Helmut, list I don’t know where you are getting your definition of a CAS, but ‘adaptivity' is not only a property of emergent elements, but is a property of the system as a whole.
I don’t know what you mean by an’environment’ being spatially inside’. A CAS refers to a cohesive system operating within a particular spatial and temporal domain, whose individual members of the system [ examples are biological cells, animal and bird swarms, bees, ants, people, economic markets etc] network with each other, creating feedback, leading to patterns of. behaviour that can’t be predicted ..but this behaviour is self-organized within the system [ ie - not by a central authority], the individual agents in the system adapt, evolve, develop new interactions..again, from within the system not from a higher authority, not from a top-down organization, but from within the system itself…..., all agents are highly connected but not ‘leading the way’..ie, the system self-organizes and can develop novel properties...…; the system as a whole is ‘far-from-equilibrium, ie, it is not stable or static; Nothing to do with morality or…. Again, the research on CAS is huge - Edwina > On Oct 7, 2025, at 12:17 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, List, > > if the adaptivity is only a property of emergent elements, but not of the > system as a whole, then Wikipedia and some others too are wrong, and the term > "complex adaptive system" is false. Unless an environment may be spatially > inside, as I wrote after Luhmann. My question is, if there is a system, that > has elements, which have undergone an emergence towards self-organization and > adaptivity, is it guaranteed then, that the system itself is emergent, > complex, and adaptive, or do the elements then belong to its environment, and > if so, can the system -guaranteedly- adapt to this spatially inner, but > functionally outer, environment? In Luhmann-speak: Is the structural coupling > effective? Goethe, with his tale "The sorcerer´s apprentice" obviously > feared, that this cannnot be taken for granted, and today many people have > the same fear about artificial intelligence. The theological question, > whether the good will at last prevail over the evil, is also about this, with > a more optimistic, but for me too terminal narrative (I don´t want to wait > until judgement day). My attempt to reduce this question to boolean logic may > be too trivial. In Boolean, a "plus" is "or", but to handle this question, > the Peircean categories have to be regarded too. I think, the question is > quite important, and I can not answer it right away. > > Best, Helmut > 6. Oktober 2025 um 21:25 > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Helmut; list > > Now _ I’m confused. Yet another new thread. Am I allowed to post a comment? > > I will only say- Helmut, your definition of a CAS as ‘adapting to its > environment’ is incorrect! The definition of a CAS is the focus on the > internal energy/matter of the system, which is operating in > self-organization. > > I recommend Stu Kauffman’s excellent book: The Origins of Order: > self-organization and selection in Evolution’. And particularly his Ch 5: > Self-Organization and Adaptation in complex systems …where he outlines the > emergence of order within systems…He even uses terms of ‘ordered, complex and > chaotic' which suggests 2ns, 3ns and 1ns…. > > The research field of complex adaptive systems is vast , with its focus on > emergent properties, anticipatory computation, self-organization, > far-from-equilibrium state…etc. Check out the Santa Fe Institute which is > devoted to it. > > Edwina > > > On Oct 6, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > We, I too, have different opinions, whether the universe is a CAS or not. A > CAS adapts to its environment, so I have read at Wikipedia and others. Now, > does the universe have an environment? My opinion is: The universe consists > of its qualities, its spatiality, and of its functionality (categories 1 to > 3). For the environment-question, spatiality and functonality are critical. > The universe does not have a spatial environment, as far as we know. Does it > have a functional environment? > > Detour "Luhmann": For Luhmann, a social system consists of communications, > and the communicating units, humans, psychological systems, belong to the > social system´s environment. I am not sure, if this is agreeable, Luhmann is > a bit special. > > But if we transform this idea, we might say: The phaneron consists of signs, > and the individuals that use the signs belong to its environment. So the > phaneron may be adaptive, may be a CAS, as it has an environment to adapt to. > Further, we might say, that the universe functionally consists spatially of > individuals and other entities, and functionally of the phaneron. Now, can a > system, that functionally partially consists of a CAS, be itself not a CAS? > > Logically, if A is C, B is not C, U is A or B, then U is