Gary R , List Yet another disagreement! Yes, a CAS relies on “ the exchange of energy/matter/information within its environment to function, adapt, evolve…” and so the universe, which has no external environments - as a system in itself, operates as a CAS, wherein its energy content is constantly adapting, evolving moving from simple to complex organization.
. ..There is no need for a CAS to require external energy input…which would make it a mechanical and complicated system, which requires external energy input - not a CAS. Again, a CAS does not require external energy input to function; it is the way that it organizes its energy content in itself - that defines it as a CAS. A CAS is not something that only exists when it is open to external energy! Its energy content, in itself, operates in an operational format as a CAS. The universe, as a system without perimeters has no capacity to increase [or decrease] its energy content…As you note - all the energy and matter that exist are contained within the universe. The question then moves to HOW is this energy/matter organized? The Answer - as a CAS - a complex organized system. Edwina > On Aug 30, 2024, at 3:45 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[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.
