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 > development step seems to accelerate the capability and complexity of the > emerging system by several magnitudes. Effectively, it really does look as > though absolutely nothing is forever impossible (unless it contravenes the > laws of physics, and even then … maybe we - or something down the line, at > any rate - can eventually change them, creating another universe entirely?)" > > > *Jeremy England*'s /New Physics of Life/ is really an attempt to explain how > life emerging from inert matter was inevitable. I have read the same > conclusion somewhere (?) > <http://nautil.us/issue/20/creativity/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution> > for the inevitability (and the remarkability) of the emergence of eukaryote > life from prokaryote life ... I think I remember Nick Lane as saying it was a > one-off (anyone?). I seem to remember this because it caused immediate > cognizant dissonance within my own mind. Anyway, Constructor Theory would say > that it was certainly possible, which seems tautological at this point. > England's Theory should resonate with students of complexity science and > anyone interested in Nobel-Prize-winning physical chemist Ilya Prigogine > views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and self-organizing > dissipative structures (or physicist Erwin Schrödinger's 1944 book "What is > Life?"). All of these, including Constructor Theory, are attempts at > explaining the emergence of biological entities from the perspective of > physics and self-organizing systems. A universal metabolism of sorts? Grand > homeostasis? Heraclitus' /Logos/? > > *Lee Smolin*, if you follow all of his work, sees physics as largely being > stalled and in trouble. I tend to agree with this lament, especially with > the rise of String Theory as some kind of Grand Unification Theory or Theory > of Everything that is largely unfalsifiable and unpredictive. Physicist Lisa > Randall also seems to think that such a theory hardly explains life > <https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729000.300-a-theory-of-everything-wont-provide-all-the-answers/>, > for example. In the current context, Smolin has taken the theory of > evolution to the level of cosmology in explaining how the initial conditions > of the universe--the "tuned" parameters--became what they were--so filling in > what Constructor Theory leaves out. However, Smolin seems to also channel > Heraclitus (and Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead) where he sees no > permanence in nature ... even with the laws of physics. Everything is a > process (goal-directed? ... this is where it gets interesting.). > And, there is (explained) both variability and replication in his > Cosmological Natural Selection Theory, just as we see at the level of > biology. > > it's important to avoid putting the cart before the horse. It's not that > the universe is tailored to produce life. It's that the universe is what it > is and life-like systems just happen to be a very likely outcome in this > universe. > > > This concern brings us back to the issue of teleonomy and the rise of > apparent design in a universe that exhibits a no-design physics. Unless one > believes in Intelligent Design--the model underlying religion--or Aristotle's > efficient cause (a force outside of the system) and final cause (intention or > goal) model--the model underlying pre-19th century science > <https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/was-aristotle-an-advancement-in-western-science.818947/>--for > where the universe is going then I think you, Smolin, England, Deutsch, and > I are on the same page. Teleonomy was a term invented by Colin Pittendrigh in > 1958 "to free that study [of goal-directed processes] from the encumbrances > of /teleological /explanations ["The Misappropriation of Teleonomy > <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302329059_The_Misappropriation_of_Teleonomy>," > Nicholas S. Thompson, 1987]." > > This is interesting in the context of the Constructor Theory idea of a > "recipe." Also, Jacques Monod in his /Chance and Necessity/ [1971] refined > the idea of teleonomy in biology to preserve the scientific concept of > objectivity in biology (and allow him to wax philosophical about apparent > design in biology) that: > > ... nevertheless obliges us to recognize the teleonomic character of > living organisms, to admit that in their structure and performance they act > projectively--realize and pursue a purpose. Here therefore, at least in > appearance, lies a profound epistemological contradiction. In fact the > central problem of biology lies with this very contradiction, which, if it is > only apparent, must be resolved; or else proven to be utterly insoluble, if > that should turn out indeed to be the case [Chater I, "Of Strange Objects," > /Chance an Necessity/, pp 21-22]. > > > Ernst Mayr, with the same concern as Monad and Pittendrigh, in (Mayr, E. > (1974) “Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis.” Boston Studies in the > Philosophy of Science, Volume XIV, pages 91 -117) refined the definition of > teleonomy > <http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/teleological-and-teleonomic-newer.html> > (original paper is behind a paywall). Mayr introduces the idea of a > "program," which would seem to be cognitively fungible with Contractor > Theory's (digital) "recipe" (or "baked in knowledge"). Nick explains in "The > Misappropriation of Teleonomy" that Mayr sees a program as the defining > characteristic of teleonomic processes. But, Mayr sees evolution as obviously > *not *such a teleonomic process as it is obviously *not *controlled by a > program ... presumably, because it is obviously *not *goal-directed. Nick > seems perplexed, given Mayr's definition of teleonomic processes, as to why > Mayr excludes evolution. But, I think the point Nick is making has more to do > with Mayr's circular reasoning. Nick sees teleonomy as a "/descriptive study > of organizational properties of processes and structures without reference to > any particular explanatory system./" I think I agree with this, as teleonomy > is a description of a feature of evolution and, thus, not a mechanism that > begat (or explain the /how /of) that feature. [note: to be teleological, > would be to describe the /why /(intention) of that feature ... thus, the > concern.] > > So, fair enough. But, could the emerging works of Smolin, but especially > Deutsch|Marletto, and England be used to explain "How can the /appearance /of > design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?" > Constructor Theory seems to be trying to construct a bridge to span the > knowledge gap between (no-design) physics and (teleonomic) biology: > > Thinking within the prevailing conception has led some physicists – > including the 1963 Nobel Prize-winner Eugene Wigner and the late US-born > quantum physicist David Bohm – to conclude that the laws of physics must be > tailored to produce biological adaptations in general. This is amazingly > erroneous. If it were true, physical theories would have to be patched up > with ‘design-bearing’ additions, in the initial conditions or the laws of > motion, or both, and the whole explanatory content of Darwinian evolution > would be lost. > > > > So, how can we explain physically how replication and self > reproduction are possible, given laws that contain no hidden designs, if the > prevailing conception’s tools are inadequate? > > > > By applying a new fundamental theory of physics: /constructor theory/. > > > So, to the list of Smolin, Deutsch|Marletto, and England, add Monad, > Pittendrigh, and Mayr as pioneers in 'trying' to construct /explanatory > /systems that can explain teleonomic processes in an unintentional universe. > > Well, that's enough for now. Lunch ... > > Again, (only) fun stuff to consider. Hope it helps your review the "living > systems as entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ 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
