In an offline exchange, Michel asks for clarity on the relationship between Delta Z and Darwinism. =======
Hi Michel, As I noted to António, BY ITSELF, Delta Z does not address or even anticipate Darwinism. It merely presents “a ground” from which Darwinian events may later emerge and unfold. I think your question may actually be: > • ”How does one proceed from Delta Z to Darwinism?” If this is your question, this “process” is briefly given in the full introductory text I attached to my original post (also giving the summary you requested). If you have questions on the steps detailed in that text, I can give you a more specific answer. Still, I sense you may be looking for something that is missing from this model – a “theory of biology.” In this way, an explanatory gap lies between Delta Z and Darwinism. Instead, the model highlights informational commonalities on either side of that “hard science gap,” using metadata as the shared structural fundament. Otherwise, a neo-Darwinian line is generally followed, with no specific exceptions. You also note . . . >• “Natural selection applied to ideas ?” I think general notions of peer review, social acceptance, Dawkin’s meme and the like work well here, no? Still, my focus is “a priori modeling” so studying “ideas” is more high-level that what I explore, although it all still fits together (to my mind). > • “Do you agree a system is a set of objects and relations > between these objects too complex to be fully understood?” I see no easy answer here, depending on the “level of understanding” one finds acceptable. Your background is ecology (I believe), meaning you are accustomed to “open systems” thinking? Inversely, what we call hard science relies on things that are consistently measurable and repeatable. So, we have “hard” and “soft” sciences, each with their own level of acceptable “proof.” For my part, I only suggest these areas of study may benefit from an improved theory of information (re meaning and universality). Or, you offer . . . >• “. . . a model is a simplified image of a system, > covering main principles of its functioning ?” I feel more comfortable with this framing. I emphasize “meaning” in my thoughts, but I also transcribe “meaning” to “functional significance” as this allows me to explore either side of any explanatory gaps. Thus, I can *informationally* model purely “material roles,” alongside biologically “adaptive roles,” if I remain clear on the different levels being studied. > About "DIRECT effective functioning" do you use the > direct relation between Brillouin's information and > thermodynamic information ? (That relation is not > possible with Shannon's information). Again, in the introductory text I give some specific thoughts on thermodynamics and the like (item #8). I would ask that you read this section and see if that does not answer your question. Thank you for our questions! Marcus
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
