Edwina, Jon, Helmut, List, I believe that the universe is generally considered a closed system in the context of thermodynamics because the universe, *as a whole*, does not exchange matter or energy with anything outside itself -- basically because *there is no 'outside' of the universe* as we understand it. *All the energy and matter that exist are contained within the universe*.
Certainly it is true that *within* the universe that there are many open systems that can exchange energy and matter with their surroundings. I understand CAS as a framework for understanding complex, dynamic systems in a number of fields such as biology, sociology, economics, ecology, etc. (I think that the human brain might even be considered a CAS). And as Edwina has often noted, they demonstrate the importance of interactions, adaptation, and emergence in shaping the behavior of these systems over time. But, again, CAS concerns open systems because they rely on the *exchange of energy, matter, and information with their environment* to function, adapt, and evolve. So, I also agree with Helmut that, as Jon wrote: "the universe as a whole cannot be accurately characterized as a complex *adaptive *system." Best, Gary R On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 1:42 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]> 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]> >> 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 >> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:03 AM Helmut Raulien <[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]> >>> *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]> 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]> >>> *An:* "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* "Peirce-L" <[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.
