Ben wrote: Now, I've read that the current understanding is that energy is not always conserved; as the universe expands, energy increases; as it contracts (if it ever does), energy decreases; this is because change of size of universe makes time asymmetrical, and energy conservation is a matter of time symmetry. I'm not saying that Jon is right that it's just a matter of discovering that supposed invariants do vary and of finding deeper invariants. Who knows how much more radical the change and evolution may be?
I think that you're right about a semiotic (therefore logical) arrow of time. This gets complicated as one considers various modes of inference embodied in semiosis, but I think that it's right Well you've given us--at least me--a lot to think about, Ben. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm hard pressed for time at the moment. Our friend and colleague, Cathy Legg, is in town and I've added a number of events to my already busy calendar through the end of the month. But I hope to get back to your post in a day or two anyway, and hope that others will take it up as well. And, btw, what an extraordinary memory you have! Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., list, > > Your quote from Smolin: > > No, the key lesson of cosmological natural selection (CNS) is that it > makes falsifiable predictions for real observations. In fact the > predictions I published in 1992 have held up. To mention one: there can be > no neutron stars heavier than twice the mass of the sun. Current limits > come close; the heaviest well-measured neutron star is at 1.9 solar masses, > but so far none go over. > [End quote] > > That rang a bell. I had read about this somewhere but I remembered Smolin > putting the limit at "1.6". I've dug it up. He said in a comment at > somebody's blog and in a book: > > [....] In The Life of the Cosmos (1997), I reflected at length on the > implications of this idea, so I will not go into it in detail here, except > to say that that theory, which I called cosmological natural selection, > made genuine predictions. In 1992 I published two of them and they have > since held up, although they could have been proved false by many > observations made since then. These are (1) that there should be no neutron > stars more massive than 1.6 times the mass of the sun, and (2) [...] > [End quote. See Smolin's comment at > http://asymptotia.com/2007/03/13/more-scenes-from-the-storm-in-a-teacup-vii/#comment-34765 > ] > > and he seems to be quoting himself from page 167 in _The Trouble With > Physics_ > https://books.google.com/books?id=d6MIUlxY-qwC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=%22should+be+no+neutron+stars+more+massive+than+1.6+times+the+mass+of+the+sun%22&source=bl&ots=GP1YkoBbNc&sig=Qp8vvgboeFd47IvBhbxOsrSY03Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AXwMVa6EKcqrNp7Bg9gK&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22should%20be%20no%20neutron%20stars%20more%20massive%20than%201.6%20times%20the%20mass%20of%20the%20sun%22&f=false > > So in the interview *this year* in Scientific American he says (A) that > in *1992* he predicted, with his cosmological natural selection theory, > that no neutron star is more than *twice* as massive as the sun and (B) > that neutron stars *have been found with **1.9 times* the mass of the sun > (the Wikipedia "Neutron star" article currently agrees about observations, > saying "The maximum observed mass of neutron stars is about 2 M☉") But in > *2007* in his book and in a comment at a blog, he said that in *1992* he > predicted, with his cosmological natural selection theory, that no neutron > star is over *1.6* times massive as the sun. > > Peirce's idea that physical, chemical, biological, etc., laws are not > eternally immutable like those of pure math is captured in his use of the > word "nomological" (much like the word "nomothetic") to describe the study > of the laws and basic elements of nature. The idea is that there is > something arbitrary about them, they can't be deduced from sheer > mathematics alone. (It seems doubtful, in turn, that sheer mathematics can > be purely deduced from scratch, since postulates or basic hypotheses need > to be chosen). I always thought there was something to the idea that > physical etc. laws could evolve but it seems pretty speculative currently. > Peirce seems to allow that one might end up at a basic level with both > changeless laws and changing laws, when he says, > > because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the > proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible; > so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by > those laws, **even if they be not violated in the process of growth**. > [End quote, emphasis added] > > Now, I've read that the current understanding is that energy is not always > conserved; as the universe expands, energy increases; as it contracts (if > it ever does), energy decreases; this is because change of size of universe > makes time asymmetrical, and energy conservation is a matter of time > symmetry. I'm not saying that Jon is right that it's just a matter of > discovering that supposed invariants do vary and of finding deeper > invariants. Who knows how much more radical the change and evolution may > be? > > I think that you're right about a semiotic (therefore logical) arrow of > time. This gets complicated as one considers various modes of inference > embodied in semiosis, but I think that it's right, but I've gone on long > enough, and if I think about it more, I may end up not sending this post! > > Best, Be > > On 3/20/2015 2:10 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Here's a snippet from an interview this year of Smolin by John Horgan in > *Scientific > American* on the topic of laws evolving. > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/01/04/troublemaker-lee-smolin-questions-if-physics-laws-are-timeless/ > > *Horgan*: You suggest above, and in your new book, that the laws of > nature “evolve.” Won’t that hypothesis make physics and cosmology even more > flexible and hence less falsifiable? > > *Smolin*: No, the key lesson of cosmological natural selection (CNS) is > that it makes falsifiable predictions for real observations. In fact the > predictions I published in 1992 have held up. To mention one: there can be > no neutron