to finesse it.

I always imagined that you were from some far distant place! Like Australia, or something. Have you been here the whole time? Have you ever come to FRIAM?

I look forward to meeting you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Nick Thompson

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Dear Robert,

It was great to see you at today’s meeting; hope you become a regular.

I will “lard” your text below with my responses.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Nick,

Thanks for the offer; I do have a copy of Jacques Monod’s Chance and Necessity. As I remember, it was not easy to find at the time as a new copy.

Your request:

... if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.

[NST==>Well, I would need to read you papers and see how you characterize a “teloeonomic explanation.” My suggested use of the term is descriptive. But the only real constraint is that a teloeonomic concept not be used as an explainer and as a describer in the same argument. <==nst]

I shall read that paper to see why you say that, though, you are also saying that Jaques Monad "beat you to the punch-line."

[NST==>Well, it was more that he beat Sean Carroll to the punch line. If I had read Monod in graduate school (which was possible) I might not have been so amazed by Carroll in retirement. And I might have not spent so much of my career beating back silly arguments about the nature-nurture “issue.” <==nst]

Need to re-read that one. 😊 More to come ...

[NST==>I wonder if I agree with this. <==nst]

And, we are the only organisms that can imbue rational purpose for ourselves.

[NST==>I guess I agree that we are the only rationalizing organisms. <==nst]

Here's a sidebar ramble motivated by today's FRIAM session ... giving it more "thought":

Given what I heard you aks the FRIAM group this morning, "Is natural selection a fair process--for it must be so for it to work the way it does (careful to not say 'progress' here)?'," you might find Lee Smolin's ("testable") Cosmological Natural Selection hypothesis intriguing in the sense that your question may be applied cosmologically. Smolin's model refute's the (strong and weak) Anthropic Principle of Cosmology which is arguably teleological. So, I wonder, if your idea of "fairness" would need to satisfy an anti-teleology filter ... no goal. That does seem reasonable, but does it work?
[NST==>Is Smolin’s thesis within easy reach, anywhere on the web? <==nst]

When existing life becomes environmentally stressed (the stimulus to change or die), evolution builds on what it already has through a (non-random) re-expression of the "parts" in a way that makes the organism more fit (e.g., the grasshopper to locust phenomenon). This is also how the Hox gene circuit seems to work (and it makes the probability math work out). However, like others expressed, I do not see the word "fair" being the right selection among possible fit words ... pun not really intended, but it's curious in that, not any word will do.
[NST==>I truly garbled this argument, today. Got really tongue-tied. I will try to straighten it out in a subsequent email. <==nst]

Can a new organism be re-made from its initial state to fit within the moving niche (as I think Kim would put it)?
[NST==>I am uneasy about the notion of niche. It implies a stable set of ways of making a living in an environment that have nothing with the organisms that make them. This the whole issue of the Baldwin effect in which an organism determines its niche by its behavioral choices. I think “the niche”, like “the species”, can survive this sort of attack, but only through a long and careful statistical and mathematical analysis of the concept of design. <==nst]
Maybe the selection process is like information transmission, but through a gene expression process where an irrelevant message becomes relevant (functional) in the new context. With moving niches, time can be the enemy, which is why the process cannot be random (fair?) because the probability math does not work out, and which is why bacteria populations do so well as moving into new niches. Bacteria use short reproduction cycles (change the organism); humans use technology (change the environment, which is not natural selection, but changing our tolerance to niche movements), as was pointed out today.

Then again, this may all be a nonsensical (fair?) grope to an explanation (a solution) that will satisfy (fit) ... 🤔 (again, no pun intended). 😊
[NST==>Yeah. Sorry. I really screwed this up. It’s the genetic/developmental system that has to be “fair”; natural selection is patently Unfair. Please see later message. <==nst]

Anyway. Let me know where you would like for me to send the discussion paper and I will. It could serve as the basis for a new thread, but it might also be way too much material for such a use.

[NST==>If you put it up in the cloud somewhere, we will find it! <==nst]

[NST==> I agree, people who come to a meeting with a burr under their saddle are a great resource. By the way, Frank, the effect of a burr under the saddle is on the HORSE, right? So, the metaphor is to somebody who is riding a horse he cannot altogether control. <==nst]

Cheers,

Robert

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Robert,

Friam starts a little earlier than 9.30; closer to 9.10. I like to come early so I can get a seat in the middle (hearing problems), but that might not be a factor for you, so come any time. The group is very eclectic – sometimes we do old fart stuff, and sometimes we do really interesting stuff. We have several mathematicians, and when they get going, I just have to Sit In Wonder.
I note your interest in teleonomy. Through a weird coincidence, I ran into a blog run by some middle eastern folks who made me read Jacques Monod’s CHANCE AND NECESSITY. (I have a PDF, if you would like to read it.) I was astounded because “Teleonomy” is the key term of Monod’s exposition, and I had written some papers on it in the eighties (e.g. The Misappropriation of Teleonomy) without ever finding his book. Anyway, if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.

I have been trying to write something on Peirce for months now but need a collaborator to keep me honest. Perhaps the group has one.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Hi Nick,

No worries. I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the Santa Fe Philosophical Society that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have been a member of the SFPS for about four years and joined about a year after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated discussion. I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is older, very friendly, and philosophically curious. Many are ex-pats from LANL, but not all ... like me.

If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just add you as my guest to the sign-up list. Then, if you like what you see and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to these meetings. The member headcount determines the dues that are paid annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources. Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take a lot of money to run this Meetup group. Mim has a very large accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D. graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer. 😎 Many times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared, linked material from the website.

Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other time(s). I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 😎

BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years ago after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a percolating interest of mine. Steven replied that that made six now who read the paper, or something like that. 😊 Even as a perhaps too infrequent contributor--but frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list has many thoughtful contributors that seem to know one another fairly well. And, I imagine the FRIAM at St. Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with a similar degree of familiarity. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop by the FRIAM group at least on my way to join the St. John's library, as they have the best philosophical library in these parts. If memory serves, you meet at 9:30 a.m. every Friday.

For some reason, I thought you were on the east coast near Boston or something like that. But, yes, I would enjoy meeting you as well, having enjoyed your contributions to the forum, especially as you go about explaining Peirce. So, I have been waiting for Peirce to appear on the menu at the SFPS and it has finally arrived. William James, another pragmatist, about whom I am also very curious. Dewey? Maybe, so ...

Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.

Cheers,

Robert

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Robert,

I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers. I didn’t see the link (as a link).

I will make every effort to be there. Sunday night is my cooking night for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to finesse it.

I always imagined that you were from some far distant place! Like Australia, or something. Have you been here the whole time? Have you ever come to FRIAM?

I look forward to meeting you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Robert Wall

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Hi Nick, Glen, Frank, et al.,

Here are some more burrs ... 😴

Included here are links to that discussion paper and the associated handout I put together for that Santa Fe Philosophical Society session titled Purpose.

Does The Universe have a Purpose
Does the Universe Have a Purpose - HANDOUT

I think it is a fun piece that indeed did lead to a very interesting two-hour discussion in the style of a Socrates Cafe. All "burrs, are volunteered and most welcomed in this forum. 😎

Is Smolin’s thesis within easy reach, anywhere on the web?

The gist of Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection thesis can be gleaned at these links:

Scientific American: The Logic and Beauty of Cosmological Natural Selection (June 10, 2014).

