FORWARD Re: [Fis] Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature? (fwd)

2006-10-26 Thread Robert Ulanowicz 
All, I have already used my two cents for the weeks, but am forwarding
this on behalf of Stan. Bob

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:38:19 -0500
From: Stanley N. Salthe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FORWARD Re: [Fis] Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism:
    Laws of nature?

Bob -- fis is rejecting my e-mails as spam, so I thoubht I would send this
to you.  If you reply, you can send it to fis. Thanks!

STAN


I will react below to Bob's staement:

>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
>
>> I doubt we disagree in substance here, but I would take issue with the
>> statement that "there are no laws for biology in the same sense as the
>> laws of physics", because I think the laws of physics apply in all
>> realms.  In other words, the laws of physics are not limited to physics
>> in an exclusionary way, because all other disciplines exist within the
>> bounds of physics.  Therefore, the laws of physics are also laws of
>> biology to me. After picking this nit, I would agree that there are no
>> additional, proprietary laws of this sort within biology that do not
>> extend to non-biological physical systems.
>
>Hi Guy!
>
>No disagreement whatsoever. I was trying to be brief. The laws of physics
>continue to hold for biotic systems, they just lose their capability to
>*determine" the results. To summarize Elsasser's arguments in three words
>-- combinatorics overwhelm law. By which is meant that for any lawful
>constraint there usually is a multitude of possible configurations that
>satisfy that constraint. There being no discrimination among the multitude
>as regards the law in question, something else must do the discriminating.
   SS: Concerning configurations, looking at the specification hierarchy:
{physical dynamics {material connections {biological organization}}}, we
must conclude that physical degrees of freedom must become increasingly
frozen out as we ascend the hierarchy.  However, new degrees of freedom
open up at each level.  These new degrees of freedom cannot be confined by
physical laws, but could be said to become subject to new 'laws of matter',
perhaps such as the purported 'laws of biology' cited by Richard (see
below).  In addition, the effects of historicity become increasingly
important as we ascend the hierarchy, and here is where I meet Bob's
perspective.  I represent this as an increase in the effects of contingency
as we ascend the hierarchy.

Now, taking up Richard's posting:

>1. Cope's Law?"Structurally ordained biases of speciation away from a
>lower size limit occupied by founding members of the clade, rather
>than adaptive anagenesis towards organismal benefits of large
>size" (Gould, 2002), which is to say that a clade's body size will
>increase naturally with increasing speciation activity.
 SS: This has been shown not to be specifically a biological rule.  If
something begins small and changes size, there will be a tendency,
willy-nilly, to get bigger.

>2. Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium?a stochastic "law" (model) that
>predicts the distribution of alleles p and q in a population:
>
>p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1.
 SS: This again is not peculiarly biological. This 'law' merely sates
that if something has no forces acting to change it, it will not change!

>3. Haeckel's Biogenetic Law (now largely defunct)?this "law" captured
>what was understood to be "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."  Some
>biologists still subscribe to this law, giving extended life to ORP.
>Personally, I think the "developmental plasticity" (homoplasy) folks
>are still trying to bring back Haeckel's Law to some degree in order
>to refute Gould's "deep homology."
 SS: This rule IS more interesting, and is best interpreted, I think,
as a law of matter.  That is, any developments will have to be built atop
already developed configurations, and cannot transcend them, but only
refine them.  This used to be called 'epigenesis' (developing upon).

STAN






___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature?

2006-10-26 Thread Robert Ulanowicz 
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:

> I doubt we disagree in substance here, but I would take issue with the
> statement that "there are no laws for biology in the same sense as the
> laws of physics", because I think the laws of physics apply in all
> realms.  In other words, the laws of physics are not limited to physics
> in an exclusionary way, because all other disciplines exist within the
> bounds of physics.  Therefore, the laws of physics are also laws of
> biology to me. After picking this nit, I would agree that there are no
> additional, proprietary laws of this sort within biology that do not
> extend to non-biological physical systems.

Hi Guy!

