JAS- I think you should do a little research in CAS. A CAS is, in itself, a complex network of adaptive interactions. It is NOT the case that it, itself, is adapting to an ‘external environment’.
A CAS again, is a system whose total contents are dynamic, open and adaptive, self-organizing with emergent, networked, unpredictable results. There is an enormous literature on CAS. ..and I wouldn’t be able to recommend only one - but, Stu Kauffman’s The Origins of Order is a classic. As for the universe being ‘closed’ - I don’t know what Helmut actually means by this - perhaps he could explain. He could simply be referring to the fact that the system is one in which its contents are self-organizing.. My view of the universe as a CAS is that it has no perimeters. Edwina > On Aug 30, 2024, at 1:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > I agree with Helmut. > > HR: Is the universe a system? I'd say, yes, but a perfectly closed one (apart > from possibly presumed divine intervention). Because of this closedness, it > doesn't have to adapt, and it cannot integrate, at least nothing from outside. > > If the universe is a closed system, such that there is no external > environment to which it is constantly adapting itself, then by definition it > cannot be a complex adaptive system. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:35 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> JAS; list >> >> Who are you agreeing with in your sentence ' >>> I agree that technically, the universe as a whole cannot be accurately >>> characterized as a complex adaptive system >> My view is that the universe ‘as a whole IS a complex adaptive system - and >> as such there is no ‘environment external to it’. ..Therefore, the universe >> is most certainly not adapting itself to this non-existent ‘external >> environment’. >> >> Edwina >>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 1:25 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> List: >>> >>> I agree that technically, the universe as a whole cannot be accurately >>> characterized as a complex adaptive system unless there is an environment >>> external to it, to which it is constantly adapting itself. What could that >>> be, and how would we ever know anything about it? >>> >>> Gödel's incompleteness theorems tell us nothing whatsoever about God or >>> religious beliefs--they are purely logical demonstrations that certain >>> kinds of sentences are undecidable within any sufficiently powerful formal >>> system >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems). In >>> fact, Gödel himself developed a modal ontological argument for the >>> existence/reality of God >>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof). As stated >>> in the linked article, "Gödel described his religion as 'baptized Lutheran >>> (but not member of any religious congregation). My belief is theistic, not >>> pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.'" He also echoed Peirce >>> by saying, "Religions are, for the most part, bad--but religion is not." >>> >>> 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 Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> Supplement: That "the question, whether the universe is God´s tool, a part >>>> of God, or God Himself" cannot be answered by us, is proved by Goedel, >>>> with his incompleteness theorem. Meaning, argueing about religious belief >>>> is futile. >>>> Edwina, List, >>>> >>>> in my last post I was trying to not anthropomorphise: I wrote, that the >>>> non-atheist view, that God is a person, can be justified by saying, that >>>> what makes a person is intelligence, and the reason for everything is >>>> intelligent, so a person. Of course, this argument is only then not >>>> anthropomorphic, if we all agree, that "intelligence" is not an >>>> anthropomorphic concept. Is it or not? >>>> >>>> About "agential, deterministic": "Deteministic" I see as too mechanical, >>>> intending only one purpose, instead of the Talcottian system aspects >>>> "AGIL": Adaption, goal attainment, integration, latency. These system >>>> properties can also be explained in a Peircean way, I think, with habit >>>> formation and the three categories. >>>> >>>> I´d say, everything is a system, but the more complex a system is, the >>>> more these AGIL aspects hold. "Goal attainment" of course is agential. >>>> Luhmann too spoke of the intention of a system. Its intention is to get >>>> bigger, more powerful, more complex, more latent (homeostatic), and >>>> therefore more capable of integrating all that may help to achieve all >>>> that. >>>> >>>> Now- Is the universe a system? I´d say, yes, but a perfectly closed one >>>> (apart from possibly presumed divine intervention). Because of this >>>> closedness, it doesn´t have to adapt, and it cannot integrate, at least >>>> nothing from outside. But intention and agentiality, I´d say, yes, it has. >>>> The question, whether the universe is God´s tool, a part of God, or God >>>> Himself, I find irrelevant, due to this question´s non-solubility for us >>>> humble creatures. We should rather bother with problems we can deal with, >>>> and, apart from that, either unify or dump all religions, and praise God >>>> (just a suggestion). >>>> >>>> Best regards, Helmut >>>> 29. August 2024 um 20:39 Uhr >>>> "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> Helmut, List >>>> >>>> Since I follow the theory of CAS, complex adaptive systems, then, I view >>>> the universe as a logical process of energy/matter transformation. And yes >>>> - this doesn’t necessarily lead to theism, unless one wants to >>>> anthropomorphize the nature of this logical adaptive process. Andn of >>>> course- to atheism, which merely rejects the anthropomorphic or agential, >>>> deterministic Supreme purpose—and, more often, accepts a self-organizing, >>>> self-creating process of energy transforming to matter. As Peirce so often >>>> says ‘ matter is effete mind’. >>>> >>>> Edwina. >>>> On Aug 29, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> List, >>>> >>>> the argument "If A then B, if B then C, so: If A then C", given, that the >>>> two premisses are true, has a third premiss: Transitivity. Transitivity is >>>> an axiom, because it cannot be deduced from other premisses. Logic/reason >>>> is based on axioms. They are the reason for logic. In a universe, where in >>>> this example "If A then C" would not be true, no intelligent life could >>>> emerge, I am quite sure. And there would be no reason for anything. >>>> >>>> Given, that the axioms are the ens nessecitarium, we may say with John >>>> (Johannes) of the bible, that God is logic. I think, this view does not >>>> nessecarily lead to theism, it might as well lead to pantheism or >>>> panentheism. Panentheism, because logic/reason/God may exist ouside of our >>>> universe too. >>>> >>>> May it lead to atheism too? I guess, atheists say, that there is no >>>> personal God. But may logic, reason, the reason, be impersonal, inanimate? >>>> I´d say, if something is intelligent, it is a person. Intelligence is >>>> proved by action, e.g. if somebody fills out well an IQ-test. The >>>> emergence of intelligent life on our planet has a reason, because >>>> transitivity is in charge. This reason has done an act, we may call >>>> "creation" or "evolution". So this reason is intelligent, so it is a >>>> person, no matter, however technical, inanimate the term "axioms" sounds, >>>> with which mathematicians name the reason. >>>> >>>> Best regards, Helmut >>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. August 2024 um 13:57 Uhr >>>> Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> An: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Anselm (was "A man could not have any >>>> idea that was not anthropomorphic") >>>> JAS, List >>>> >>>> But - Peirce, in 1.412, does indeed very specifically outline how the >>>> three categories ‘come into being’ from Nothing. So, contrary to your >>>> interpretation, I think it’s quite proper to ‘ascribe this belief’ to him. >>>> >>>> As for your arguments about ponens and tollens [both are modus] - if your >>>> premises are false due to circularity or ambiguity or.., then the logical >>>> validity is totally irrelevant. >>>> >>>> You can hardly want to ‘prove’ an assertion by its logical format alone; >>>> your premises must have value of truth. Otherwise, I could ‘prove’ >>>> anything - such as the existence of unicorns and .. >>>> >>>> If horses exist, then unicorns exist. >>>> Horses exist >>>> Therefore, unicorns exist. >>>> >>>> Finally - The ambiguity comes from the merger of ‘possible’ and >>>> ’necessary’…which makes the ‘god' argument false. >>>> >>>> Edwina > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
