Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Excellent!  Yes, complement is a much more appropriate relation between the 
ideas than compete, I think.  Thanks.

On 11/06/2017 11:08 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
> 
> Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with Mareletto's.  
> That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in the same space 
> with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one that operates on 
> the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to initial conditions 
> (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory proposes a physical 
> universe at the microscale that could start here and unfold with new 
> constraints "evolving" from earlier ones.  I see the heavier elements (e.g., 
> carbon ... gold) being generated from later generation suns as a possible 
> example of this. England seems to take this history into the abiogenesis by 
> appealing to the idea of metabolic homeostasis with the production of 
> dissipative systems being a likely outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should 
> have used the term "complements" versus "competes." 

-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Robert Wall]

Glen, I think Carl is referring to my earlier remark about String Theory.
He is not alone in attacking Popper because Popper's idea concerning
falsifiability and a "true" scientific theory stand in the way of just
accepting a proposed theory base just on their mathematical elegance. I,
myself, hope that science doesn't go this way, as it will be difficult to
know where to draw the line between science and philosophy or even
religion. Too Platonic for my taste.

So, you are correct that this is not entirely relevant to the current area
of discussion.  Nonetheless, I happen to like Jerry Coyne's position on
this belief system, his being a lot less snippy than the Sabine one, IMHO:

Is falsifiability essential to science?



Sorry for the delayed response; I am out of town, and so, not near my
library references.  But, let's me try to continue with my feeble
comparisons between the propositions of these three scientists:
Deutch|Marletto (bing one), England, and Smolin.

OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.


Yep; it was teleonomy under the looking glass in the context of biological
systems in particular ... with Nick leading the discussion with his 1987
paper on the topic, which I read with great interest.

In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned
> with England, but England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin
> seems to be saying much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is
> consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with
> Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to
> contradict Smolin.


Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with Mareletto's.
That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in the same space
with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one that operates on
the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to initial
conditions (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory proposes a
physical universe at the microscale that could start here and unfold with
new constraints "evolving" from earlier ones.  I see the heavier elements
(e.g., carbon ... gold) being generated from later generation suns as a
possible example of this. England seems to take this history into the
abiogenesis by appealing to the idea of metabolic homeostasis with the
production of dissipative systems being a likely outcome in this universe.
Anyway, I should have used the term "complements" versus "competes."

Erwin Schrödinger, in his *What is Life* (1944) coined the term *negentropy*
to explain the process of such dissipative systems usurping negative
entropy from their environments (e.g., food, sunlight) and staying in
balance by expelling positive entropy back into their environments (heat or
enthalpy in thermodynamic terms).  Negentropy was later recognized (even by
Schrödinger) to be equivalent to Gibbs free energy (i.e., energy
available for work), especially because living systems exist in
environments that are relatively stable in terms of temperature and
pressure. Someone later than Schrödinger described this negentropy process
as the extraction of *information* from the environment, which fits well, I
think, with Constructor Theory. Gibbs (statistical) Entropy function
resembles Claude Shannon's Information Entropy function, which seems to
have motivated this concept.

Some think that entropy is better for analyzing just closed (isolated or
adiabatic) systems ... but this is a very complex topic, especially with
respect to systems operating far from equilibrium maintain structures with
few degrees of freedom or states. It's pretty amazing stuff, though ... but
I am not the best one to explain these processes ... and that's just what
they are: processes.

Yes, Smolin and England could be aligned but on different scales--macro and
micro respectively.  For Smolin we would need to understand black holes a
bit better in this context, I think. A fecund universe is one with a lot of
black holes ... cosmic eggs, if you will that have cosmic "genomes" that
resemble the parent universe, but with variations due to whatever. So see
these as new constraint generators, I suppose, in the context of
Constructor Theory.

Can any of this be brought back into the domain of *teleonomy*?  It is a
question of about how something can arise from nothing. In an earlier
thread with my philosophy group I brought this to a discussion on a similar
topic titled "The Bridge From Nowhere":

This might have something to do with the *Hard Problem of Consciousness* as
well.  Not sure.  But, it is fun to think about.  We have been discussing
the role or 

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Merle Lefkoff]

I agree.  High time, Nick.  I hope it's OK that I forwarded this to Stu
Kauffman.  I took out all the names.  He and Kate had dinner at my house
Saturday night with our speaker from Sweden, and I thought he might shed
some light for me.

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to
> shoe-horn it in.
>
> Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to
> Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a
> reference to Kuhn,  I really liked Sabine's rant.  High time.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
> Sanders Peirce
>
> Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you
> suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled
> falsifiable noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for
> similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the
> light's better by the lamp post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that
> entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire
> space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?
>
>
> On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> > Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> >
> > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> > ysics.html?m=1
> >
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" > wrote:
> >
> > OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> >
> > But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept
> of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of
> possible states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and
> Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the
> proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set
> of states or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you
> posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but
> England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying
> much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with
> England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my
> stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
> >
> > If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then
> all 3 seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?
>
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Visiting Professor in Integrative Peacebuilding
Saint Paul University
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

merlelefk...@gmail.com 
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Carl Tollander]

Yes, Nick, that.  Sorry to hijack the thread.  Carry on.

