On Sep 21, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I am not sure complexity is enough, also because of the fact that we have no > agreed-upon measurement of the degree of complexity of processes. I also don’t think complexity is enough. It’s not hard to imagine highly complex systems without sign-like features. Rather my claim is that to develop sign-like features requires complexity. Given foundational physics focus on the simple in foundations it’s unlikely they’ll focus on signs unless mind-like aspects are unavoidable from foundations. While, as I noted, there are mind-like aspects in the two major works of foundational physics most physicists see them as accidental aspects of the way they are described. I do think there are some aspects to thermodynamics done starting with symmetries to develop the laws rather than via statistical mechanics or phenomenology. But that’s definitely getting afield of the discussion on dicisigns. Plus I’d have to review my thermodynamics before daring to say too much with any strength.
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