not necessarily C. > But if U is A and B, then U is C. But is the universe (U) either "A and B" or > "A or B"? What does "to consist of" mean, "and" or "or"? At this point, logic > leaves me. Is the universe a CAS? I don´t know. > > Best, Helmut > 6. Oktober 2025 um 14:12 > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > List, Gary R, > > A few things- but I think this is a thread-that-goes-nowhere as we are each > working within different hypotheses about Peircean cosmology. > > I am taking as granted, that Peirce is analysing the universe within the > fundamental laws of physics, in particular of thermodynamics. > > The First Law refers to the conservation of energy – ie that energy can’t be > created or destroyed. This means that the universe has ‘its energy’ and can > neither increase nor decrease it – but, with reference to the Second Law, it > CAN reduce the operational functionality of this energy by dissipation of > ‘what holds it’ to the least complex cohesive forms. That is - all closed > systems – and the universe is such – naturally tend towards maximum entropy > and minimum useful energy. The goal of the three categories as I see it – is > to prevent this end state. > > I reject that Thirdness is primary; that essentially says that the most > complex of the methods of organization of energy/matter is primary in agency > and authoritative action. How can this be? After all- if you posit that > Thirdness is primary, you then have to ask: where would this most complex > system get both its energy content and its complex organization of this > energy? Not from less energy content and less complex formats since you’ve > ruled this out by defining Thirdness as ‘first’.or the most basic. So- you > are setting up a teleological or ‘prior agency’ causal supposition to this > modal category- and I don’t see the evidence for this in Peirce.. > > Instead – as I understand Peirce, Thirdness develops internally within and by > the categorical modes… > > - - the reality is that Thirdness as the laws of organization > evolves and changes, A habit might have evolved by chance [ 7: 521] ‘the > first germ of law was an entity, which itself arose by chance, that is as a > First”…but, this habit would then become a continuity of organization for[ > 7.515 ], “a law can evolve or develop itself…with a ‘generalizing tendency”. > See also7.512 ‘the laws of nature are the results of an evolutionary > process’..which is ‘still in progress’ 7.514. > > - As he writes” the laws of the universe have been formed under > a universal tendency of all things toward generalization and habit-taking > [7.515]. This means – that these laws are formed within and BY the universe > itself as a semiosic process- and- that this is a dynamic changing process, > > And he refers to continuity [Thirdness] ‘It must have its origin in the > original continuity which is inherent in potentiality. Continuity as > generality, is inherent in potentiality, which is essentially general. 6.204. > So, Thirdness is a legitimate result of both Firstness and Secondness and > develops its emergent order [ a feature of a CAS] from the actions of these > less complex modes.. I see little differentiation between what some are > saying is the early cosmology and the later – an original chaos or lack of > determinacy – and a later indeterminant generality’. > > What is the function of the three categories? As I see it-To organize energy > into matter such that entropy of the universe is prevented. The method of > Firstness has several actions – first – it gathers and compresses energy into > a short spatial and temporal reality – eg a ‘burst of light’. This is in > present time, an experience of ‘nowness’, and short-lived and will on its own > rapidly dissipate. And as I said – Firstness as freedom and chance, frees > energy from closed perimeters. But Secondness, operating in perfect or > discrete and linear or connected time sets up this energy within distinct > spatial and temporal horizons – which provides more stability to energy > preservation. What it adds is indexical or actual physical connexions with > other instantiations. These physical links serve to expand and maintain > energy and provide a mode of stability. That is – initially independent modes > of energy become integrated into larger organizations by indexical > connections. Then Thirdness, the most complex, operating in progressive or > continuous time and non-local space organizes energy/matter by means of, not > local horizons and mechanical connections, as with 2ns, but within non-local > quasi-mind general patterns of organization of morphological organization – > which serve to expand the spatial territory and temporal duration of this > matter. > > None are primary; all are foundational and indeed, emerge within each other. > . So- ….that’s where it’s at…We differ in our interpretations. > > As for the concept of a CAS [Complex Adaptive System] I’d only suggest that > before making