Carl


On Nov 6, 2017 10:30, "Nick Thompson"  wrote:

> Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to
> shoe-horn it in.
>
> Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to
> Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a
> reference to Kuhn,  I really liked Sabine's rant.  High time.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
> To: FriAM 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
> Sanders Peirce
>
> Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you
> suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled
> falsifiable noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for
> similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the
> light's better by the lamp post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that
> entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire
> space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?
>
>
> On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> > Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> >
> > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> > ysics.html?m=1
> >
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" > wrote:
> >
> > OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> >
> > But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept
> of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of
> possible states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and
> Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the
> proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set
> of states or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you
> posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but
> England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying
> much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with
> England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my
> stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
> >
> > If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then
> all 3 seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?
>
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Nick Thompson]

Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to 
shoe-horn it in.  

Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to Popper 
in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a reference to Kuhn,  
I really liked Sabine's rant.  High time. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders 
Peirce

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you 
suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable 
noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 
models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp 
post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example 
of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, 
something Sabine would appreciate?


On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> ysics.html?m=1
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫"  > wrote:
> 
> OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a 
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to 
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to 
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> 
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of 
> all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible 
> states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the 
> proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is 
> less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or 
> distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you posited that Marletto 
> might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin.  My 
> response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England.  
> So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be 
> consistent with Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that England does not 
> seem to contradict Smolin.
> 
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 
> seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?


--
☣ gⅼеɳ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[gⅼеɳ ☣]

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you 
suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable 
noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 
models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp 
post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example 
of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, 
something Sabine would appreciate?


On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫"  > wrote:
> 
> OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a 
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to 
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to 
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> 
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of 
> all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible 
> states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the 
> proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is 
> less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or 
> distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you posited that Marletto 
> might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin.  My 
> response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England.  
> So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be 
> consistent with Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that England does not 
> seem to contradict Smolin.
> 
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 
> seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?


-- 
☣ gⅼеɳ


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Carl Tollander]

Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1


On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫"  wrote:

> OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
>
> But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of
> all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible
> states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and Smolin),
> the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal
> is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states
> or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you posited that
> Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra*
> Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing
> as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto
> might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that
> England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
>
> If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3
> seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?
>
>
> On 11/03/2017 01:27 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> > Hi Glen, et al.,
> >
> > I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me
> refine my thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain
> how Smolin, England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!
> >
> >
> > I'll give it an equally feeble try.  Actually, I see these three
> scientists as "groping" at something fundamentally the same: "How can the
> /appearance /of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics)
> universe?"  Well, something like that.  So, this joint concern seems (to
> me) to fall out naturally from the previous discussion concerning
> *teleonomy *or even *purpose*.--the former being an explanation (or
> description? See later discussion below.) or processes without *intention
> *and the later implying intentionality of a "maker" or "efficient cause."
> >
> > *Constructor Theory*, which could have been better described by
> Marletto, IMHO, provokes the idea of constraints and "recipes," both being
> emergent properties consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe as a
> physical system that "began" with initial conditions (constraints) and laws
> of motion--notwithstanding /how /it began. Through the interaction of
> emergent particles as the universe evolved, new constraints emerged and
> interacted to cause the emergence of even more constraints. One commenter
> did a pretty good job to help Marletto along with the explanation;
> Summarized:
> >
> > Without constraints, there would be a vast sea of undifferentiated
> and unlimited potential outcomes, but nothing would ever emerge to become
> ‘reality’
> > ​ ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Yet where anything is possible, it is possible for a simple
> constraint to emerge. And as several constraints emerge and interact, they
> start to force ‘things’ to ‘behave’ in a certain way, rather than being
> equally spread across every possibility
> > ​ ...
> >
> >
> >
> >  Within that reality, new types of more directly ‘constructive’
> constraints can emerge. Perhaps a particular molecular structure, which
> having occurred enables other types of reactions that were previously
> highly unlikely.  And each of these changes the probability curves,
> increasing the likelihood that a next-stage constraint will eventually
> emerge, shaping and ‘constructing’ the stuff around it, further changing
> and channelling the possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which
> will enable yet more complex ‘constructors’ (and ‘constructeds’) to
> emerge.  Eventually, these constraints/constructors shape reality to such
> an extent that very highly complex outcomes which “should” be utterly
> inconceivable in a pure-possibility-laws-model of probability are instead
> absolutely inevitable. We see many examples: simple life emerges, radically
> changing the behaviour of molecular interactions; eventually a new
> ‘constructor’ emerges that enables complex life, which
> > fundamentally changes how these organisms interact; complex life
> itself enables the development of specialised organs that provide sensory
> and motor and intra-cellular communications functionality; sentient, motile
> life enables the development of purposive behaviour and (potentially) basic
> consciousness; etc.
> > ​ ...​
> >
> >
> >
> > At each stage, a new step - however infinitely unlikely before -
> becomes possible. Where will it end? Who knows, we seem to be only 13.8
> billion years into the process, with probably several trillion to go. Each
> successive major