Hi Krimel,
(No problem with the statistical view of species, though I didn't know
we were limiting ourselves to biology ?)
But, not "just" a new state of equilibrium.
If a species of Swans dies out, they can leave a lot of static latches
behind - the DNA they shared with other swans they evolved from, and
who knows, a genetic legacy in a species evolved from them (depending
when they die out) - a "dent" in the ecosphere they inhabited, and a
"dent" in the imagination of humans and other higher intelligences.
That said, in the long run all stabilities could be temporary - I used
the idea of meta-stable equilibria before in these discussions. The
stabilities are relative.
Things like the physical, the biological (life) and the conscious
(socio-intellectual) are more stable than "species" within the
biological ... hence my original caveat as to why we were talking
biological species only.
Ian
On 5/4/07, Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Ian]
> Can't pretend to understand what you meant by "reconciling Ooops with
> an Omega point" either, but no matter ... ;-)
>
> {Krimel}
> Oops is how Wilber describe the idea that we got here through a series of
> random processes. The Omega Point (which Wilber also abuses as a concept)
> comes from Teilhard De Chardin which is roughly that since things to be
> evolving in the direction of increased complexity an Omega point would be
> the point of ultimate complexity or God so that this future perfect state is
> actually directing evens in the present.
>
> [Ian]
> Happenings can "occur" randomly, but "what" happens is neither
> entirely random nor pre-determined. What happens (in the long run,
> over populations, over multiple cycles, over multiple levels) tends
> towards better fit.
>
> [Krimel]
> Right determinism no longer implies predictability. We can not assert what
> will be, only a set of probable outcomes.
>
> [Ian]
> Apart from defining what "better" and "fit" mean - which is where we came
> in, -
> And Apart from the "why" question in that tendency - does what I'm
> asserting there make sense ?
>
> (I intorduced ratchets - aka static latches - as part of my why
> explanation, but let's be sure we understand the assertion first.)
>
> [Krimel]
> "Better" just makes my shorts creep up my butt. Let's stick to biology for a
> second here. A species is essentially a set of probability distributions for
> the traits of members of the species. So probably swans are white and have
> wings and feathers and they float. The only thing that can really change the
> distribution of traits is change in the environment or some adaptation in
> the birds. If something like this happens there will be a new distribution
> of traits in future populations. But the only real "ratchet" is stability or
> disruption in the environment or the population.
>
> Prigogine shows how the same sort of thing happens in dissipative systems
> when there is a change in energy flow. The system reaches a bifurcation
> point and can either move to a higher or low state of stability.
>
> But in evolution the ratcheting is just a new state of equilibrium.
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
