Dear John, list:
I just read the Bohm/Sheldrake conversation. In my opinion, the conversation is unnecessarily abstruse given that they are talking about embryonic transformation. Still, they do touch upon interesting gaps in convergence between philosophy, embryology and physics that I think ought to be brought to our attention. That they do this without a single mention of genetics would be considered bizarre by biologists. For instance, the conversation about chreodes and canalization can be understood as sampled distributions of actual over potential (available) phenotypes, which are influenced by genetics and chance interactions (cell positioning, environmental interactions over time). Regardless, I’m glad I read it, for its historical and topical content. Best, J On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, list: > > Thanks for that informative post. > > Just to be clear, you are saying > > Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state? > > best, > Jerry > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:34 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > >> On 6/1/2017 11:23 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> >>> If you have watched Sheldrake’s talk, how would you describe his 10 >>> categories? >>> >> >> I would call his categories hypotheses. But in any case, I found his >> "dialogue with David Bohm" much more informative: >> http://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/A_New_Science_of_Life_Appx_B.pdf >> >> From the middle of page 1: >> >>> Bohm: In physics the Lagrangian law is rather similar; the Lagrangian >>> falls into a certain minimum level... >>> >> >> For background, see Wikipedia on the "principle of least action": >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action >> Excerpt: >> >>> Scholars often credit Pierre Louis Maupertuis for formulating the >>> principle of least action because he wrote about it in 1744 and >>> 1746. However, Leonhard Euler discussed the principle in 1744, and >>> evidence shows that Gottfried Leibniz preceded both by 39 years... >>> >> >> Summary: The equations of motion in physics represent a kind of local >> causality, which shows how the state of a system at one instant causally >> determines the state at the next instant. >> >> But the Lagrangian represents a quantity called the *action* of an >> entire physical system. What Leibniz probably discovered is that >> the total action of a system represents a kind of "God's eye" view >> of a system for all time. By finding a global minimum of the system, >> God (or a fast computer) could compute the entire trajectory from >> past to present to future. >> >> Although Leibniz did not explicitly say so, this physical principle >> may have inspired his claim that we are living in the best of all >> possible worlds -- i.e., God computed and ordained a trajectory >> for the universe that would minimize the total evil and maximize >> the total good for all time. >> >> That means that we, with our limited senses, can only see local >> causality, but God saw the global view and all possible outcomes. >> What Sheldrake called 'mechanistic' was the local view. But >> Lagrange, who developed the math in detail, considered the local >> view and the global view two aspects of the same mathematics. >> >> Since Peirce had a solid background in math & physics, he certainly >> understood the Lagrangian, the related Hamiltonian, and the math >> that determined both the local and the global states of a system. >> >> Another excerpt from the same Wikipedia article: >> >>> The principle remains central in modern physics and mathematics, >>> being applied in thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, the theory of >>> relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics, and string theory... >>> >> >> More from the dialog: >> >>> Sheldrake: I think these morphogenetic fields are built up causally >>> from what's happened before... >>> >>> Bohm: What you are talking about - the relation of past forms to >>> present ones - is really related to the whole question of time... >>> I explain this using the technical terms 'injection' and 'projection'. >>> Each moment is a projection of the whole, as we said. But that moment >>> is then injected or introjected back into the whole... >>> >>> Now if we were to use the analogy of the radio wave receiver which you >>> discussed in your book: If you take a receiver, it has the ability to >>> amplify very small radio wave signals. As you say, we can regard the >>> radio wave as a morphogenetic field. And the energy in the receiver >>> (which comes from the wall socket) is being given shape or form by >>> the information in the radio wave itself... >>> >>> Sheldrake: it would mean that these fields have causal (but non-local) >>> connections with things that have happened before. They wouldn't be >>> somehow inexplicable manifestations of an eternal, timeless set of >>> archetypes... >>> >> >> In the mathematics of dynamic systems, there is a term 'attractor', >> which is very close to what Waddinton called a morphogenetic field. >> René Thom, the mathematician who invented chaos theory, related >> Waddington's fields to mathematical attractors. For more about them, see >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor >> >> And by the way, these issues are related to an article I co-authored >> with a colleague, Arun Majumdar. The title is "Quantum cognition": >> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/qcog.pdf >> >> For more detail about some of the issues, see our slides about >> Cognitive Memory: http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/cogmem.pdf >> >> John >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