stars heavier than twice the mass of the sun. Current limits > come close; the heaviest well-measured neutron star is at 1.9 solar masses, > but so far none go over. > > At first I had the same intuition your question expresses. But it’s > wrong; making laws evolve increases the falsifiability of science because > it increases the number of hypotheses that can be checked because they > imply falsifiable predictions. The reason is that the additional > hypotheses concern the processes by which evolution took place. Since > these processes would have taken place in the past they imply predictions > which are checkable by real observations. This point is discussed in > detail in my books *Life of the Cosmos* and *Time Reborn*. > > One way to reconcile evolving laws with falsifiability is by paying > attention to large hierarchies of time scales. The evolution of laws can > be slow in present conditions, or only occur during extreme conditions that > are infrequent. On much shorter time scales and far from extreme > conditions, the laws can be assumed to be unchanging. > > As Roberto Mangabeira Unger and I argue in our new book *The Singular > Universe*, the most important discovery cosmologists have made is that > the universe has a history. We argue this has to be extended to the laws > themselves. Biology became science when the question switched from listing > the species to the dynamical question of how species evolve. Fundamental > physics and cosmology have to transform themselves from a search for > timeless laws and symmetries to the investigation of hypotheses about how > laws evolve. > > Best, > > Gary > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> List, >> >> Here's a seminal text, quoted a number of times on the list over the >> years, on Peirce's idea that laws evolve (more quotations when I have time). >> >> Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and >> for uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution. This >> supposes them not to be absolute, not to be obeyed precisely. It makes an >> element of indeterminacy, spontaneity, or absolute chance in nature. Just >> as, when we attempt to verify any physical law, we find our observations >> cannot be precisely satisfied by it, and rightly attribute the discrepancy >> to errors of observation, so we must suppose far more minute discrepancies >> to exist owing to the imperfect cogency of the law itself, to a certain >> swerving of the facts from any definite formula. CP 6.13 >> Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical >> principles. This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the >> principle of evolution requires no extraneous cause, since the tendency to >> growth can be supposed itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ >> accidentally started. Second, because law ought more than anything else to >> be supposed a result of evolution. Third, because exact law obviously never >> can produce heterogeneity out of homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity >> is the feature of the universe the most manifest and characteristic. >> Fourth, because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the >> proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible; >> so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by >> those laws, even if they be not violated in the process of growth. In >> short, Spencer is not a philosophical evolutionist, but only a >> half-evolutionist -- or, if you will, only a semi-Spencerian. Now >> philosophy requires thorough-going evolutionism or none.CP 6.14 >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Edwina, Soren, Jon, list, >>> >>> I agree with you, Edwina, that a topic having been addressed on >>> peirce-l in the past might very well be fruitfully taken up at a later time >>> since any number of list members may not have followed that earlier >>> discussion or even joined the list after said discussion, while those who >>> have followed it or who even participated in it may have modified their >>> understandings (for example, having been exposed to some of the >>> contemporary literature relating to it such as, for example, that which >>> Soren recently pointed to). >>> >>> I also tend to strongly agree with you and disagree with Jon that the >>> matter of the evolution of laws is a "pseudo-issue," and I don't recall our >>> arriving at anything like a consensus that it's a "pseudo-issue" in that >>> earlier discussion. Also it seems clear from the Peirce and Smolin texts >>> that they both see the evolution of laws *as such *and not as merely >>> our better, more clearly understanding them. For Peirce and Smolin laws >>> themselves evolve over perhaps vast periods of time. And I would even >>> maintain that Peirce's notion of laws evolving includes not only biological >>> laws relating to the evolution on the earth, but involves 'cosmological' >>> ones as well (this, I think, is Smolin's position as well). I'll try to >>> hunt up a few Peirce excepts supporting that position in the next few days, >>> but at the moment I'm exceedingly busy, so any help here would be >>> appreciated. >>> >>> The idea of evolution occurring "over perhaps vast periods of time" >>> leads me to one question I have regarding your conclusion, Edwina. While I >>> do agree with you that the present question (the evolution of laws) "has >>> little to do with 'variables varying over time' - which removes those >>> variables from a causality due to interaction with the environment and >>> reduces them to merely a causality due to the linear passage of time. The >>> theory of adaptive evolution on the other hand inserts an informational >>> networking of organisms with other organisms/envt...and suggests a freedom, >>> a spontaneous and informed change to adapt to the requirements of the >>> environment". >>> >>> But you conclude "Nothing to do with time. >>> >>> Even if 'variables varying over time' has little (or almost nothing) >>> to do with evolutionary change, it seems strange to say that adaptive >>> evolution has "nothing to do with time" given that all, for one, semiosic >>> processes involve time. Or am I missing something here? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> xxx >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> *C 745* >>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