YouTube: Lee Smolin: Cosmological Natural Selection (YouTube Geek Week!) (August 3, 2013). [3.5 minutes].

and more fully in his 1997 book The Life of the Cosmos.

I find this theory of Smolin's the most compelling "Genesis story" we have so far probably because of its appeal to the powerful Evolution paradigm at the level of the cosmos. As you will read, Smolin appears in my discussion of Purpose ... explaining the apparentness of purpose (or design) in a cosmological context seems like a natural extension from the biological context. Smolin does a decent job in explaining this extension, IMHO.

BTW, I also liked Smolin's 2013 book Time Reborn. It is a re-analysis of Time in a way that channels Henri Bergson (links both criticism and praise in this discussion about the book). If you are not up on Henri Bergson, this short piece would be an interesting primer in the context of Bergson's famous 1922 public debate with Albert Einstein on the concept of Time. After that debate, the Science establishment kind of closed ranks against Bergson ... until, perhaps, Lee Smolin took another look. This treatment is both interesting and tragic for Bergson who was among the most respected natural philosophers of his day. Alfred North Whitehead was influenced by Bergson with his Process Philosophy (that goes way back to Greek theoretician Heraclitus of Ephesus--compare Parmenides of Elea).

And for both thinkers [Heraclitus and Parmenides], the real was accessible to reason because reality itself was rational. In seeking reality we must, therefore, follow reason and ignore the testimony of our senses. Mathematics is the most transparently reason-driven mode of thought, and so we must follow the mathematics where it takes us. Hence the (possibly apocryphal) sign over the entrance to Plato’s Academy: ‘Let no-one ignorant of geometry enter here’.

Anyway, sorry for all the links. I can get carried away with this stuff. 😕

In the context of information being another physically fundamental entity in the universe along with energy and matter, I brought up David Deutsch's Constructor Theory at the FRIAM as a very recent contender to build a new physics based on this uber-reductionist viewpoint. I haven't heard much more progress on this over the last two years and I think Deutsch is relying on his postdoctoral research associate, Chiara Marletto, to bring this into the domain of biology. Constructor Theory is to address this conclusion: "The conclusion that the laws of physics must be tailored to produce biological adaptations is amazingly erroneous." So this theory would indeed compete with Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection Theory. But, Constructor Theory might be very much in line with Jeremy England's Physics Theory of Life (Note: this is from QuantaMagazine, which we also discussed) and, perhaps with Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and self-organizing dissipative structures. Fun stuff to read about ...

Possible future "burr": Appealing to the idea of a wave function containing complete information about a system, is information conserved [Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics] like energy and matter? 😎

I have not been up to speed on the Baldwin Effect in the context of phenotypic plasticity, learning, or development phenomena (e.g., language) ... and niches. Can you suggest some readings? It seems to ask the question as to what leads what: Genes or phenotypes? Do epigenetics come into play here (this was heavily debated here)?

Thanks,

Robert

P.S., Glen, yeah, that is the same Chris Goad! He came here from Oregon but apparently grew up here in Santa Fe. I think his father was pretty well known at LANL.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Robert,

It was great to see you at today’s meeting; hope you become a regular.

I will “lard” your text below with my responses.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:51 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Nick,

Thanks for the offer; I do have a copy of Jacques Monod’s Chance and Necessity. As I remember, it was not easy to find at the time as a new copy.

Your request:
... if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.

What I do still have is the text I prepared for the Santa Fe Philosophical Society as "homework" for my 20-minute presentation. So, if one reads my 20-page "Does the universe have a purpose for us?" before the presentation, they would be better prepared for the "lecture" and ensuing discussion. So it is a primer of sorts. And, it serves as a partial look at how, with the rise of Darwinism, teleonomic explanations historically and "successfully" pushed aside teleological explanations for the apparent goal directiveness of biological evolution. But I see that your 1987 paper "The Misappropriation of Teleonomy" would see this as no explanation at all.
[NST==>Well, I would need to read you papers and see how you characterize a “teloeonomic explanation.” My suggested use of the term is descriptive. But the only real constraint is that a teloeonomic concept not be used as an explainer and as a describer in the same argument. <==nst]
I shall read that paper to see why you say that, though, you are also saying that Jaques Monad "beat you to the punch-line."
[NST==>Well, it was more that he beat Sean Carroll to the punch line. If I had read Monod in graduate school (which was possible) I might not have been so amazed by Carroll in retirement. And I might have not spent so much of my career beating back silly arguments about the nature-nurture “issue.” <==nst]
Need to re-read that one. 😊 More to come ...

I also had a two-page handout, summarizing the points in the paper. Also, the title question was posed to the group (~ 20 persons) both before and after the session. The final majority consensus was "no" but there were some minds changed as I recall. I wonder if I had changed the question to "Does life have a purpose for us?" would the consensus been different. Friedrich Nietzsche clearly lamented "no," but warned us that we had better figure out a rational one we can all agree on pretty soon. His warning seems to ask, "If we are so smart, why haven't we come up with a rational purpose (goal) for humanity?" Humans are the only teleological agents in the universe that we know about.
[NST==>I wonder if I agree with this. <==nst]
And, we are the only organisms that can imbue rational purpose for ourselves.
[NST==>I guess I agree that we are the only rationalizing organisms. <==nst]

Here's a sidebar ramble motivated by today's FRIAM session ... giving it more "thought":

Given what I heard you aks the FRIAM group this morning, "Is natural selection a fair process--for it must be so for it to work the way it does (careful to not say 'progress' here)?'," you might find Lee Smolin's ("testable") Cosmological Natural Selection hypothesis intriguing in the sense that your question may be applied cosmologically. Smolin's model refute's the (strong and weak) Anthropic Principle of Cosmology which is arguably teleological. So, I wonder, if your idea of "fairness" would need to satisfy an anti-teleology filter ... no goal. That does seem reasonable, but does it work?
[NST==>Is Smolin’s thesis within easy reach, anywhere on the web? <==nst]

When existing life becomes environmentally stressed (the stimulus to change or die), evolution builds on what it already has through a (non-random) re-expression of the "parts" in a way that makes the organism more fit (e.g., the grasshopper to locust phenomenon). This is also how the Hox gene circuit seems to work (and it makes the probability math work out). However, like others expressed, I do not see the word "fair" being the right selection among possible fit words ... pun not really intended, but it's curious in that, not any word will do.
[NST==>I truly garbled this argument, today. Got really tongue-tied. I will try to straighten it out in a subsequent email. <==nst]

Can a new organism be re-made from its initial state to fit within the moving niche (as I think Kim would put it)?
[NST==>I am uneasy about the notion of niche. It implies a stable set of ways of making a living in an environment that have nothing with the organisms that make them. This the whole issue of the Baldwin effect in which an organism determines its niche by its behavioral choices. I think “the niche”, like “the species”, can survive this sort of attack, but only through a long and careful statistical and mathematical analysis of the concept of design. <==nst]
Maybe the selection process is like information transmission, but through a gene expression process where an irrelevant message becomes relevant (functional) in the new context. With moving niches, time can be the enemy, which is why the process cannot be random (fair?) because the probability math does not work out, and which is why bacteria populations do so well as moving into new niches. Bacteria use short reproduction cycles (change the organism); humans use technology (change the environment, which is not natural selection, but changing our tolerance to niche movements), as was pointed out today.

