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. š 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 > ārealityā > ā ... > > 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 > āthingsā to ābehaveā in a certain way, rather than being equally spread > across every possibility > ā ... > > Within that reality, new types of more directly āconstructiveā > 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 āconstructingā the stuff around it, further changing > and channelling the possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which > will enable yet more complex āconstructorsā (and āconstructedsā) to > emerge. Eventually, these constraints/constructors shape reality to such > an extent that very highly complex outcomes which āshouldā 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 > āconstructorā 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. > ā ...ā > > 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 ā¦ 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 Schrƶdinger'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) āTeleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis.ā 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 ā > including the 1963 Nobel Prize-winner Eugene Wigner and the late US-born > quantum physicist David Bohm ā 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 ādesign-bearingā 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 > conceptionās 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, gā ¼ŠµÉ³ ā£ <[email protected]> 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. [ā¤]) > 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. [ā§]), 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! > > > [ā¤] http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/150602938.pdf > [ā§] 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 ... > > -- > ā£ gā ¼ŠµÉ³ > > ============================================================ > 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