assertions about them, that you check out what a CAS really is > - > > > Edwina > > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2025, at 1:26 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jon, List, > > JAS: In accordance with my label of the first cosmological "layer" as the > constitution of being, you are correct that it would apply to any possible > universe. However, as I see it, there is no reason to suspect that any other > universes exist except our own; in fact, since such a conception has no > practical bearings, it is "meaningless gibberish" (CP 5.423, EP 2:338, 1905). > GR: From a strictly Peircean pragmatic sense that may be so. But 'practical > bearings' sometimes occur following a leap into what earlier seemed like > "meaningless gibberish." There are myriad examples of 'crazy ideas' (wild > hypotheses) which once realized (e.g. quantum mechanics) proved to have > considerable "practical bearings." That is to say that in the 21st century I > don't believe that we need to cling so closely to 19th and early 20th century > cosmologies since missions like the James Webb Space Telescope Program has > shown our cosmos to be truly incomprehensibly large, complex, and sometimes > 'weird'. Just consider the size of it! There are an estimated 2 to 20 > trillion galaxies in the observable universe, and a total of approximately > 200 sextillion stars (200 billion trillion stars) in the observable universe > > In any event, there are conjectures offered by modern cosmologists suggesting > that there may be other universes than our own, or there may have been in the > past, or there may be in the future. For one random example, the theory of > eternal inflation (to which I don't necessarily subscribe) suggests that > while inflation ended locally (that is, created our observable universe), it > continues elsewhere, generating countless “bubble” universes, each > potentially with different physical laws (a different selection of Platonic > ideas?) > > JAS: Put another way, the inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite > possibilities (1ns) indeed transcends our universe, but those possibilities > that have been actualized (2ns) constitute our universe. After all, Peirce > posits multiple "Platonic worlds" but only one "actual universe of > existence," which is the one "in which we happen to be" (CP 6.208, 1898). > GR: Yet as just suggested above, other possibilities, other 'Platonic > worlds', may have given birth to any number of other universes. God only > knows. If these exist can we ever know them? That seems even more unlikely > than our knowing in any significant detail any of the trillions of galaxies > in our universe. How pragmatically 'real' are they for us? > > JAS: My use of "complete chaos" to describe the initial state of things also > comes directly from Peirce. "The original chaos, therefore, where there was > no regularity, was in effect a state of mere indeterminacy, in which nothing > existed or really happened" (CP 1.411, EP 1:278, 1887-8). "The state of > things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the nothingness of which > consists in the total absence of regularity" (CP 8.317, 1891). "So, that > primeval chaos in which there was no regularity was mere nothing, from a > physical aspect" (CP 6.265, EP 1:348, 1892). "In the original chaos, where > there was no regularity, there was no existence. ... This we may suppose was > in the infinitely distant past" (CP 1.175, c. 1897). > GR: All these examples cited are dated before the 1898 lecture series. I > would maintain that they principally apply to the first, earlier phase of > Peirce's cosmological thinking. I do not see 'chaos' as mentioned in the > 'blackboard' lecture. Rather, as I see it, the selection of those "Platonic > ideas" which would become our own universe had a sort of primal logic -- not > chaotic at all. > > As I see it, in the 1898 lectures Peirce replaces the imagery of chaos with > exactly that of an indeterminate continuum of generality, the blank > blackboard on which marks can be drawn and erased, redrawn, stabilized, etc. > Here, the proto-cosmos originates not from “chaos” (unstructured randomness) > but from generality or continuity (3ns) that can generate particularity and > reaction (1ns and 2ns). > > JAS: To clarify, Peirce explicitly describes the universe as "a vast > representamen," but he does not directly connect his remarks about a "perfect > sign" to the universe, and I am not aware of any writings where he refers to > a "semiosic continuum." That is why the subtitle of my "Semiosic Synechism" > paper is "A Peircean Argumentation," not "Peirce's Argumentation"; I believe > that my synthesis is faithful to his insights, but I recognize that he never > spelled it out that way himself. > GR: Thanks for the clarification on this point: I must have incorporated your > synthesis into my thinking; and for your clarifying two other related points > in the conclusion