Then again, this may all be a nonsensical (fair?) grope to an explanation (a solution) that will satisfy (fit) ... 🤔 (again, no pun intended). 😊
[NST==>Yeah. Sorry. I really screwed this up. It’s the genetic/developmental system that has to be “fair”; natural selection is patently Unfair. Please see later message. <==nst]

Anyway. Let me know where you would like for me to send the discussion paper and I will. It could serve as the basis for a new thread, but it might also be way too much material for such a use.
[NST==>If you put it up in the cloud somewhere, we will find it! <==nst]

BTW, from what I learned from Frank this morning about the group dynamics is that the group interaction works more coherently--like it did today--when seeded with an interesting question or proposition.
[NST==> I agree, people who come to a meeting with a burr under their saddle are a great resource. By the way, Frank, the effect of a burr under the saddle is on the HORSE, right? So, the metaphor is to somebody who is riding a horse he cannot altogether control. <==nst]

Cheers,

Robert

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Robert,

Friam starts a little earlier than 9.30; closer to 9.10. I like to come early so I can get a seat in the middle (hearing problems), but that might not be a factor for you, so come any time. The group is very eclectic – sometimes we do old fart stuff, and sometimes we do really interesting stuff. We have several mathematicians, and when they get going, I just have to Sit In Wonder.
I note your interest in teleonomy. Through a weird coincidence, I ran into a blog run by some middle eastern folks who made me read Jacques Monod’s CHANCE AND NECESSITY. (I have a PDF, if you would like to read it.) I was astounded because “Teleonomy” is the key term of Monod’s exposition, and I had written some papers on it in the eighties (e.g. The Misappropriation of Teleonomy) without ever finding his book. Anyway, if you have a text of your presentation, I would love to read it.

I have been trying to write something on Peirce for months now but need a collaborator to keep me honest. Perhaps the group has one.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 7:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Hi Nick,

No worries. I am happy to tell you et al. a bit more about the Santa Fe Philosophical Society that wouldn't be apparent from the website. I have been a member of the SFPS for about four years and joined about a year after we moved to Santa Fe from Austin, Texas, where I retired from Hewlett Packard as a performance-research scientist | engineer. We most often meet at a particular member's comfortable home, Mim's, every second Sunday of the month for a discussion on some philosophical issue or on the works of some philosopher that has or will be researched by a volunteer and who will provide a 30 to 40-minute introduction to the group followed by a moderated discussion. I have given two or three presentations to the group on topics like Martin Heidegger's 1954 essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and teleonomy versus teleology, to give you some quick examples. The group is older, very friendly, and philosophically curious. Many are ex-pats from LANL, but not all ... like me.

If I can get a number of those among you that are interested, I can just add you as my guest to the sign-up list. Then, if you like what you see and hear, you can join ... but you do not have to be a member to come to these meetings. The member headcount determines the dues that are paid annually to the Meetup organization that maintains the web resources. Members, or anyone, can donate a few dollars to a can, but it doesn't take a lot of money to run this Meetup group. Mim has a very large accommodating living room for these meetings, but we try to limit sessions to just 25 attendees (with shoes off at the door). Parking has never been a problem. My good friend Chris Goad--a theoretical mathematician Ph.D. graduate from Stanford, a self-admitted Platonist, and a huge proponent of the Computational Theory of Mind (we have argued this for nearly four years now)--has volunteered as the session moderator. A good guy. Coffee and tea are always available; some, like Chris Mechels, bring a beer. 😎 Many times handouts are provided, but it is best just to print off the prepared, linked material from the website.

Often, there can be several much smaller (~4-5 persons) breakout subgroups that will do a deeper dive into some philosophical topic at some other time(s). I have been involved in several that meet weekly at the Travel Bug for a few hours. The one I frequent seems to have turned toward discussions in neuroscience, which I think has been motivated by early sessions on consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. It's all good. 😎

BTW, I came across FRIAM by way of Steven Guerin, to whom I wrote years ago after reading a paper he wrote on complex adaptive systems, a percolating interest of mine. Steven replied that that made six now who read the paper, or something like that. 😊 Even as a perhaps too infrequent contributor--but frequent reader--of the forum, I find the list has many thoughtful contributors that seem to know one another fairly well. And, I imagine the FRIAM at St. Johns has the same caliber of thinkers with a similar degree of familiarity. Anyway, I've been meaning to drop by the FRIAM group at least on my way to join the St. John's library, as they have the best philosophical library in these parts. If memory serves, you meet at 9:30 a.m. every Friday.

For some reason, I thought you were on the east coast near Boston or something like that. But, yes, I would enjoy meeting you as well, having enjoyed your contributions to the forum, especially as you go about explaining Peirce. So, I have been waiting for Peirce to appear on the menu at the SFPS and it has finally arrived. William James, another pragmatist, about whom I am also very curious. Dewey? Maybe, so ...

Hope you can make it to the SFPS. The sessions never seem to disappoint.

Cheers,

Robert

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Robert,

I apologize for asking a dumb question about SF Philosophers. I didn’t see the link (as a link).

I will make every effort to be there. Sunday night is my cooking night for the extended family, but with a little planning I should be able to finesse it.

I always imagined that you were from some far distant place! Like Australia, or something. Have you been here the whole time? Have you ever come to FRIAM?

I look forward to meeting you.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Wall
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:46 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

FYI.

The Santa Fe Philosophical Society is offering a discussion session on Charles Sanders Peirce on Sunday, November 12, 2017, 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

Nick, if you are in town, the group would definitely benefit from your attendance ...

Robert

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Thanks for posting your intro materials to purpose of the universe. I haven't looked at them, yet, but will (probably next week).

But since I'm making a feeble attempt to review the "living systems as entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting, the below paragraph of yours tweaked me. It strikes me that Smolin's "maximal variety" (e.g. [⛤]) conception meshes well with England's conception of physical (non-living) adaptation, as well as Constructor Theory's "any non-impossible recipe". The first two (Smolin and England) seem to be intuitionistic in that they imply a recipe (follow the path with the most options), whereas Deutsch/Marletto are (perhaps) more classical (in logic/math terms) by allowing any recipe that doesn't contradict known constraints.

I *think* it's a mistake to read Smolin's conception as implied by the Marletto quote, which was about Bohm and Wigner. I'm ignorant of what Bohm and Wigner actually suggested. But Smolin seems to propose that things like stars exhibit (some) similar properties to living systems, especially in their ability to "maintain themselves as constant source of light and heat", despite the high entropy bath in which they sit. So, when considering things like cosmological constants and how they seem "tuned for life" (e.g. [⛧]), it's important to avoid putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the universe is tailored to produce life. It's that the universe is what it is and life-like systems just happen to be a very likely outcome in this universe.

I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin, England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!

[⛤] http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/150602938.pdf
[⛧] https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702115.pdf

On 10/29/2017 12:57 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
>
> In the context of *information *being another physically fundamental entity in the universe along with *energy *and *matter*, I brought up David Deutsch <https://www.edge.org/video/constructor-theory>'s Constructor Theory <https://aeon.co/essays/how-constructor-theory-solves-the-riddle-of-life> at the FRIAM as a very recent contender to build a new physics based on this uber-reductionist viewpoint. I haven't heard much more progress on this over the last two years and I think Deutsch is relying on his postdoctoral research associate, Chiara Marletto, to bring this into the domain of biology. Constructor Theory is to address this conclusion: "The conclusion that the laws of physics must be tailored to produce biological adaptations is amazingly erroneous." So this theory would indeed compete with Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection Theory. But, Constructor Theory might be very much in line with Jeremy England's Physics Theory of Life
> <https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-physics-theory-of-life-20170726/> (Note: this is from /QuantaMagazine/, which we also discussed) and, perhaps with Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and self-organizing dissipative structures. Fun stuff to read about ...

