Search for "Glymour publications CMU waste mind" to read a paper on related topics by my erstwhile boss, who is a well-known philosopher of science. Don't worry, he has a very good sense of humor.
Frank ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 4:46 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > *A Homily from the Mother Church*, > > > > Dear Bretheren and Sisteren, > > > > Was it because Robert Holmes returned to the fold, or was it just a > coincidence that today we returned to discussions of such topics as > emergence, determination, downward causality, and the possibility of > explanatory reduction of all phenomena to particle physics. Now, in the > past, where this matter has always seemed to settle, is on the idea that > while it is IN PRINCIPLE true that everything is determined and that, if we > had but time, and computer enough, we could predict the effect of the > butterfly’s flap on Hurricane Michael, in PRACTICE it’s a waste of time > thinking about because we can’t, we won’t, and we never will. This > solution has the joint benefit of conceding that phys*ics* is the queen > of sciences, yet allowing us to tell phys*icists* to go screw themselves > because, for most of the things we think about, they are TOTALLY > irrelevant. > > > > I have never been happy with this solution. It’s just not *Jesuitical *for > me. As many of you know (because you have suffered through it) I have read > a lot of C. S. Peirce since the last time we talked about these issues at > FRIAM, so I was led to wonder Peirce has given me any purchase on these > questions in the meantime. So here is what I came away from our > discussions with: > > > > 1. *Determination means just, event A is accompanied by a higher > than average probability of event B.* Now, please, I would like to > bracket for once that fact that what I just wrote is non-sense. > Probabilities are relative frequencies and inhere, therefore, to categories > of events, not to individual events. Unless we are careful, this will lead > us to an uncomfortable discussion of how we will ever know if event A1 and > A2 belong to the same category and, I think, will soon discover that we are > in a vicious circle. So PLEASE, let’s not go there. Allow me: > “*Determination > means just, event A is accompanied by a higher than average probability of > event B.* ” > > 2. Every event is accompanied by an infinity of other events which > have nothing to do with it. I type the words, “Vladimir, Go Brush Your > Teeth” and, *mirabile dictu*, Putin is brushing his teach. Yet there is > no connection between those events. Most pairs of events are like that. > Or, as Peirce puts it, the world is just about as random as it could be. > > 3. If there is ANY order in the world – and Peirce thinks there is > – organisms that smoked that order out would be much better off than > organisms that ignored it. Groups of organisms that learned from one > another such contingencies would be better off than groups that didn’t , > etc. Indeed, physical structures that were in accord with such lawful > relations (think orbits) would be more enduring than others. Thus, that > the world around us is mostly orderly is because we have adapted to, > sought out and thrived in to that small part of it where order prevails. > > 4. Not all determination is simple. Some events are themselves > complex events. So event X can consist of the concatenation of events A, > B, and C, and event Y can be determined by such a concatenation. Any event > that is determined by the organization of its component events is said to > be an *emergent*. That a triangular structure holds weight is an > emergent of the placement and attachment of its three legs. > > 5. Upward causation is partial. Levels of organization supervene > upon the properties of the events of which they are composed. From the > strength of the triangle one can infer something about the parts that make > it up, but from the parts themselves, lacking information about their > arrangement, one cannot determine that the triangle will be strong. > > 6. Some structures are capable of generating their parts. A > supercell thunderstorm can arrange the atmosphere around it in a manner > that will generate more thunderstorms. A protein can arrange amino acids > to make a protein. In such systems, at least, there is downward > causality. > > 7. So, is everything reducible to particle physics? No. Not > unless you believe that two by four’s are particles. I would submit, > therefore, that every physicist, no matter how wise, no matter how big his > computer might be, will require engineers to construct his particle > accelerator. > > So there! > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > ============================================================ > 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