Here's Smolin, quoted from his Edge.org interview, on the same topic: *http://edge.org/conversation/think-about-nature <http://edge.org/conversation/think-about-nature>*
Now some of this is not new. The American philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce, identified this issue that I’ve just mentioned in the late 19th century. However, his thinking has not influenced most physicists. Indeed, I was thinking about laws evolving before I read Charles Sanders Peirce. But something that he said encapsulates what I think is a very important conclusion that I came to through a painful route. <http://edge.org/conversation/think-about-nature>And other people have more recently come to it, which is that the only way to explain how the laws of nature might have been selected is if there’s a dynamical process by which laws can change and evolve in time. And so I’ve been searching to try to identify and make hypotheses about that process where the laws must have changed and evolved in time because the situation we’re in is: Either we become kind of mystics, well, just those are the laws full stop, or we have to explain the laws. And if we want to explain the laws, there needs to be some history, some process of evolution, some dynamics by which laws change. This is for some people a very surprising idea and it still is a surprising idea in spite of the fact that I’ve been thinking about it since the late 80′s, but if you look back, there are precedents: Dirac, you can find in his writings, a place where Dirac says the laws must have been different earlier in the universe than now; they must have changed. Even Feynman has … I found a video online where Feynman has a great way…and I wish I could do a Feynman Brooklyn accent, it sort of goes: “Here are the laws we say; here are the laws, but how do they get to be that way in time? Maybe physics really has a historical component. ” Because you see, he’s saying physics is different from the other subjects. There is no historical component to physics as there is to biology, genealogy, astrophysics, and so forth. But Feynman ends up saying, “Maybe there is a historical component.” And then in the conversation his interviewer says, “But how do you do it?” And Feynman goes, “Oh, no, it’s much too hard, I can’t think about that.” [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Here's a snippet from an interview this year of Smolin by John Horgan in > *Scientific > American* on the topic of laws evolving. > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/01/04/troublemaker-lee-smolin-questions-if-physics-laws-are-timeless/ > > *Horgan*: You suggest above, and in your new book, that the laws of > nature “evolve.” Won’t that hypothesis make physics and cosmology even more > flexible and hence less falsifiable? > > *Smolin*: No, the key lesson of cosmological natural selection (CNS) is > that it makes falsifiable predictions for real observations. In fact the > predictions I published in 1992 have held up. To mention one: there can be > no neutron stars heavier than twice the mass of the sun. Current limits > come close; the heaviest well-measured neutron star is at 1.9 solar masses, > but so far none go over. > > At first I had the same intuition your question expresses. But it’s > wrong; making laws evolve increases the falsifiability of science because > it increases the number of hypotheses that can be checked because they > imply falsifiable predictions. The reason is that the additional > hypotheses concern the processes by which evolution took place. Since > these processes would have taken place in the past they imply predictions > which are checkable by real observations. This point is discussed in > detail in my books *Life of the Cosmos* and *Time Reborn*. > > One way to reconcile evolving laws with falsifiability is by paying > attention to large hierarchies of time scales. The evolution of laws can > be slow in present conditions, or only occur during extreme conditions that > are infrequent. On much shorter time scales and far from extreme > conditions, the laws can be assumed to be unchanging. > > As Roberto Mangabeira Unger and I argue in our new book *The Singular > Universe*, the most important discovery cosmologists have made is that > the universe has a history. We argue this has to be extended to the laws > themselves. Biology became science when the question switched from listing > the species to the dynamical question of how species evolve. Fundamental > physics and cosmology have to transform themselves from a search for > timeless laws and symmetries to the investigation of hypotheses about how > laws evolve. > > Best, > > Gary > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> List, >> >> Here's a seminal text, quoted a number of times on the list over the >> years, on Peirce's idea that laws evolve (more quotations when I have time). >> >> Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and >> for uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution. This >> supposes them not to be absolute, not to be obeyed precisely. It makes an >> element of indeterminacy, spontaneity, or absolute chance in nature. Just >> as, when we attempt to verify any physical law, we find our observations >> cannot be precisely satisfied by it, and rightly attribute the discrepancy >> to errors of observation, so we must suppose far more minute discrepancies >> to exist owing to the imperfect cogency of the law itself, to a certain >> swerving of the facts from any definite formula. CP 6.13 >> Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical >> principles. This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the >> principle of evolution requires no extraneous cause, since the tendency to >> growth can be supposed itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ >> accidentally started. Second, because law ought more than anything else to >> be supposed a result of evolution. Third, because exact law obviously never >> can produce heterogeneity out of homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity >> is the feature of the universe the most manifest and characteristic. >> Fourth, because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the >> proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible; >> so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by >> those laws, even