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Robert Wall

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Hi Glen, et al.,

I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin, England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!

I'll give it an equally feeble try. 😋 Actually, I see these three scientists as "groping" at something fundamentally the same: "How can the appearance of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?" Well, something like that. So, this joint concern seems (to me) to fall out naturally from the previous discussion concerning teleonomy or even purpose.--the former being an explanation (or description? See later discussion below.) or processes without intention and the later implying intentionality of a "maker" or "efficient cause."

Constructor Theory, which could have been better described by Marletto, IMHO, provokes the idea of constraints and "recipes," both being emergent properties consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe as a physical system that "began" with initial conditions (constraints) and laws of motion--notwithstanding how it began. Through the interaction of emergent particles as the universe evolved, new constraints emerged and interacted to cause the emergence of even more constraints. One commenter did a pretty good job to help Marletto along with the explanation; Summarized:

Without constraints, there would be a vast sea of undifferentiated and unlimited potential outcomes, but nothing would ever emerge to become ‘reality’
...

Yet where anything is possible, it is possible for a simple constraint to emerge. And as several constraints emerge and interact, they start to force ‘things’ to ‘behave’ in a certain way, rather than being equally spread across every possibility
...

Within that reality, new types of more directly ‘constructive’ constraints can emerge. Perhaps a particular molecular structure, which having occurred enables other types of reactions that were previously highly unlikely. And each of these changes the probability curves, increasing the likelihood that a next-stage constraint will eventually emerge, shaping and ‘constructing’ the stuff around it, further changing and channelling the possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which will enable yet more complex ‘constructors’ (and ‘constructeds’) to emerge. Eventually, these constraints/constructors shape reality to such an extent that very highly complex outcomes which “should” be utterly inconceivable in a pure-possibility-laws-model of probability are instead absolutely inevitable. We see many examples: simple life emerges, radically changing the behaviour of molecular interactions; eventually a new ‘constructor’ emerges that enables complex life, which fundamentally changes how these organisms interact; complex life itself enables the development of specialised organs that provide sensory and motor and intra-cellular communications functionality; sentient, motile life enables the development of purposive behaviour and (potentially) basic consciousness; etc.
...

At each stage, a new step - however infinitely unlikely before - becomes possible. Where will it end? Who knows, we seem to be only 13.8 billion years into the process, with probably several trillion to go. Each successive major development step seems to accelerate the capability and complexity of the emerging system by several magnitudes. Effectively, it really does look as though absolutely nothing is forever impossible (unless it contravenes the laws of physics, and even then … maybe we - or something down the line, at any rate - can eventually change them, creating another universe entirely?)"

Jeremy England's New Physics of Life is really an attempt to explain how life emerging from inert matter was inevitable. I have read the same conclusion somewhere (?) for the inevitability (and the remarkability) of the emergence of eukaryote life from prokaryote life ... I think I remember Nick Lane as saying it was a one-off (anyone?). I seem to remember this because it caused immediate cognizant dissonance within my own mind. Anyway, Constructor Theory would say that it was certainly possible, which seems tautological at this point. England's Theory should resonate with students of complexity science and anyone interested in Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and self-organizing dissipative structures (or physicist Erwin Schrödinger's 1944 book "What is Life?"). All of these, including Constructor Theory, are attempts at explaining the emergence of biological entities from the perspective of physics and self-organizing systems. A universal metabolism of sorts? Grand homeostasis? Heraclitus' Logos?

Lee Smolin, if you follow all of his work, sees physics as largely being stalled and in trouble. I tend to agree with this lament, especially with the rise of String Theory as some kind of Grand Unification Theory or Theory of Everything that is largely unfalsifiable and unpredictive. Physicist Lisa Randall also seems to think that such a theory hardly explains life, for example. In the current context, Smolin has taken the theory of evolution to the level of cosmology in explaining how the initial conditions of the universe--the "tuned" parameters--became what they were--so filling in what Constructor Theory leaves out. However, Smolin seems to also channel Heraclitus (and Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead) where he sees no permanence in nature ... even with the laws of physics. Everything is a process (goal-directed? ... this is where it gets interesting.). And, there is (explained) both variability and replication in his Cosmological Natural Selection Theory, just as we see at the level of biology.

it's important to avoid putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the universe is tailored to produce life. It's that the universe is what it is and life-like systems just happen to be a very likely outcome in this universe.

This concern brings us back to the issue of teleonomy and the rise of apparent design in a universe that exhibits a no-design physics. Unless one believes in Intelligent Design--the model underlying religion--or Aristotle's efficient cause (a force outside of the system) and final cause (intention or goal) model--the model underlying pre-19th century science--for where the universe is going then I think you, Smolin, England, Deutsch, and I are on the same page. Teleonomy was a term invented by Colin Pittendrigh in 1958 "to free that study [of goal-directed processes] from the encumbrances of teleological explanations ["The Misappropriation of Teleonomy," Nicholas S. Thompson, 1987]."

This is interesting in the context of the Constructor Theory idea of a "recipe." Also, Jacques Monod in his Chance and Necessity [1971] refined the idea of teleonomy in biology to preserve the scientific concept of objectivity in biology (and allow him to wax philosophical about apparent design in biology) that:

... nevertheless obliges us to recognize the teleonomic character of living organisms, to admit that in their structure and performance they act projectively--realize and pursue a purpose. Here therefore, at least in appearance, lies a profound epistemological contradiction. In fact the central problem of biology lies with this very contradiction, which, if it is only apparent, must be resolved; or else proven to be utterly insoluble, if that should turn out indeed to be the case [Chater I, "Of Strange Objects," Chance an Necessity, pp 21-22].

Ernst Mayr, with the same concern as Monad and Pittendrigh, in (Mayr, E. (1974) “Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis.” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XIV, pages 91 -117) refined the definition of teleonomy (original paper is behind a paywall). Mayr introduces the idea of a "program," which would seem to be cognitively fungible with Contractor Theory's (digital) "recipe" (or "baked in knowledge"). Nick explains in "The Misappropriation of Teleonomy" that Mayr sees a program as the defining characteristic of teleonomic processes. But, Mayr sees evolution as obviously not such a teleonomic process as it is obviously not controlled by a program ... presumably, because it is obviously not goal-directed. Nick seems perplexed, given Mayr's definition of teleonomic processes, as to why Mayr excludes evolution. But, I think the point Nick is making has more to do with Mayr's circular reasoning. Nick sees teleonomy as a "descriptive study of organizational properties of processes and structures without reference to any particular explanatory system." I think I agree with this, as teleonomy is a description of a feature of evolution and, thus, not a mechanism that begat (or explain the how of) that feature. [note: to be teleological, would be to describe the why (intention) of that feature ... thus, the concern.]

So, fair enough. But, could the emerging works of Smolin, but especially Deutsch|Marletto, and England be used to explain "How can the appearance of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?" Constructor Theory seems to be trying to construct a bridge to span the knowledge gap between (no-design) physics and (teleonomic) biology:

Thinking within the prevailing conception has led some physicists – including the 1963 Nobel Prize-winner Eugene Wigner and the late US-born quantum physicist David Bohm – to conclude that the laws of physics must be tailored to produce biological adaptations in general. This is amazingly erroneous. If it were true, physical theories would have to be patched up with ‘design-bearing’ additions, in the initial conditions or the laws of motion, or both, and the whole explanatory content of Darwinian evolution would be lost.

