And as an addendum - the operation of the three categories, which, as outlined in 1.412, emerged together, is ‘how’ a CAS operates. All three categories enable a CAS. And - no need for an external energy source - which again, would make a system complicated and mechanical, not complex.
Edwina. > On Aug 30, 2024, at 3:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.
