[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 4

Fri Jan 5 22:19:59 CET 2024

Dear Prof. Kauffman and FIS Colleagues,
Warm Wishes for health and happiness in (and not only!) New Year !

Dear Prof. Kauffman,
Thank you very much for the interesting article and the ideas presented in
it.
I fully agree that set theory cannot be used for the purposes you state in
the article.
I agree with all your conclusions and opinions ...

But ...

Only at the level of set theory!

Modern mathematics has already proposed theoretical foundations by which to
model the complexity and unpredictability you speak of.

This is the Category Theory.

I do not have the opportunity to go into details here, but I will try to
explain the difference in a sentence or two.

In set theory, we work with elements and functions from one element to
another element.

In category theory, we work with structures and morphisms (mappings) of
structures into structures, and a special place is occupied by functors,
which are mappings of categories into categories.

I have been using Category Theory for modeling information phenomena for
many years and I am satisfied with the results.
Maybe someday we'll have a chance to talk in more detail.

With respect,
Krassimir

<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweo0pSd3bs$ >
Няма
вирусиhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoxbM1Dfw$ 
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweo0pSd3bs$ >
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

На пт, 5.01.2024 г. в 13:59 <fis-request at listas.unizar.es> написа:

> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
>         fis at listas.unizar.es
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         fis-request at listas.unizar.es
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         fis-owner at listas.unizar.es
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman (joe.brenner at bluewin.ch)
>    2. Re: New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman (Pedro C. Mariju?n)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
> To: Skauffman <stukaufman at gmail.com>
> Cc: pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com, fis at listas.unizar.es, plamen at simeio.org
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:41:33 +0100 (CET)
> Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman
>
> Dear Stuart (if I may), Pedro and Plamen,
>
> Happy New Year and best wishes for 2024 to All! As Pedro and Plamen may
> recall, I have been “at home in Stuart’s Universe” for some time. His
> article, however, brings clearly into focus the issues to be resolved in
> science and philosophy, including logic.
>
> As you may not recall, however, I have been arguing for all this time, *contra
> vents et marées*, in favor of some very specific additions. Among other
> things these, have their ground in the very much neglected Buddhist
> insights into the relational structure of reality (co-dependence or
> co-instantiation) in the work of both Nagarjuna (2nd - 3rd Centuries
> C.E.) and Yamauchi Tokuryu (19th -20th Centuries).
>
> To be as brief as possible here, Stuart’s article refers to or implies
> needed changes in the following areas:
>
> -        Free will as necessary for individual and collective
> responsibility;
>
> -        Total separability in the part-whole relation:
>
> -        Inapplicability of standard set theory;
>
> -        Dynamic implications of the Axiom of Choice; (I have sent my
> philosophical-logical interpretation of this Axiom to some 45 people
> without  an answer, not that I was wrong or ignorant – nothing.)
>
> -        Non-algorithmic, but regular features of the real world;
>
> I look forward very much to a dialogue on these and other issues,
>
> Cheers, as far as possible,
>
> Joseph
>
> ----Message d'origine----
> De : stukauffman at gmail.com
> Date : 04/01/2024 - 23:54 (E)
> À : fis at listas.unizar.es
> Cc : pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com, plamen at simeio.org
> Objet : [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman /Pedro and Plamen is this
> what you need? stu
>
> Hello to All,
>
>
>
> I am truly grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with you the
> recent Stuart Kauffman and Andrea Roli paper, “A Third Transition In
> Science?” J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 4/ 14 2023.  I attach a link below. It’s
> eventual publication in a fine journal after almost two years has its own
> wry history.
>
>
>
> Andrea and I think we are correct, but we may be wrong. More, I only
> slightly begin to understand what our results, if correct, mean.
>
>
>
> I had thought that the First Transition in science was Newton’s invention
> of Classical Physics in 1689 A.D. And I thought the Second Transition was
> the reluctant discovery of quantum mechanics between 1900 and 1927 A.D.
>
>
>
> I begin to suspect I was wrong.  The First Transition in science was in
> 1299A.D. when the first mechanical clock was invented and installed at the
> Wallingford Abby. It was installed because the monks were often late for
> prayers. Within less than a century, Europe was dotted by chuch towers with
> ever - more impressive mechanical clocks. Modern people in 1379 A.D. must
> have begun to wonder if the World itself was some amazing clockwork
> machine. Then Copernicus, 1543 A.D., then Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
>
>
>
> This, then, was the Second Transition in Science. Yes, yes, yes!  The
> World *is* a vast clockwork machine. No room for God’s miracles – the
> Deistic God of the Enlightenment. No room for mind – Descartes lost his Res
> cogitans to Newton’s Res extensa. No Free Will.
>
>
>
> With Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger cam a loss of determinism, but
> still within the Newtonian Paradigm. And no mind and no responsible Free
> Will.
>
>
>
> If Andrea and I are correct, this Third Transition demonstrates for the