So, how can we explain physically how replication and self reproduction are possible, given laws that contain no hidden designs, if the prevailing conception’s tools are inadequate?

By applying a new fundamental theory of physics: constructor theory.

So, to the list of Smolin, Deutsch|Marletto, and England, add Monad, Pittendrigh, and Mayr as pioneers in 'trying' to construct explanatory systems that can explain teleonomic processes in an unintentional universe.

Well, that's enough for now. Lunch ...

Again, (only) fun stuff to consider. Hope it helps your review the "living systems as entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting.

Cheers,

Robert

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:59 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks for posting your intro materials to purpose of the universe. I haven't looked at them, yet, but will (probably next week).

But since I'm making a feeble attempt to review the "living systems as entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting, the below paragraph of yours tweaked me. It strikes me that Smolin's "maximal variety" (e.g. [⛤]) conception meshes well with England's conception of physical (non-living) adaptation, as well as Constructor Theory's "any non-impossible recipe". The first two (Smolin and England) seem to be intuitionistic in that they imply a recipe (follow the path with the most options), whereas Deutsch/Marletto are (perhaps) more classical (in logic/math terms) by allowing any recipe that doesn't contradict known constraints.

I *think* it's a mistake to read Smolin's conception as implied by the Marletto quote, which was about Bohm and Wigner. I'm ignorant of what Bohm and Wigner actually suggested. But Smolin seems to propose that things like stars exhibit (some) similar properties to living systems, especially in their ability to "maintain themselves as constant source of light and heat", despite the high entropy bath in which they sit. So, when considering things like cosmological constants and how they seem "tuned for life" (e.g. [⛧]), it's important to avoid putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the universe is tailored to produce life. It's that the universe is what it is and life-like systems just happen to be a very likely outcome in this universe.

I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin, England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!

[⛤] http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/150602938.pdf
[⛧] https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702115.pdf

On 10/29/2017 12:57 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
>
> In the context of *information *being another physically fundamental entity in the universe along with *energy *and *matter*, I brought up David Deutsch <https://www.edge.org/video/constructor-theory>'s Constructor Theory <https://aeon.co/essays/how-constructor-theory-solves-the-riddle-of-life> at the FRIAM as a very recent contender to build a new physics based on this uber-reductionist viewpoint. I haven't heard much more progress on this over the last two years and I think Deutsch is relying on his postdoctoral research associate, Chiara Marletto, to bring this into the domain of biology. Constructor Theory is to address this conclusion: "The conclusion that the laws of physics must be tailored to produce biological adaptations is amazingly erroneous." So this theory would indeed compete with Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection Theory. But, Constructor Theory might be very much in line with Jeremy England's Physics Theory of Life
> <https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-physics-theory-of-life-20170726/> (Note: this is from /QuantaMagazine/, which we also discussed) and, perhaps with Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and self-organizing dissipative structures. Fun stuff to read about ...

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point.

But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states surrounding any given system. In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization. In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or distributions of those states. In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.

If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem quite consistent. What am I missing?

On 11/03/2017 01:27 PM, Robert Wall wrote:

