So, phylogenetic evolution is evolution that proceeds toward adaptation. How would a state theorist characterize that constraint?
n
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 2:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The theory of everything
Yes, phylogenetic evolution is often modeled using a matrix exponential.
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 1:35 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The theory of everything
Marcus,
So in your sense, a system evolves if it passes along a predictable pathway from state to state. I wonder if phylogenetic evolution is a special case of yours.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 1:19 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The theory of everything
“Evolve” in this sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Sunday, July 5, 2020 at 9:47 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The theory of everything
Jochen,
FOOD FIGHT! FOOD FIGHT! I absolutely and totally disagree that “everything evolves” [while agreeing that anything that is everything is nothing]. Rocks and tornadoes do not evolve. They change, but the don’t evolve. Evolution (to me) is a very specific pattern of design arising through phylogenetic descent – lineages being bent through time to match their circumstances. I am not entirely sure that some inanimate things don’t evolve. I would have a hard time arguing ferociously that the sorting of pebbles on a beach is not the result of some sort of evolution. I certainly don’t want to define evolution as something that only organisms can do, if only because that turns the assertion, “only organisms evolve” into a nothing, or an everything, depending on how you care to look at it
In this matter, as in all matters, Eric will correct me.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 4:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The theory of everything
Russ, I agree. Maybe we found it already, the theory of everything & nothing: Darwin's theory of evolution. It is a theory of everything because everything evolves. It doesn't say anything how fish, insects, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, religions, civilizations, companies, parties or states look like, though. Therefore it is also a theory of nothing. I have to reread your book.
-J.
-------- Original message --------
From: Russell Standish <[hidden email]>
Date: 7/5/20 11:49 (GMT+01:00)
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Book publishing advice needed
Being self-published hasn't stopped my book "Theory of Nothing" from
being cited. According to Google Scholar, it has 22 citations, 9th on
my list in terms of citation count, just after "Why Occams Razor", a
peer reviewed paper on similar topics. It got a bit of a boost from
Max Tegmark's book, as he singled it out as inspiration, kind of ironic when it
was one of Max's "crazy papers" that inspired me to write "Why Occams
Razor" and then "Theory of Nothing".
I think you need to have a reason to publish a book. Making money is
not one them - almost nobody makes money from writing books. Vanity
publications ("it looks good on the CV") is another one to avoid. Best
bet is if you have a story or a topic that needs telling, and you
think would be interesting to other people, then go for it. Marketing
then becomes telling other people about it, advancing arguments from
it in fora like this. With a bit of luck, it goes viral.
One good reason for writing academic books is that it gives you
expanded scope to explain your ideas more fully, and in less
technically forbidding terms. Allows you to expand your readership
beyond the narrow circle reading your peer revieed articles. But you
probably want those peer reviewed articles to back up/draw upon your
book work. That's probably the reason why old academics write books,
and young ones write papers.
In my case, I've self-published 3 books so far: "Theory of Nothing",
which has sold over 1000 copies, and perhaps 2-3 times as many free
downloads from my website and the usual pirate websites, but in no way
does the royalties cover the time I put into it (unless being paid
less than a Calcutta rickshaw driver was a career ambition); "Amoeba's
Secret", a translation of a semi-autobiography by Bruno Marchal, which
was about the clearest exposition he gave of his ideas, and "Magic
Cottage", an Anthology of my son's writing, which was quite exquisite,
and sadly something he's not really doing now. Magic Cottage proved to
be more of a vanity publication than I thought it would be - but
partly because he never took up my suggestion of leaving a copy around
his college room, now apartment, where it could act as a conversation
starter. I also envisaged him using the book when going for jobs that
might require writing skills, but it seems he hasn't needed to do that
to date.
Cheers
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 10:25:03PM +0200, Jochen Fromm wrote:
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |