[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 5
Mark Johnson
johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 9 09:55:37 CET 2024
Dear Stuart, Lou, all,
Thank you for such a stimulating paper and discussion. If I was to
summarise your message about the next transition in science, is it "Folks,
we need to play jazz, not chess!" (with apologies to chess players)?
I think Lou is correct is pointing out that mathematicians play both jazz
and chess (as he does!), and I'm sure you agree. As to why we don't see
more jazz going on in science may have more to do with the constraints of
modern academic life. It's obvious that life plays jazz - and indeed, that
fact is a counter to your statement that "Our universe is creative in ways
we have not known" - we do know it, don't we? Why did we ever convince
ourselves that it was chess?
Reflection on this analogy is illuminating, partly because the issue of
"emergent selection" is so palpable in jazz. The deep question in something
like jazz is not "what/how is x selected at time t?", but "how is the
selection mechanism constructed?". All music finishes in silence, and for
it to be satisfying, its silence is expected: how is the mechanism that
selects silence at a particular point in time constructed? It is, as you
say, constructed through its own unfolding.
In considering this, previous historical scientific inflection points are
useful - not all of them use the "screwdrivers" of mathematics. Mendeleev's
predictive framework of the periodic table arose from the determination of
order through atomic mass from Dalton on the one hand, and the intuiting of
homologies in reactivity on the other. Suddenly, chemistry was in a new
"key" through the uncovering of a deeper predictive structure.
Might the same happen for biology? We can say something about order through
the various cybernetically-informed models (anticipatory systems,
information theory, requisite variety, cellular automata, Markov blankets,
Friston Free energy, etc). What about homologies? Surely evolution provides
plenty of those - particularly the evolution of "Kantian whole" which is
the cell.
But if this is jazz, then the question is the same: how does a biological
system construct a selection mechanism which ultimately selects "nothing"?
What principles are involved? Maybe physics suggests that nothing *is* the
principle (see this for example, Foundations Of Physical Law, The eBook :
Rowlands, Peter: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Physical-Law-Peter-Rowlands-ebook/dp/B00OIQ324S/ref=sr_1_1?crid=JAKT1LJ8EVZJ&keywords=foundations*of*physical*law&qid=1704789795&sprefix=foundations*of*physical*law*2Caps*2C50&sr=8-1__;KysrKysrJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RlMdh5n0SDwWKg6DgXdbo8-VI1D4mK3wxgwl7_n26iD8_4MhNNndkibwI-6X2uWehDOm6DRtsVDMHDmiOHffMjE$ >
)
That there is indeed no "theory of everything" may be because we have no
perception of what "everything" is (although on this list, perhaps in terms
of "theories of everything", we've seen it all!). But we do have some kind
of perception of "nothing" in our lived experience, and empirically in
biology, jazz, art, religion, etc. Do you think that understanding how
"nothing" is made might at least move things on a bit?
Best wishes,
Mark
On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 15:28, Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you Lou. I agree. Creativity is not deduction. Given what you write,
> Andrea and I claim to have shown that no laws at all entail of the
> evolution of the biosphere which is a non-deducible, propagating,
> construction. Assume this is correct. But physics DOES HAVE LAWS THAT
> ENTAIL. So if Andrea and Stu are right and physics with laws is right, why
> can physics have entailing laws but not the evolving biosphere. One answer
> is that living organisms really are Kantian Wholes with Catalytic and
> Constraint closure, that can evolve new boundary conditions creating novel
> phase spaces, that can evolve and create ever-new phase spaces by *selection
> on the whole, which is downward causation* for those feature that survive
> and propagate best in the current context - and there is no prior
> description of what the current context will become.
>
> But even if Andrea and I are right about evolving life, why can PHYSICS
> have entailing laws?
>
> All very odd.
>
> Stu
>
> On Jan 7, 2024, at 2:00 AM, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Stu,
>
> Think about physical laws.
> Good principles like F = ma, Newton’s Law of Gravity, and all that. Laws
> of E&M, Schrodinger equation, Dirac equation, Einstein’s modern geometric
> understanding of Gravity.
> Some questions and thoughts.
> 1. Newton did not deduce the law of gravity. He guessed it and discovered
> that it explained Kepler’s Laws that were derived from observation. This
> made Newton’s guess very firm. There is no way to predict Newton’s Law of
> Gravity. In fact it is not even correct when one takes Einstein’s wider
> point of view. Einstein guessed that there should be a differential
> geometric law of gravity. He was lucky, the tensor expression in curvature
> that he sought was nearly unique and so in this case the mathematical
> constraints helped him find a physical law.
> 2. Once laws are given (or guessed) then some predictions are possible.
> Clerk Maxwell guessed the laws of EM via Faraday’s experiments and
> Faraday’s field concepts. But then
> Maxwell saw that in his theory the EM field could propagate like a wave
> and its velocity was the velocity of light! Who would have thought it? And
> this allowed Maxwell to further
> guess (yes guess but some say ‘predict’) that light is an EM wave. Huge
> consequence for the physics and technology after that up through the
> present day. But this is being done by inventive discovery not by logical
> deduction.