> first time since 1299AD, 725 years later, that the evolving biosphere is
> not a clockwork machines. Evolving life is not a machine at all.
>
>
>
> Are the two of us correct? If so, what does this Third Transition
> portend?  These  issues now lies before us.
>
>
>
> Merci a tous,
>
>
> Stu Kauffman
>
>
> A Third Transition in Science? Link
>
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoI7pfKPU$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Qqk-MU8YHDOqCRFRhl7TeX1dkVGTkGVguvuvh9b0bDsQA5fo9VckJgLmoyonQDdvxMbEBRHMUpOBTww1u06J-5k$>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Pedro C. Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
> To: Skauffman <stukaufman at gmail.com>, fis at listas.unizar.es
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:59:18 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman
> Dear Stuart and FIS colleagues,
>
> We are honored that you impart the FIS New Year Lecture this time. In this
> list, quite a few members share the impression that we are involved in a
> historical transition in science. Maybe, as you and Andrea Roli state, it
> could be the Third Great Transition. That it revolves around putting  into
> question the predominance of physicalist views was coincidentally discussed
> in a previous discussion session, when two pioneers of AI research (Yixin
> Zhong from China and Eric Werner from Oxford) were arguing for a paradigm
> change away for physicalism. Now you are providing strong arguments from
> the biological self-construction and evolutionary points of view. An
> important point is the argument on Kantian wholes, from the closure of
> auto-catalitic sets. It could also be considered as the organizational
> reliance on "cycles". In biological systems there is a towering presence of
> cycles: from elementary reaction cycles, to enzyme work-cycles, to regional
> reaction cycles, gene expression cycles (your Boolean networks!!), to
> genetic macro-cycles... to the cell's entire life cycle. And an even larger
> story could be told about cycles in complex organisms...
>
> To put the argument in a nutshell: bye to physicalism (as a fundamental
> meta-scientific vision). Yes, but what would substitute for it?
> I dare say "informationalism". You mention the biosphere and the  global
> economy, and even our cultures. Aren't all them based on the circulation of
> "information flows"  (in vastly different forms, of course)??
> Let us think, for instance, on the enormous disarray created by the new
> social networks in our societies... we do not much understand the
> psychological changes derived for the intertwining of natural vs artifical
> info flows in our societies.
>
> I am just reading Joseph's just arrived comments, philosophically and
> formally oriented. Fine.  I would ad that we are lacking a vast
> informational view that can help us to understand that strange world put
> into action 3,000 million years ago, full of emergent realms. So, filling
> in the gap that physicalim is unable to fill in consistently.
>
> Best regards to all,
> --Pedro
>
> *PS. If anyone has doubts about the messages effectively  distributed in
> the list, go please to the instantaneous archive:
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/
> <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/>*
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> El 04/01/2024 a las 23:54, Stuart Kauffman escribió:
>
> Hello to All,
>
>
>
> I am truly grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with you the
> recent Stuart Kauffman and Andrea Roli paper, “A Third Transition In
> Science?” J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 4/ 14 2023.  I attach a link below. It’s
> eventual publication in a fine journal after almost two years has its own
> wry history.
>
>
>
> Andrea and I think we are correct, but we may be wrong. More, I only
> slightly begin to understand what our results, if correct, mean.
>
>
>
> I had thought that the First Transition in science was Newton’s invention
> of Classical Physics in 1689 A.D. And I thought the Second Transition was
> the reluctant discovery of quantum mechanics between 1900 and 1927 A.D.
>
>
>
> I begin to suspect I was wrong.  The First Transition in science was in
> 1299A.D. when the first mechanical clock was invented and installed at the
> Wallingford Abby. It was installed because the monks were often late for
> prayers. Within less than a century, Europe was dotted by chuch towers with
> ever - more impressive mechanical clocks. Modern people in 1379 A.D. must
> have begun to wonder if the World itself was some amazing clockwork
> machine. Then Copernicus, 1543 A.D., then Kepler, Galileo and Newton.
>
>
>
> This, then, was the Second Transition in Science. Yes, yes, yes!  The
> World is a vast clockwork machine. No room for God’s miracles – the Deistic
> God of the Enlightenment. No room for mind – Descartes lost his Res
> cogitans to Newton’s Res extensa. No Free Will.
>
>
>
> With Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger cam a loss of determinism, but
> still within the Newtonian Paradigm. And no mind and no responsible Free
> Will.
>
>
>
> If Andrea and I are correct, this Third Transition demonstrates for the
> first time since 1299AD, 725 years later, that the evolving biosphere is
> not a clockwork machines. Evolving life is not a machine at all.
>
>
>
> Are the two of us correct? If so, what does this Third Transition
> portend?  These  issues now lies before us.
>
>
>
> Merci a tous,
>
>
> Stu Kauffman
>
>
> A Third Transition in Science? Link
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoI7pfKPU$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0HwbrDZ8$>
>
>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0Kbsj3yQ$> Libre
> de virus.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoxbM1Dfw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0Kbsj3yQ$>
> <#m_-5327561665015284833_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240105/9c080885/attachment-0001.html>