if they be not violated in the process of growth. In >> short, Spencer is not a philosophical evolutionist, but only a >> half-evolutionist -- or, if you will, only a semi-Spencerian. Now >> philosophy requires thorough-going evolutionism or none.CP 6.14 >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Edwina, Soren, Jon, list, >>> >>> I agree with you, Edwina, that a topic having been addressed on peirce-l >>> in the past might very well be fruitfully taken up at a later time since >>> any number of list members may not have followed that earlier discussion or >>> even joined the list after said discussion, while those who have followed >>> it or who even participated in it may have modified their understandings >>> (for example, having been exposed to some of the contemporary literature >>> relating to it such as, for example, that which Soren recently pointed to). >>> >>> I also tend to strongly agree with you and disagree with Jon that the >>> matter of the evolution of laws is a "pseudo-issue," and I don't recall our >>> arriving at anything like a consensus that it's a "pseudo-issue" in that >>> earlier discussion. Also it seems clear from the Peirce and Smolin texts >>> that they both see the evolution of laws *as such *and not as merely >>> our better, more clearly understanding them. For Peirce and Smolin laws >>> themselves evolve over perhaps vast periods of time. And I would even >>> maintain that Peirce's notion of laws evolving includes not only biological >>> laws relating to the evolution on the earth, but involves 'cosmological' >>> ones as well (this, I think, is Smolin's position as well). I'll try to >>> hunt up a few Peirce excepts supporting that position in the next few days, >>> but at the moment I'm exceedingly busy, so any help here would be >>> appreciated. >>> >>> The idea of evolution occurring "over perhaps vast periods of time" >>> leads me to one question I have regarding your conclusion, Edwina. While I >>> do agree with you that the present question (the evolution of laws) "has >>> little to do with 'variables varying over time' - which removes those >>> variables from a causality due to interaction with the environment and >>> reduces them to merely a causality due to the linear passage of time. The >>> theory of adaptive evolution on the other hand inserts an informational >>> networking of organisms with other organisms/envt...and suggests a freedom, >>> a spontaneous and informed change to adapt to the requirements of the >>> environment". >>> >>> But you conclude "Nothing to do with time. >>> >>> Even if 'variables varying over time' has little (or almost nothing) to >>> do with evolutionary change, it seems strange to say that adaptive >>> evolution has "nothing to do with time" given that all, for one, semiosic >>> processes involve time. Or am I missing something here? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> >>> xxx >>> >>> [image: Gary Richmond] >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> *C 745* >>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < >>> jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote: >>> >>>> List, Jon, Soren, Steven: >>>> >>>> Let's go a full step deeper into the inquiry of time. >>>> >>>> Start with the presumption that an event initiated the becoming into >>>> existence of concept of matter. >>>> (Alternatively, one can start with the Eastern view of the universe >>>> cycling and re-cycling itself which forces even more difficult conundrums >>>> into metaphysical discourse.) >>>> >>>> What existed before matter? >>>> Mind? If so, what sort of mind? >>>> Time? If so, when was time initiated? And what were its origins? >>>> Mathematics? If so, when was mathematics initiated? Did mathematics >>>> initiate time? Matter? If so, how? >>>> >>>> Intertwined with these conundrums are the questions on the nature of >>>> mathematics itself. >>>> >>>> Was mathematics initiated by the mind of man? (as a part of the >>>> emergence of man's mind?) >>>> Or, does mathematics pre-exist the existence of humans? >>>> If mathematics pre-exists human constructionism, when was it initiated? >>>> Or, is mathematics a consequence of natural events, such as the atomic >>>> numbers? >>>> Or, did the ordinals exist before the cardinal? >>>> Or, did the cardinals exist before the ordinals? >>>> And, what motivated the (illicit?) constructions of the complex >>>> numbers? Electricity? >>>> >>>> Just a few of the conundrums that come to mind when thinking of the >>>> physical representation of time. >>>> >>>> Whatever one decides about physical time, both chemical time and >>>> biological time and mental time are far more difficult problems BECAUSE the >>>> unbounded irregularities of time "flow" (that is, change) in these >>>> disciplines. >>>> >>>> A simple example of these irregularities are the concatenation of >>>> enzyme-catalysed reactions in creating the feedback and feed forward >>>> "flows" of time in living systems. (Origin of logic of Biosemiotics?) >>>> >>>> If you can afford the efforts, play with these assertions in terms of >>>> the small set of "connectives" of propositional logics. >>>> Your conclusions, if logically sound and complete, would be keenly >>>> evaluated by the scientific community. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: >>>> >>>> > Thread: >>>> > SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878 >>>> > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15879 >>>> > SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15880 >>>> > >>>> > Søren, List, >>>> > >>>> > Oh, of course, it was nice to be reminded, and that inspired me >>>> > to scan through a sample of what had been said before, plus I'm >>>> > really fond of that particular quote I featured on my blog, and >>>> > I thought the glancing review from NPR was kind of interesting: >>>> > >>>> > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/ >>>> > http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/05/02/180037757/is-time-real >>>> > >>>> > To my way of thinking, the whole thing is really a pseudo-issue. >>>> > Saying that "the laws of physics evolve" means nothing more than >>>> > "the laws of physics are not what we used to think they were", >>>> > which historically speaking is just the usual case. >>>> > >>>> > To say that "the laws of physics evolve" is just to say >>>> > that