of your post. > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 8:56 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Gary R., List: >> >> In accordance with my label of the first cosmological "layer" as the >> constitution of being, you are correct that it would apply to any possible >> universe. However, as I see it, there is no reason to suspect that any other >> universes exist except our own; in fact, since such a conception has no >> practical bearings, it is "meaningless gibberish" (CP 5.423, EP 2:338, >> 1905). Put another way, the inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite >> possibilities (1ns) indeed transcends our universe, but those possibilities >> that have been actualized (2ns) constitute our universe. After all, Peirce >> posits multiple "Platonic worlds" but only one "actual universe of >> existence," which is the one "in which we happen to be" (CP 6.208, 1898). >> >> My use of "complete chaos" to describe the initial state of things also >> comes directly from Peirce. "The original chaos, therefore, where there was >> no regularity, was in effect a state of mere indeterminacy, in which nothing >> existed or really happened" (CP 1.411, EP 1:278, 1887-8). "The state of >> things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the nothingness of which >> consists in the total absence of regularity" (CP 8.317, 1891). "So, that >> primeval chaos in which there was no regularity was mere nothing, from a >> physical aspect" (CP 6.265, EP 1:348, 1892). "In the original chaos, where >> there was no regularity, there was no existence. ... This we may suppose was >> in the infinitely distant past" (CP 1.175, c. 1897). >> >> I agree that the entire universe cannot possibly be a complex adaptive >> system without existing within an environment to which it is adapting >> itself, and that 1ns encompasses not only qualities but also "Freedom, or >> Chance, or Spontaneity" (CP 6.200, 1898). >> >> GR: Peirce’s grand semeiotic vision in which the universe itself is >> conceived as a vast sign, a perfect sign, and a semiosic continuum from >> which facts (and events?) are prescinded >> >> To clarify, Peirce explicitly describes the universe as "a vast >> representamen," but he does not directly connect his remarks about a >> "perfect sign" to the universe, and I am not aware of any writings where he >> refers to a "semiosic continuum." That is why the subtitle of my "Semiosic >> Synechism" paper is "A Peircean Argumentation," not "Peirce's >> Argumentation"; I believe that my synthesis is faithful to his insights, but >> I recognize that he never spelled it out that way himself. >> >> As for your reference to "facts (and events?)," Peirce seems to maintain >> that we only prescind facts, because he defines an event as "an existential >> junction of incompossible facts ... The event is the existential junction of >> states (that is, of that which in existence corresponds to a statement about >> a given subject in representation) whose combination in one subject would >> violate the logical law of contradiction" (CP 1.492&494, c. 1896). This is >> consistent with his remark a decade later, "A fact is so highly a >> prescissively abstract state of things, that it can be wholly represented in >> a simple proposition" (CP 5.549, EP 2:378, 1906). >> >> Peirce also takes exception with "the idea that a cause is an event of such >> a kind as to be necessarily followed by another event which is the effect" >> (CP 6.66, 1898). On the contrary, "So far as the conception of cause has any >> validity ... the cause and its effect are two facts" (CP 6.67). "Now it is >> the ineluctable blunder of a nominalist ... to talk of the cause of an >> event. But it is not an existential event that has a cause. It is the fact, >> which is the reference of the event to a general relation, that has a cause" >> (CP 6.93, 1903). We prescind two different facts and recognize that the >> earlier one is a cause, the later one is its effect, and the change from one >> state of things to the other is an event. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 11:00 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Jon, List, >>> >>> We are clearly in agreement on one matter: that while Peirce initially >>> conceived the universe as beginning with 1ns (possibility, “boundless >>> freedom”), he later came to see 3ns (generality, continuity, habit-taking) >>> as primordial. Categorial involution—that is, that 3ns involves 2ns & 1ns, >>> and 2ns involves only 1ns—adds logical support to that later view. >>> Additional support comes from your arguing the cosmological integration of >>> these three as a continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), only >>> some of which become actualized (2ns), with the sequence of events >>> unfolding as spontaneity (1ns), reaction (2ns), and habit (3ns). As you >>> argue, this reinforces an underlying evolutionary trajectory from chaos, >>> through