[Fis] Acknowledgments

[Marcus Abundis]

Hi Stuart,

I look forward to seeing your and Andrea’s forthcoming paper.

I also hope to see closer functional analysis – your screwdriver example
seems unchanged from 2005. I did not know enough to question it then, but
now – the only thing that makes `a thing’ a `screwdriver’ is the special
`machined bit’ at the tip, applied to a specific type of `fastenner'.
Without that `bit’ it is just a stick with a handle: a universal tool with
many uses. ONLY in using `that bit’ with a `screw' does a screwdriver truly
become a screwdriver.

On your forthcoming title: `. . . Expected Phase Transition in the Evolving
Universe?’ – I have wondered if `phase transitions’ is correct phrasing for
logically traversing a simple-to-complex cosmos. For example, in
traditional science (I believe?) `phase transitions’ refers only to
transitions as `gas <>liquid<>solid’ for a single `element’. But does this
entail true simple-to-complex shifts, where multiple elements come together
for a new effect? (re my 9 Jan note, on proton, neutron, electron > atoms).
We currently have many `cosmic logical gaps’ that make today’s science
notoriously incomplete – so does `phase transitions’ really work here? This
may be nit-picking, but it is a key difference in framing difficult issues.
I know `emergence’ is considered a `dirty word’ in many (some?) scientific
circles, so precise nomenclature may be important. That said, I know of no
more-suitable term than `emergence’ (perhaps `functional levels’?). . . but
I would be interested in hearing practical alternatives.

Lastly, on Phase Transitions, functional analysis, and Life, my 1 January
post already suggests *one* way to approach the matter. But that seems more
reductive than what you have in mind for your paper. I do not pretend to
answer `questions of Life’, but I do know – if we take `modeling as a
discipline’ – a more reductive (functional) vista can lead to new insights
. . . where before, much was `mystery’. Alternatively, many people seem
excessively enamored with mathematics, and make direct assaults on their
`target’ without first performing suitable functional analysis. It seems
odd that one attempt a mathematical model without first firmly grasping
WHAT exactly they are modeling. That said, if you are curious about what
*I* mean by `reductive functional analysis’ I can point you to my YouTube
channel, particularly my 2017 AGI (artificial general intelligence) talk
where I cover (phase?) transitions across lever types onto the advent of
the (`complex’) wheel, or my paper on a Theory of Meaning with `X^n Signal
Entropy’ in simple-to-complex roles. That said, those studies do not get
one directly closer to detailing Life.

I will now step down from my functional analysis soap box and wish you and
Andrea well with your forthcoming paper – and await its arrival. Thanks
again for hosting this FIS session.

Marcus

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 4:26 PM Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Krassimir. Yes Thinking Life. I will soon complete an article with
> Andrea Roli: Is the Emergence of Life an Expected Phase Transition in the
> Evolving Universe?” and will share it with the group. In it, quite to my
> surprise, I think we demonstrate that John von Neumann’s famous self
> reproducing machine is badly mistaken about how living cells reproduce. It
> is all very odd. If we are correct, the software hardware distinction does
> not apply to living cells. But the software hardware distinction surely
> applies to Universal Turning Machines. How can both be true?
>
> It seems a deep new puzzle. It may be related to Aristotle’s Four Causes
> and how they can be true, but not, I suspect, for reproducing cells. Very
> odd.
>
> Best to all,.
>
> Stu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240116/dc99ec23/attachment.html>