> Hi Glen, et al.,
>
> I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin, England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!
>
>
> I'll give it an equally feeble try. 😋 Actually, I see these three scientists as "groping" at something fundamentally the same: "How can the /appearance /of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?" Well, something like that. So, this joint concern seems (to me) to fall out naturally from the previous discussion concerning *teleonomy *or even *purpose*.--the former being an explanation (or description? See later discussion below.) or processes without *intention *and the later implying intentionality of a "maker" or "efficient cause."
>
> *Constructor Theory*, which could have been better described by Marletto, IMHO, provokes the idea of constraints and "recipes," both being emergent properties consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe as a physical system that "began" with initial conditions (constraints) and laws of motion--notwithstanding /how /it began. Through the interaction of emergent particles as the universe evolved, new constraints emerged and interacted to cause the emergence of even more constraints. One commenter did a pretty good job to help Marletto along with the explanation; Summarized:
>
> Without constraints, there would be a vast sea of undifferentiated and unlimited potential outcomes, but nothing would ever emerge to become ‘reality’
> ...
>
>
>
> Yet where anything is possible, it is possible for a simple constraint to emerge. And as several constraints emerge and interact, they start to force ‘things’ to ‘behave’ in a certain way, rather than being equally spread across every possibility
> ...
>
>
>
> Within that reality, new types of more directly ‘constructive’ constraints can emerge. Perhaps a particular molecular structure, which having occurred enables other types of reactions that were previously highly unlikely. And each of these changes the probability curves, increasing the likelihood that a next-stage constraint will eventually emerge, shaping and ‘constructing’ the stuff around it, further changing and channelling the possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which will enable yet more complex ‘constructors’ (and ‘constructeds’) to emerge.  Eventually, these constraints/constructors shape reality to such an extent that very highly complex outcomes which “should” be utterly inconceivable in a pure-possibility-laws-model of probability are instead absolutely inevitable. We see many examples: simple life emerges, radically changing the behaviour of molecular interactions; eventually a new ‘constructor’ emerges that enables complex life, which
> fundamentally changes how these organisms interact; complex life itself enables the development of specialised organs that provide sensory and motor and intra-cellular communications functionality; sentient, motile life enables the development of purposive behaviour and (potentially) basic consciousness; etc.
> ...
>
>
>
> At each stage, a new step - however infinitely unlikely before - becomes possible. Where will it end? Who knows, we seem to be only 13.8 billion years into the process, with probably several trillion to go. Each successive major development step seems to accelerate the capability and complexity of the emerging system by several magnitudes. Effectively, it really does look as though absolutely nothing is forever impossible (unless it contravenes the laws of physics, and even then … maybe we - or something down the line, at any rate - can eventually change them, creating another universe entirely?)"
>
>
> *Jeremy England*'s /New Physics of Life/ is really an attempt to explain how life emerging from inert matter was inevitable. I have read the same conclusion somewhere (?) <http://nautil.us/issue/20/creativity/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution> for the inevitability (and the remarkability) of the emergence of eukaryote life from prokaryote life ... I think I remember Nick Lane as saying it was a one-off (anyone?). I seem to remember this because it caused immediate cognizant dissonance within my own mind. Anyway, Constructor Theory would say that it was certainly possible, which seems tautological at this point. England's Theory should resonate with students of complexity science and anyone interested in Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and self-organizing dissipative structures (or physicist Erwin Schrödinger's 1944 book "What is Life?"). All of these, including Constructor Theory, are attempts at
> explaining the emergence of biological entities from the perspective of physics and self-organizing systems. A universal metabolism of sorts? Grand homeostasis? Heraclitus' /Logos/?
>
> *Lee Smolin*, if you follow all of his work, sees physics as largely being stalled and in trouble. I tend to agree with this lament, especially with the rise of String Theory as some kind of Grand Unification Theory or Theory of Everything that is largely unfalsifiable and unpredictive. Physicist Lisa Randall also seems to think that such a theory hardly explains life <https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729000.300-a-theory-of-everything-wont-provide-all-the-answers/>, for example. In the current context, Smolin has taken the theory of evolution to the level of cosmology in explaining how the initial conditions of the universe--the "tuned" parameters--became what they were--so filling in what Constructor Theory leaves out. However, Smolin seems to also channel Heraclitus (and Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead) where he sees no permanence in nature ... even with the laws of physics. Everything is a process (goal-directed? ... this is where it gets interesting.).
> And, there is (explained) both variability and replication in his Cosmological Natural Selection Theory, just as we see at the level of biology.
>
> it's important to avoid putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the universe is tailored to produce life. It's that the universe is what it is and life-like systems just happen to be a very likely outcome in this universe.
>
>
> This concern brings us back to the issue of teleonomy and the rise of apparent design in a universe that exhibits a no-design physics. Unless one believes in Intelligent Design--the model underlying religion--or Aristotle's efficient cause (a force outside of the system) and final cause (intention or goal) model--the model underlying pre-19th century science <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/was-aristotle-an-advancement-in-western-science.818947/>--for where the universe is going then I think you, Smolin, England, Deutsch, and I are on the same page. Teleonomy was a term invented by Colin Pittendrigh in 1958 "to free that study [of goal-directed processes] from the encumbrances of /teleological /explanations ["The Misappropriation of Teleonomy <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302329059_The_Misappropriation_of_Teleonomy>," Nicholas S. Thompson, 1987]."
>
> This is interesting in the context of the Constructor Theory idea of a "recipe." Also, Jacques Monod in his /Chance and Necessity/ [1971] refined the idea of teleonomy in biology to preserve the scientific concept of objectivity in biology (and allow him to wax philosophical about apparent design in biology) that:
>
> ... nevertheless obliges us to recognize the teleonomic character of living organisms, to admit that in their structure and performance they act projectively--realize and pursue a purpose. Here therefore, at least in appearance, lies a profound epistemological contradiction. In fact the central problem of biology lies with this very contradiction, which, if it is only apparent, must be resolved; or else proven to be utterly insoluble, if that should turn out indeed to be the case [Chater I, "Of Strange Objects," /Chance an Necessity/, pp 21-22].
>
>
> Ernst Mayr, with the same concern as Monad and Pittendrigh, in (Mayr, E. (1974) “Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis.” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XIV, pages 91 -117) refined the definition of teleonomy <http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/teleological-and-teleonomic-newer.html> (original paper is behind a paywall). Mayr introduces the idea of a "program," which would seem to be cognitively fungible with Contractor Theory's (digital) "recipe" (or "baked in knowledge"). Nick explains in "The Misappropriation of Teleonomy" that Mayr sees a program as the defining characteristic of teleonomic processes. But, Mayr sees evolution as obviously *not *such a teleonomic process as it is obviously *not *controlled by a program ... presumably, because it is obviously *not *goal-directed. Nick seems perplexed, given Mayr's definition of teleonomic processes, as to why Mayr excludes evolution. But, I think the point Nick is making has more to do
> with Mayr's circular reasoning. Nick sees teleonomy as a "/descriptive study of organizational properties of processes and structures without reference to any particular explanatory system./" I think I agree with this, as teleonomy is a description of a feature of evolution and, thus, not a mechanism that begat (or explain the /how /of) that feature. [note: to be teleological, would be to describe the /why /(intention) of that feature ... thus, the concern.]
>
> So, fair enough. But, could the emerging works of Smolin, but especially Deutsch|Marletto, and England be used to explain "How can the /appearance /of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?" Constructor Theory seems to be trying to construct a bridge to span the knowledge gap between (no-design) physics and (teleonomic) biology:
>
> Thinking within the prevailing conception has led some physicists – including the 1963 Nobel Prize-winner Eugene Wigner and the late US-born quantum physicist David Bohm – to conclude that the laws of physics must be tailored to produce biological adaptations in general. This is amazingly erroneous. If it were true, physical theories would have to be patched up with ‘design-bearing’ additions, in the initial conditions or the laws of motion, or both, and the whole explanatory content of Darwinian evolution would be lost.
>
>
>
> So, how can we explain physically how replication and self reproduction are possible, given laws that contain no hidden designs, if the prevailing conception’s tools are inadequate?
>
>
>
> By applying a new fundamental theory of physics: /constructor theory/.
>
>
> So, to the list of Smolin, Deutsch|Marletto, and England, add Monad, Pittendrigh, and Mayr as pioneers in 'trying' to construct /explanatory /systems that can explain teleonomic processes in an unintentional universe.
>
> Well, that's enough for now. Lunch ...
>
> Again, (only) fun stuff to consider. Hope it helps your review the "living systems as entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting.

--
␦glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Carl Tollander

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1

On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point.

But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states surrounding any given system. In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization. In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or distributions of those states. In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.

If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem quite consistent. What am I missing?

