[Fis] Reply to Michel (A Priori Modeling)

Marcus Abundis 55mrcs at gmail.com
Sun Jun 19 12:15:51 CEST 2016


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160619/8c3f9527/attachment.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list