process, toward regularity (ultimately, complete regularity in >>> Peirce’s view). >>> >>> JAS: My own attempt at integrating these two accounts or phases was to >>> suggest that the constitution (or hierarchy) of being is an inexhaustible >>> continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are >>> actualized (2ns); while the sequence of events in each case when this >>> happens consists of spontaneity (1ns) followed by reaction (2ns) and then >>> habit-taking (3ns). The resulting overall evolution of states is from >>> complete chaos (1ns) in the infinite past, through this ongoing process >>> (3ns) at any assignable date, toward complete regularity (2ns) in the >>> infinite future. These three "layers" conform respectively to your >>> categorial vectors of representation, order, and process. (Emphasis added, >>> GR) >>> >>> You seem to be arguing that your three layers (italicized above): the >>> constitution of being, the sequence of events, and the overall evolution of >>> states all apply to our existing universe. I don't agree. As I've been >>> arguing, the blackboard metaphor suggests to me that your first layer, the >>> constitution of being, does not apply only to our universe, but to any >>> possible universe that might come into existence. Indeed, in my view >>> 'being' is not 'constituted' in the proto-universe represented by the >>> blackboard at all -- that's why I refer to it as a proto-universe. There >>> is, no doubt, a reality moving towards existence; but in my reading of the >>> lecture in which the blackboard analogy appears, out of the infinite number >>> of 'Platonic ideas' any number of different ones might have been 'selected' >>> so that some other universe different from ours might have come into >>> existence (who knows? has come into existence). >>> >>> I would also not call the proto-world foreshadowing our existent cosmos >>> "complete chaos". The ur-continuity of the blackboard already suggests that >>> there is something in the cosmic schema that has the capacity and >>> intelligence to select just those Platonic ideas which can be and will be >>> realized in an actual, existential, evolutionary cosmos such as ours. What >>> seems at all 'chaotic' to me is that infinite number of Platonic 'ideas' >>> (characters, qualities, dimensions, categories, etc.) But do those >>> possibilities actually represent chaos? >>> >>> But to return for a moment to a different cosmological disagreement, it has >>> been pointed out before by several on the List including both of us, that >>> the universe as a whole cannot qualify as a complex adaptive system because >>> it does not exist within a larger environment to which it must constantly >>> adapt. For example, in Peirce's cosmology 1ns corresponds not essentially >>> to qualities but to pure possibility and “boundless freedom.” In his 1898 >>> blackboard analogy Peirce explicitly does not confine these categories to >>> the spatiotemporal universe; instead, he refers to “Platonic worlds” of >>> infinite possibilities, some of which become the characters of a universe >>> which will come into being. He is clear that this particular universe in >>> which we live and breathe and have our being came out of one such Platonic >>> world, which may even suggest, as I and others have noted, an early >>> multi-universe model. >>> >>> The two later developments in Peirce’s thought which you say shaped your >>> own synthesis, Jon: (1) the topical conception of continuity which sees a >>> continuum as an undivided whole of indefinite parts, and (2) Peirce’s grand >>> semeiotic vision in which the universe itself is conceived as a vast sign, >>> a perfect sign, and a semiosic continuum from which facts (and events?) are >>> prescinded—further explicates and extends Peirce’s cosmology. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary R >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>">UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, >> if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go >> to >> https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . >> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and >> co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> > . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, > then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply > All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L > <mailto:[email protected]> . But, if your subscribed email account > is not your default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE > PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply > All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L > <mailto:[email protected]> . But, if your subscribed email account > is not your default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE > PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> > . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, > then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