On 11/03/2017 01:27 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> Hi Glen, et al.,
>
> I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin, England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!
>
>
> I'll give it an equally feeble try. 😋 Actually, I see these three scientists as "groping" at something fundamentally the same: "How can the /appearance /of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?" Well, something like that. So, this joint concern seems (to me) to fall out naturally from the previous discussion concerning *teleonomy *or even *purpose*.--the former being an explanation (or description? See later discussion below.) or processes without *intention *and the later implying intentionality of a "maker" or "efficient cause."
>
> *Constructor Theory*, which could have been better described by Marletto, IMHO, provokes the idea of constraints and "recipes," both being emergent properties consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe as a physical system that "began" with initial conditions (constraints) and laws of motion--notwithstanding /how /it began. Through the interaction of emergent particles as the universe evolved, new constraints emerged and interacted to cause the emergence of even more constraints. One commenter did a pretty good job to help Marletto along with the explanation; Summarized:
>
> Without constraints, there would be a vast sea of undifferentiated and unlimited potential outcomes, but nothing would ever emerge to become ‘reality’
> ...
>
>
>
> Yet where anything is possible, it is possible for a simple constraint to emerge. And as several constraints emerge and interact, they start to force ‘things’ to ‘behave’ in a certain way, rather than being equally spread across every possibility
> ...
>
>
>
>   Within that reality, new types of more directly ‘constructive’ constraints can emerge. Perhaps a particular molecular structure, which having occurred enables other types of reactions that were previously highly unlikely. And each of these changes the probability curves, increasing the likelihood that a next-stage constraint will eventually emerge, shaping and ‘constructing’ the stuff around it, further changing and channelling the possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which will enable yet more complex ‘constructors’ (and ‘constructeds’) to emerge.  Eventually, these constraints/constructors shape reality to such an extent that very highly complex outcomes which “should” be utterly inconceivable in a pure-possibility-laws-model of probability are instead absolutely inevitable. We see many examples: simple life emerges, radically changing the behaviour of molecular interactions; eventually a new ‘constructor’ emerges that enables complex life, which
> fundamentally changes how these organisms interact; complex life itself enables the development of specialised organs that provide sensory and motor and intra-cellular communications functionality; sentient, motile life enables the development of purposive behaviour and (potentially) basic consciousness; etc.
> ...
>
>
>
> At each stage, a new step - however infinitely unlikely before - becomes possible. Where will it end? Who knows, we seem to be only 13.8 billion years into the process, with probably several trillion to go. Each successive major development step seems to accelerate the capability and complexity of the emerging system by several magnitudes. Effectively, it really does look as though absolutely nothing is forever impossible (unless it contravenes the laws of physics, and even then … maybe we - or something down the line, at any rate - can eventually change them, creating another universe entirely?)"
>
>
> *Jeremy England*'s /New Physics of Life/ is really an attempt to explain how life emerging from inert matter was inevitable. I have read the same conclusion somewhere (?) <http://nautil.us/issue/20/creativity/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution> for the inevitability (and the remarkability) of the emergence of eukaryote life from prokaryote life ... I think I remember Nick Lane as saying it was a one-off (anyone?). I seem to remember this because it caused immediate cognizant dissonance within my own mind. Anyway, Constructor Theory would say that it was certainly possible, which seems tautological at this point. England's Theory should resonate with students of complexity science and anyone interested in Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and self-organizing dissipative structures (or physicist Erwin Schrödinger's 1944 book "What is Life?"). All of these, including Constructor Theory, are attempts at
> explaining the emergence of biological entities from the perspective of physics and self-organizing systems. A universal metabolism of sorts? Grand homeostasis? Heraclitus' /Logos/?
>
> *Lee Smolin*, if you follow all of his work, sees physics as largely being stalled and in trouble. I tend to agree with this lament, especially with the rise of String Theory as some kind of Grand Unification Theory or Theory of Everything that is largely unfalsifiable and unpredictive. Physicist Lisa Randall also seems to think that such a theory hardly explains life <https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729000.300-a-theory-of-everything-wont-provide-all-the-answers/>, for example. In the current context, Smolin has taken the theory of evolution to the level of cosmology in explaining how the initial conditions of the universe--the "tuned" parameters--became what they were--so filling in what Constructor Theory leaves out. However, Smolin seems to also channel Heraclitus (and Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead) where he sees no permanence in nature ... even with the laws of physics. Everything is a process (goal-directed? ... this is where it gets interesting.).
> And, there is (explained) both variability and replication in his Cosmological Natural Selection Theory, just as we see at the level of biology.
>
> it's important to avoid putting the cart before the horse. It's not that the universe is tailored to produce life. It's that the universe is what it is and life-like systems just happen to be a very likely outcome in this universe.
>
>
> This concern brings us back to the issue of teleonomy and the rise of apparent design in a universe that exhibits a no-design physics. Unless one believes in Intelligent Design--the model underlying religion--or Aristotle's efficient cause (a force outside of the system) and final cause (intention or goal) model--the model underlying pre-19th century science <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/was-aristotle-an-advancement-in-western-science.818947/>--for where the universe is going then I think you, Smolin, England, Deutsch, and I are on the same page. Teleonomy was a term invented by Colin Pittendrigh in 1958 "to free that study [of goal-directed processes] from the encumbrances of /teleological /explanations ["The Misappropriation of Teleonomy <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302329059_The_Misappropriation_of_Teleonomy>," Nicholas S. Thompson, 1987]."
>
> This is interesting in the context of the Constructor Theory idea of a "recipe." Also, Jacques Monod in his /Chance and Necessity/ [1971] refined the idea of teleonomy in biology to preserve the scientific concept of objectivity in biology (and allow him to wax philosophical about apparent design in biology) that:
>
> ... nevertheless obliges us to recognize the teleonomic character of living organisms, to admit that in their structure and performance they act projectively--realize and pursue a purpose. Here therefore, at least in appearance, lies a profound epistemological contradiction. In fact the central problem of biology lies with this very contradiction, which, if it is only apparent, must be resolved; or else proven to be utterly insoluble, if that should turn out indeed to be the case [Chater I, "Of Strange Objects," /Chance an Necessity/, pp 21-22].
>
>
> Ernst Mayr, with the same concern as Monad and Pittendrigh, in (Mayr, E. (1974) “Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis.” Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XIV, pages 91 -117) refined the definition of teleonomy <http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/teleological-and-teleonomic-newer.html> (original paper is behind a paywall). Mayr introduces the idea of a "program," which would seem to be cognitively fungible with Contractor Theory's (digital) "recipe" (or "baked in knowledge"). Nick explains in "The Misappropriation of Teleonomy" that Mayr sees a program as the defining characteristic of teleonomic processes. But, Mayr sees evolution as obviously *not *such a teleonomic process as it is obviously *not *controlled by a program ... presumably, because it is obviously *not *goal-directed. Nick seems perplexed, given Mayr's definition of teleonomic processes, as to why Mayr excludes evolution. But, I think the point Nick is making has more to do
> with Mayr's circular reasoning. Nick sees teleonomy as a "/descriptive study of organizational properties of processes and structures without reference to any particular explanatory system./" I think I agree with this, as teleonomy is a description of a feature of evolution and, thus, not a mechanism that begat (or explain the /how /of) that feature. [note: to be teleological, would be to describe the /why /(intention) of that feature ... thus, the concern.]
>
> So, fair enough. But, could the emerging works of Smolin, but especially Deutsch|Marletto, and England be used to explain "How can the /appearance /of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?" Constructor Theory seems to be trying to construct a bridge to span the knowledge gap between (no-design) physics and (teleonomic) biology:
>
> Thinking within the prevailing conception has led some physicists – including the 1963 Nobel Prize-winner Eugene Wigner and the late US-born quantum physicist David Bohm – to conclude that the laws of physics must be tailored to produce biological adaptations in general. This is amazingly erroneous. If it were true, physical theories would have to be patched up with ‘design-bearing’ additions, in the initial conditions or the laws of motion, or both, and the whole explanatory content of Darwinian evolution would be lost.
>
>
>
> So, how can we explain physically how replication and self reproduction are possible, given laws that contain no hidden designs, if the prevailing conception’s tools are inadequate?
>
>
>
> By applying a new fundamental theory of physics: /constructor theory/.
>
>
> So, to the list of Smolin, Deutsch|Marletto, and England, add Monad, Pittendrigh, and Mayr as pioneers in 'trying' to construct /explanatory /systems that can explain teleonomic processes in an unintentional universe.
>
> Well, that's enough for now. Lunch ...
>
> Again, (only) fun stuff to consider. Hope it helps your review the "living systems as entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting.

--
␦glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant. Are you suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable noodles at the wall? Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp post)? Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?

On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:

> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point.
>
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states surrounding any given system. In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization. In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or distributions of those states. In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
>
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem quite consistent. What am I missing?

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to shoe-horn it in.

Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a reference to Kuhn, I really liked Sabine's rant. High time.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant. Are you suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable noodles at the wall? Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp post)? Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?

On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:

> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> ysics.html?m=1
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point.
>
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states surrounding any given system. In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization. In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or distributions of those states. In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
>
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem quite consistent. What am I missing?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Carl Tollander

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Yes, Nick, that. Sorry to hijack the thread. Carry on.

Carl

On Nov 6, 2017 10:30, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to shoe-horn it in.

Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a reference to Kuhn, I really liked Sabine's rant. High time.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant. Are you suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable noodles at the wall? Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp post)? Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?

On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> ysics.html?m=1
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point.
>
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states surrounding any given system. In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization. In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or distributions of those states. In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
>
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem quite consistent. What am I missing?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I agree. High time, Nick. I hope it's OK that I forwarded this to Stu Kauffman. I took out all the names. He and Kate had dinner at my house Saturday night with our speaker from Sweden, and I thought he might shed some light for me.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to shoe-horn it in.

Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a reference to Kuhn, I really liked Sabine's rant. High time.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant. Are you suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable noodles at the wall? Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp post)? Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?