the laws of physics we know contain parameters that >>>> > we used to believe were constants but now we believe are >>>> > variables, and all that does is initiate an inquiry into >>>> > the laws that rule the time evolution of those variables. >>>> > Which is again just another variation on the usual theme. >>>> > The form of inquiry itself persists. >>>> > >>>> > Regards, >>>> > >>>> > Jon >>>> > >>>> > On 3/20/2015 5:46 AM, Søren Brier wrote: >>>> >> Jon >>>> >> >>>> >> Thanks. I just wanted to remind Steven that an eminent modern >>>> physicist found it possible to uphold his position while having a view >>>> close to Peirce's. >>>> >> >>>> >> Søren >>>> >> >>>> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>>> >> Fra: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] >>>> >> Sendt: 19. marts 2015 15:32 >>>> >> Til: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky >>>> >> Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List >>>> >> Emne: Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics >>>> >> >>>> >> Re: Søren Brier >>>> >> At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878 >>>> >> >>>> >> Søren, List, >>>> >> >>>> >> Smolin's 'Time Reborn' was the subject, or at least the instigation, >>>> of much discussion here and there around the web a couple years ago. >>>> >> From a cursory search, I think it was Michael Shapiro who broached >>>> the topic on the Peirce List, inciting discussions that went on for the >>>> rest of the summer: >>>> >> >>>> >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2013-05/msg00028.html >>>> >> >>>> >> I recall blogging on it and adding a quote from Peirce in connection >>>> with a discussion on a blog devoted to computational complexity and the >>>> theory of computation: >>>> >> >>>> >> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/ >>>> >> >>>> >> Regards, >>>> >> >>>> >> Jon >>>> >> >>>> >> On 3/19/2015 2:13 AM, Søren Brier wrote: >>>> >>> Dear Steven >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Are you aware of the work of Unger and Smolin where they argue for >>>> the evolution of laws? >>>> >>> The Singular Universe….THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME >>>> >>> Cambridge University Press, November 30, 2014. >>>> >>> Synopsis >>>> >>> This is a book on the nature of time and the basic laws of nature. >>>> We argue for the inclusive reality of time as well as for the mutability of >>>> the laws of nature. We seek to breathe new life and meaning into natural >>>> philosophy –- a form of reasoning that crosses the boundaries between >>>> science and philosophy. >>>> >>> The work should appeal to a broad educated readership as well as to >>>> scientists and philosophers. It is not a popularization, but neither does >>>> it use a technical vocabulary that would restrict it to specialized >>>> readers. The subjects that it addresses are of paramount interest to people >>>> in many disciplines outside cosmology and physics. >>>> >>> In the twentieth century, physics and cosmology overturned the idea >>>> of an unchanging background of time and space. In so doing, however, they >>>> maintained the idea of an immutable framework of laws of nature. This >>>> second idea must now also be attacked and replaced. What results is a new >>>> picture of the agenda of physics and cosmology as well as of the methods of >>>> fundamental science. >>>> >>> The book develops four inter-related themes: >>>> >>> 1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of >>>> many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The >>>> current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious >>>> reasoning. >>>> >>> 2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of >>>> nature which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time >>>> has revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs. >>>> >>> 3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. >>>> There is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs >>>> that they govern.. >>>> >>> 4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine >>>> it to be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality >>>> (Platonism) in order to make sense of its “unreasonable effectiveness” in >>>> science. >>>> >>> We argue by systematic philosophical and scientific reasoning , as >>>> well as by detailed examples, that these principles are the only way >>>> theoretical cosmology can break out of its current crisis in a manner that >>>> is scientific, i.e. results in falsifiable predictions for doable >>>> experiments. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> And Smolin’s Time Reborn >>>> >>> “What is time? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It’s the sort of question we rarely ask because it seems so >>>> obvious. And yet, to a physicist, time is simply a human construct and an >>>> illusion. If you could somehow get outside the universe and observe it from >>>> there, you would see that every moment has always existed and always will. >>>> Lee Smolin disagrees, and in Time Reborn he lays out the case why. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Recent developments in physics and cosmology point toward the >>>> reality of time and the openness of the future. Smolin’s groundbreaking >>>> theory postulates that physical laws can evolve over time and the future is >>>> not yet determined. Newton’s fundamental laws may not remain so >>>> fundamental.” >>>> >>> Smolin quotes Peirce several times in this book for the view that >>>> different laws emerging in the course of the development of the universe >>>> over time. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Søren >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > >>>> > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >>>> > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >>>> > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ >>>> > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >>>> > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >>>> > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >>>> > >>>> > ----------------------------- >>>> > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY >>>> ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe >>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe >>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
