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┫" <geprope...@gmail.com> 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 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
============================================================ 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