On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> ysics.html?m=1
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point.
>
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states surrounding any given system. In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization. In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or distributions of those states. In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
>
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem quite consistent. What am I missing?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding

Saint Paul University

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

Robert Wall

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen, I think Carl is referring to my earlier remark about String Theory. He is not alone in attacking Popper because Popper's idea concerning falsifiability and a "true" scientific theory stand in the way of just accepting a proposed theory base just on their mathematical elegance. I, myself, hope that science doesn't go this way, as it will be difficult to know where to draw the line between science and philosophy or even religion. Too Platonic for my taste.

So, you are correct that this is not entirely relevant to the current area of discussion. Nonetheless, I happen to like Jerry Coyne's position on this belief system, his being a lot less snippy than the Sabine one, IMHO:

Is falsifiability essential to science?

Sorry for the delayed response; I am out of town, and so, not near my library references. But, let's me try to continue with my feeble comparisons between the propositions of these three scientists: Deutch|Marletto (bing one), England, and Smolin.

OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point.

Yep; it was teleonomy under the looking glass in the context of biological systems in particular ... with Nick leading the discussion with his 1987 paper on the topic, which I read with great interest.

In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.

Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with Mareletto's. That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in the same space with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one that operates on the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to initial conditions (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory proposes a physical universe at the microscale that could start here and unfold with new constraints "evolving" from earlier ones. I see the heavier elements (e.g., carbon ... gold) being generated from later generation suns as a possible example of this. England seems to take this history into the abiogenesis by appealing to the idea of metabolic homeostasis with the production of dissipative systems being a likely outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should have used the term "complements" versus "competes."

Erwin Schrödinger, in his What is Life (1944) coined the term negentropy to explain the process of such dissipative systems usurping negative entropy from their environments (e.g., food, sunlight) and staying in balance by expelling positive entropy back into their environments (heat or enthalpy in thermodynamic terms). Negentropy was later recognized (even by Schrödinger) to be equivalent to Gibbs free energy (i.e., energy available for work), especially because living systems exist in environments that are relatively stable in terms of temperature and pressure. Someone later than Schrödinger described this negentropy process as the extraction of information from the environment, which fits well, I think, with Constructor Theory. Gibbs (statistical) Entropy function resembles Claude Shannon's Information Entropy function, which seems to have motivated this concept.

Some think that entropy is better for analyzing just closed (isolated or adiabatic) systems ... but this is a very complex topic, especially with respect to systems operating far from equilibrium maintain structures with few degrees of freedom or states. It's pretty amazing stuff, though ... but I am not the best one to explain these processes ... and that's just what they are: processes.

Yes, Smolin and England could be aligned but on different scales--macro and micro respectively. For Smolin we would need to understand black holes a bit better in this context, I think. A fecund universe is one with a lot of black holes ... cosmic eggs, if you will that have cosmic "genomes" that resemble the parent universe, but with variations due to whatever. So see these as new constraint generators, I suppose, in the context of Constructor Theory.

Can any of this be brought back into the domain of teleonomy? It is a question of about how something can arise from nothing. In an earlier thread with my philosophy group I brought this to a discussion on a similar topic titled "The Bridge From Nowhere":

This might have something to do with the Hard Problem of Consciousness as well. Not sure. But, it is fun to think about. We have been discussing the role or purpose of consciousness in the universe.

Nautilus: The Bridge From Nowhere (September 1, 2016)
How is it possible to get something from nothing?

I have been thinking about this article for some time now. I am especially intrigued with the author's interpretation of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation:
H(x)|Ψ> = 0
.

Ψ
(Psi) is the wave function for the universe (notice it is timeless).

As observers, we are forever doomed to see only a piece of the larger puzzle of which we are a part. And that, it turns out, could be our saving grace. When the universe splits in two, the zero on the right-hand side of the equation takes on a new value. Things change. Physics happens. Time begins to flow. You might even say the universe is born.

Could it be that something is just what nothing looks like from the inside? If so, our discomfort with nothingness may have been hinting at something profound: It is our human nature that recoils at the notion of nothing, and yet it may also be our limited, human perspective that ultimately solves the paradox.

There is this other explanation:

Deep at the heart of cosmology there is this unproved and unprovable belief that the whole bulk, that is, everything that there is not just our universe but the sum total of all universes, is a zero sum game. That is all the disturbances wave functions etc that there are, balance themselves out to result in the concept that if there was not something (which there is) there would be nothing.

This is in effect the full extension of the well known and accepted law of the conservation of energy writ as large as possible.

It is possibly the nearest thing to the modern cosmologists view of the concept of "god" which in religions is seen as something that acts on everything to produce things.

Somehow, this particular Nautilus article spoke to me about this mystery in a meaningful (philosophical) way.

Anyway. Hope this is not too feeble an explanation.

Robert

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:15 AM, gⅼеɳ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant. Are you suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable noodles at the wall? Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp post)? Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?

On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
>
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point.
>
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states surrounding any given system. In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization. In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or distributions of those states. In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
>
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem quite consistent. What am I missing?

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Excellent! Yes, complement is a much more appropriate relation between the ideas than compete, I think. Thanks.

On 11/06/2017 11:08 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
>
> Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with Mareletto's. That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in the same space with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one that operates on the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to initial conditions (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory proposes a physical universe at the microscale that could start here and unfold with new constraints "evolving" from earlier ones. I see the heavier elements (e.g., carbon ... gold) being generated from later generation suns as a possible example of this. England seems to take this history into the abiogenesis by appealing to the idea of metabolic homeostasis with the production of dissipative systems being a likely outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should have used the term "complements" versus "competes."

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Robert Wall

Re: Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

By the way, there is a lively debate going on about the Sabine Hossenfelder article How Popper killed Particle Physics posted just yesterday. It could make a good thread, as a few of you on the list seem to agree with her rant and it would be good to hear as to why that is so ... I am guessing this sentiment has something to do with Thomas Kuhn in Nick's case at least.

Kuhn's criticism of Popper seems to be saying that logical positivism (verificationism ... looking for ways to prove we are right ... instead of wrong) dominates science ... still ... and not in a good way. I think that is right (e.g., LHC), but it doesn't undermine what Popper is saying about how to be sure and honest about what we really know ... lest we backslide into epistemological relativism or intellectual totalitarianism (e.g., a leading paradigm doesn't shift until its authors die off ... something like that).

Sabine seems to be backing off the rant a bit, I think; she says she is not criticizing Popper, only saying that falsification is not enough ... and it should not halt any theory development. I would have to believe that even Popper might agree with some of this with some clarifications. I thought the reply comment about "mathematicism" was interesting and kind of funny.

Looking back over this particular thread, it turns out that I did not mention String Theory per se. I did mention that Smolin's "Genesis" theory is claimed to be testable. Perhaps this is what prompted Carl's insertion of Sabine's rant.

Good to see Smolin getting a shout-out in the comments along with Lisa Randall. Kum ba ya.

Cheers

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:20 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Excellent! Yes, complement is a much more appropriate relation between the ideas than compete, I think. Thanks.

On 11/06/2017 11:08 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
>
> Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with Mareletto's. That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in the same space with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one that operates on the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to initial conditions (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory proposes a physical universe at the microscale that could start here and unfold with new constraints "evolving" from earlier ones. I see the heavier elements (e.g., carbon ... gold) being generated from later generation suns as a possible example of this. England seems to take this history into the abiogenesis by appealing to the idea of metabolic homeostasis with the production of dissipative systems being a likely outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should have used the term "complements" versus "competes."

--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove