List I Continue with my analysis of the universe as a CAS - as a semiosic CAS..
If we are into asking AI for answers, rather than doing our own analysis – I asked..Is the universe a Complex Adaptive System, and got the AI reply: “Yes, the universe can be viewed as a complex adaptive system, as it is a massive network of interacting components that are constantly changing and adapting to their environment over time. From the evolution of chemical elements in stars to the formation of galaxies and the emergence of life, the universe exhibits the key characteristics of a complex adaptive system.” There are papers written on this issue- there is discussion about it – and rather than the immediate knee jerk almost automatic rejection by the Key Posters on the Peirce list – wouldn’t it be nice if there were some willingness to explore and analyze Peircean thought within modern science? I note again, the key characteristics of a CAS: - Complexity – countless interacting components - Adaptation—which are constantly adapting from the simple to the complex - Interconnectedness of its systems and parts - Adaptation to environment.. the systems within the universe are constantly adapting and evolving in complexity - - far-from equilibrium state..which means.. able to change [ ie, 1ns is basic as well as 3ns and 2ns] - - NOTE: I have NEVER seen any definition of a CAS where one requirement is an ‘external system to which it is adapting’. The point of a CAS is its internal systemic complexity. And - after all, there is NO external system to our universe, so the question is irrelevant. The identity of a CAS focuses around the realities of the composition of the CAS - and how this ‘composition’ operates in itself. We must note how our universe has moved from simple forms to complex, from simple atoms to the emergence of life - and even in that area, from simple to complex forms of life. And of course, my point is that this process has been, semiotic from the beginning. As Peirce noted, the whole universe is composed of signs. And those vital categories mean that is, always, not merely flexible and capable of complexity, but basically far-from-equilibrium and networked. Edwina > On Oct 25, 2025, at 6:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Gary r, list > > I think, according to your rules, I’m’allowed’ to reply. > > 1] Since my understanding of the categories is that all three are > fundamental, then I completely reject ’top-down guidance’..which to me, is > deterministic for…open self-organized adaptation and evolution. And ALL > three are ‘bottom-up' by which I mean that ALL three are foundational and > interactional and there is no primacy of any one of the categories. And since > I explain the triadic semiosic process and all three categories- then, this > is absolutely nothing to do with ‘dyadic materialism’!! How on earth could > you come to such a conclusion from a basic outline of a triadic semiosic > process and three categories???? > > 2] Thermodynamic determinism’ ? Are you referring to the actual laws of > physics? Energy can’t be created or destroyed; the entropy of an isolated > system tends increase…Basic truths of physics. > > And I see the universe, as Peirce outlined, ..not moving to ‘concrete > reasonableness’[ which implies a kind of utopia of reason’ but increasing > diversity and complex interaction.. Remember, Firstness is basic…and habits > can change. > > 3] Describing the sign unit [O-S-I] as an’information unit' doesn’t have a > thing to do wth Shannon’s quantitative unit. I know you are trying to‘muddy > and denigrate my analogies..but..these comparisons are fallacious. And yes- I > DO use the terms ’input and ‘output’ without losing any of the Peircean > analytic meanings. > > 4] Where didi I say that the categories are ’components of a process? Yes, > the categories are modes of being..and as such, actually process, actually > mould energy/matter into coherent existential forms. That’s their function. > > 5] And yet again - the almost automatic refusal to explore the Peircean > framework beyond the text. > > Edwina > >> On Oct 25, 2025, at 5:38 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> List, >> >> While comparisons between Peirce’s semiosis and complex adaptive systems >> might prove illuminating, it seems to me crucial not to frame semiosis as a >> bottom-up process. Peirce’s 3ns introduces top-down guidance through law and >> habit just as fundamentally as 1ns introduces spontaneity and 2ns enforces >> brute action-reaction. Removing that balance collapses semiosis into a >> dyadic-materialist mechanism. >> >> Similarly, presenting the telos of semiosis as energy preservation leans >> toward thermodynamic determinism, whereas Peirce saw the universe evolving >> toward the growth of concrete reasonableness, that is, increasing embodiment >> of habit and intelligibility. >> >> Terminologically, describing the sign relation (O-S-I) as an “information >> unit” borrows from Shannon and implies an input-output model foreign to >> Peirce’s irreducible triadic mediation. >> >> Finally, the categories are not “components” of a process but modes of being >> that structure all process and relation. >> >> On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 5:21 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hello Edwina, List, >>> >>> I don't see the whole conversation as a coherent thread, so I've missed the >>> back and forth. >>> >>> In short, I support the general claim that we can view the evolution of the >>> cosmos as manifesting, at both local and global levels, the dynamics of >>> complex adaptive systems. The hypothesis I see Peirce trying out in, for >>> instance, A Guess at the Riddle, is that the evolution of the cosmos has a >>> character analogous to the dynamics of the cycle of inquiry: manifesting >>> patterns akin to hypothesis, deduction, and induction, as the drive or >>> growth, and patterns akin to demonstration on the basis of systems of >>> principles (i.e., theories) where established habits and natural laws >>> govern. This, I think, is a hypothesis that has proven to be fruitful in >>> many domains, and I suspect its fruitfulness will continue to growth in >>> this century. >>> >>> Having said that, I not prepared to go so far as to say: "There is no >>> goal, no final agenda, other than to prevent entropic dissipation of >>> energy, and thus, maintain the energy content of the universe as ‘matter’ >>> moulded within the self-organized rules of Mind." On my view, potential is >>> a pretty rich sort of thing. As such, it isn't clear to me how much or how >>> little of the evolution of ordered habits and growth of systems of laws >>> manifests something more than a constraint that prevents the "prevent >>> entropic dissipation of energy,." >>> >>> For my part, I see these sorts of questions as an invitation to engage in >>> inquiry. The proof of the pudding will be in the tasting the results of >>> those inquiries. For those taking up this sort of project, including the >>> many at SFI, we have our work cut out for us. >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on >>> behalf of Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2025 1:34 PM >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Cc: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a CAS >>> >>> I am still stunned by the recent rejection of my claim that the Universe is >>> a CAS [ complex adaptive system] by three scholars on this list - none of >>> whom had the faintest idea what a CAS actually is. >>> >>> Here’s a brief outline: >>> Complex adaptive systems (CAS) represent a framework for understanding how >>> intricate, dynamic networks of interacting agents give rise to emergent >>> behaviors that are greater than the sum of their parts. These systems are >>> characterized by decentralized control, adaptation through learning or >>> evolution, nonlinear interactions, and the ability to self-organize in >>> response to environmental changes. In essence, CAS thrive on feedback >>> loops, diversity, and resilience, often exhibiting unpredictable yet >>> patterned outcomes. This concept, popularized by thinkers like John Holland >>> and Murray Gell-Mann through the Santa Fe Institute, transcends >>> disciplines, offering insights into everything from ant colonies to stock >>> markets. >>> >>> My point of course, is that Peirce’s semiosic framework, made up of the >>> basic triad of an ‘information unit’, [O-S-I] … comparable to those >>> ‘interacting agents in the CAS - operating within the three categories of >>> Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness function within a decentralized and >>> non-determined process ,[bottom up] adaptation through ‘learning and >>> evolution’ , non-linear interactions..and self-organization..to develop and >>> maintain our universe. >>> >>> There is no goal, no final agenda, other than to prevent entropic >>> dissipation of energy, and thus, maintain the energy content of the >>> universe as ‘matter’ moulded within the self-organized rules of Mind. I >>> therefore think that it would be interesting if not productive to explore >>> this dynamic, using the Peircean basic framework, within not only the >>> biological realm - but- even the societal, economic and political realms. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> >>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>> ► 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] . ► <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.