No disagreement whatsoever. I was trying to be brief. The laws of physics
continue to hold for biotic systems, they just lose their capability to
*determine" the results. To summarize Elsasser's arguments in three words
-- combinatorics overwhelm law. By which is meant that for any lawful
constraint there usually is a multitude of possible configurations that
satisfy that constraint. There being no discrimination among the multitude
as regards the law in question, something else must do the discriminating.

I propose that something else is "process". What I mean by processes and
how they work is explained in the citation, which I repeat here:



The best,
Bob

-
Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: (410) 326-7266
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory   |  FAX: (410) 326-7378
P.O. Box 38|  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1 Williams Street  |  Web 
Solomons, MD 20688-0038|
--


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature?

2006-10-26 Thread Guy A Hoelzer 
Hi Bob,

I doubt we disagree in substance here, but I would take issue with the
statement that "there are no laws for biology in the same sense as the laws
of physics", because I think the laws of physics apply in all realms.  In
other words, the laws of physics are not limited to physics in an
exclusionary way, because all other disciplines exist within the bounds of
physics.  Therefore, the laws of physics are also laws of biology to me.
After picking this nit, I would agree that there are no additional,
proprietary laws of this sort within biology that do not extend to
non-biological physical systems.

Cheers,

Guy Hoelzer


on 10/26/06 7:16 AM, Robert Ulanowicz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
> 
>> If we follow the line of Arne of realism/antirealism, then what should
>> we say about LAWS OF NATURE? I think that we would come to the
>> conclusion that there is no such laws at all. Such a conclusion is not
>> astonishing in the light of modern views to QM. Since QM (by the
>> conventional Copenhagen interpretation) declared the death of
>> determinism (and not because our impossibility to find such
>> deterministic dynamics, but because quantum randomness is irredusible),
>> it seems that at the quantum level we are not able to consider physical
>> laws. We are able only to find some statistical correlations.
>> 
>> I think that this is totally wrong position. As Newton was, I am also
>> surprised by harmony and consistence in Nature. It could not be just a
>> product of our social agreement. Well, finally Newton came to the idea
>> of God who was responsible for this harmony.
> 
> Dear Andrei:
> 
> Like Walter Elsasser, I believe there are no laws for biology in the same
> sense as the laws of physics.
> 
> Yes, I agree there is regularity and order in the biological world.
> 
> Whence the order? Processes, not law.
> 
> For further details, please see:
> 
> 
> 
> The best,
> Bob
> 
> -
> Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: (410) 326-7266
> Chesapeake Biological Laboratory   |  FAX: (410) 326-7378
> P.O. Box 38|  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1 Williams Street  |  Web 
> Solomons, MD 20688-0038|
> --
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
> 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature?

2006-10-26 Thread Robert Ulanowicz 
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:

> If we follow the line of Arne of realism/antirealism, then what should
> we say about LAWS OF NATURE? I think that we would come to the
> conclusion that there is no such laws at all. Such a conclusion is not
> astonishing in the light of modern views to QM. Since QM (by the
> conventional Copenhagen interpretation) declared the death of
> determinism (and not because our impossibility to find such
> deterministic dynamics, but because quantum randomness is irredusible),
> it seems that at the quantum level we are not able to consider physical
> laws. We are able only to find some statistical correlations.
>
> I think that this is totally wrong position. As Newton was, I am also
> surprised by harmony and consistence in Nature. It could not be just a
> product of our social agreement. Well, finally Newton came to the idea
> of God who was responsible for this harmony.

Dear Andrei:

Like Walter Elsasser, I believe there are no laws for biology in the same
sense as the laws of physics.

Yes, I agree there is regularity and order in the biological world.

Whence the order? Processes, not law.

For further details, please see:



The best,
Bob

-
Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: (410) 326-7266
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory   |  FAX: (410) 326-7378
P.O. Box 38|  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1 Williams Street  |  Web 
Solomons, MD 20688-0038|
--



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature?