> 3. No one could predict the structure of atoms or the later understood
> nuclear structure in terms of quarks. This is discovered and verified and
> there are theories but there is no theory that predicts atoms. Once we know
> something about atoms we can understand how certain molecules could behave,
> but no one can predict the emergence and stability of
> big molecules like DNA or their reproductive properties.
> 4. Physics is a big guesswork patchwork that uses mathematics and has some
> predictive abilities. But the main lines of its structure are guessed,
> discovered, invented, verified.
> The logic comes last.
>
> Mathematics is the same. It is a structural enterprise and we cannot
> predict where it will go and what will be proved. We knock around and
> invent or discover structures and sometimes get them into deductive
> frameworks. Lots of ‘obvious’ things are not (yet) proved.
>
> Best,
> Lou
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2024, at 3:49 PM, Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> HI Pedro and All,
>
> Thank you Pedro, perhaps we *are *at THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION. We begin
> to confront the vast, unprestatable, non-deducible becoming of the evolving
> biosphere. YET…yet, physics works also. We really can compute planetary
> orbits. If the biosphere is “governed by no laws” why do laws work so well
> in Physics?
>
> And there is something very odd about, “Information”. Consider the
> information content of a Picasso painting. Cast it into 10,000 pixels, each
> reflecting a wavelength specified by 4 bits. So 40,000 bits suffice and
> that 40,000 bits can be sent by email all over the world to be printed out
> on physically different systems using different procedures and perhaps
> pigments to create a good copy of the Picasso. It seems information is not
> embodied but becomes physical to print, or to erase a bit in the 40,000
> record.
>
> Now think of a living cell, a Kantian Whole with Catalytic and Constraint
> Closure. There IS NO SEPARATE “description” of this reproducing system. It
> cannot be copied. The living cell *constructed* itself, it did not
> create a description of itself sent to a distance assembly point.
>
> Also in Boltzmann entropy can stay constant or increase. In Shannon, in
> parallel, information can be transmitted without or with loss. BUT..there
> is no creation of new information. That is due to the Newtonian Paradigm
> where the phase space of all the possibilities are stated beforehand. (In
> Shannon, the entropy of the source.) But in the evolution of the biosphere,
> co-evolving organisms are creating ever-new ways to get to co-exist for a
> while. This is the unprestable and non-deducible creation of new
> information. The emerging evolving increasing complexity of the biosphere
> is not via a channel transmitting information from some exogenous source.
> Andrea Roli and I are working on this. And this becoming is NOT AI, which
> is algorithmic.
>
> Hm….
>
> Stu
>
> On Jan 5, 2024, at 2:20 PM, fis-request at listas.unizar.es wrote:
>
> 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 (Terrence W Deacon)
> 2. Re: Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 4 (Krassimir Markov)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 08:47:37 -0800
> From: Terrence W Deacon <deacon at berkeley.edu>
> To: Pedro C. Mariju?n <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
> Cc: fis at listas.unizar.es, Skauffman <stukaufman at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman
> Message-ID:
> <CAOJbPRLC40bnKjupETxqd_tDLXziDZdwVTvXHVauFwcdwytxuA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Beware of the cryptic Cartesianism of opposing informationalism to
> physicalism (as in "it from bit").
> By accepting this framing, we risk falling for the old idealism vs
> materialism trap, just in a new form.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:59?AM Pedro C. Mariju?n <
> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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 escribi?:
>
> 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!QWqRy48IxgI7uqQVW1zW2bni_amdH6RTRyIDsnv2KVgCUL0gLsvl9TQg9-0nZwoqnXSch1vxIkH0HogQ-8uUlw$
> <
> 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$>
> Libre
> de virus.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QWqRy48IxgI7uqQVW1zW2bni_amdH6RTRyIDsnv2KVgCUL0gLsvl9TQg9-0nZwoqnXSch1vxIkH0HoiCeiZeGQ$
> <
> 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_-7995677017021347638_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci?n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
>
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si est? suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicaci?n en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Professor Terrence W. DeaconUniversity of California, Berkeley*
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240105/5083d3c2/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:19:59 +0200
> From: Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com>
> To: fis at listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 4
> Message-ID:
> <CAKEQgkxjFRQ6=gw15cJ6DNN-BcU0soEHvi-42hxiJPC45wk1GA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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$
> >
> ????
> ??????
> 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=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweo0pSd3bs$
> >
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ?? ??, 5.01.2024??. ? 13:59 <fis-request at listas.unizar.es> ??????:
>
> 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 mar?es*, 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)
> ? : 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. Mariju?n" <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 escribi?:
>
> 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.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 5
> ***********************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
--
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
University of Manchester
Department of Science Education
University of Copenhagen
Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
University of Liverpool
Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RlMdh5n0SDwWKg6DgXdbo8-VI1D4mK3wxgwl7_n26iD8_4MhNNndkibwI-6X2uWehDOm6DRtsVDMHDmidsnawjc$
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240109/817cecc8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list