2006-10-25 Thread Andrei Khrennikov 
Dear Collegues,

Thank you for intensive reply to concluding part of our discussion on 
classical and quantum information which was finally transformed in 
essentially more general discussion on meaning of information and  
realist\'s dilemma. Finally, after reading all replies, I am not sure 
that there is really consensus. I still stay on the position that there 
is objective reality that exists independently on our existence and our 
ability to understand it or to be more precise -- to describe it, in 
sence to create a detailed model. 


Yes, I agree that we would be never 
able to create a complete model. Any model that we create or will 
create provides just an approximation. Classical statistical mechanics 
was approximation. I believe that (in spite claims of Bohr, Heisenberg, 
Pauli, Fock, Landau, von Neumann and 99% of modern physicisists) that 
QM is incomplete as well (as Einstein and Schrodinger as well as Bohm 
and Bell were sure). It is also an approximation. This approximation is 
very good so we are not able yet to see violations of predictions of 
QM, see my recent papers at quant, www.arXiv.org.  

But this is our problem and not the problem of reality.

If we follow the line of Arne of realism/antirealism, then what should 
we say about LAWS OF NATURE? I think that we would come to the 
conclusion that there is no such laws at all. Such a conclusion is not 
astonishing in the light of modern views to QM. Since QM (by the 
conventional Copenhagen interpretation) declared the death of 
determinism (and not because our impossibility to find such 
deterministic dynamics, but because quantum randomness is irredusible),
it seems that at the quantum level we are not able to consider physical 
laws. We are able only to find some statistical correlations.

I think that this is totally wrong position. As Newton was, I am also 
surprised by harmony and consistence in Nature. It could not be just a 
product of our social agreement. Well, finally Newton came to the idea 
of God who was responsible for this harmony.  

Finally, about reality of mental processes and reality of information.
Shortly my position is that real world is not world of material objects.
The latter is simply a shadow of huge information world. And laws of 
Nature are laws of informational dynamics. The latter is indepent form 
its possible representations, e.g., from teh material one.

Of course, the main problem is as Soren Brier emphasized that we do not 
have at the moment the real understanding of information. It is always 
reduced to the definition of probability, through entropy. 


With Best Regards,

Andrei Khrennikov

Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, 
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden

> Yes, indeed there is consensus. Let me go thru Arne\'s points about
> the
> functioning of the brain so that we can deepen the consensus.
> 
> Arne:
> 
> I will also take the opportunity to say that my point with
> formulating the
> realist\'s dilemma was to point out that a human being in principle is
> unable
> to produce a model of human perception on the basis of
> observation/experimentation. The human capacity of perception is the
> cause
> of this shortcoming, which is then also a shortcoming of the
> experimental
> methodology - a fact that is seldom recognised. The brain-internal
> feed-back
> pathways of data (not information!) here play a decisive role. The
> human
> brain has not evolved to an instrument of truth replication at all -
> on the
> contrary the brain is magnificent tool of adaptation. 
> 
> Karl:
> 
> The human brain has evolved to maximise reproductional chances
> (Darwin).
> Insofar truth replication is a part of increasing chances of
> reproduction,
> that brain is preferred above others, which do not, in the quest for
> reproduction, that recognises truth. Truth being a re-membered,
> re-cognised
> state of the brain, the process definitely has something to do with
> re-doing
> something (in the same fashion, over the same subject, with the same
> methods). Therefore we can recognise that our brain is biased
> towards
> recognising entities which are similar to each other.  (That animal
> which
> recognises where it can feed and what to avoid has better chances of
> survival and reproduction than another which does not recognise
> similarities.)
> 
> Arne:
> 
> Well - back to our dawning consensus. When we are unable to make
> certain
> decisions by observation/experiments we are BOUND to decide by
> consensual
> decisions - and thus directed to a science based on social
> construction and
> consensus. 
> 
> Karl:
> 
> The social consensus we observe is that similarity is the clever way
> to use
> the brain. 
> 
> Arne:
> 
> To my mind (and Bohr\'s) there is only one - the domain of
> experience;
> personally constructed experience and shared/consensually
> constructed
> \"experience\" (or scientifically constructed models).
>