[Fis] Fwd: Information, computation, and causality in living systems: Fis Digest

[Pedro C. Marijuán]

/Note: this message from Stuart and Louis lacks the fis address. Given 
its interest I am re-entering it into the list. //Another reply message 
from Plamen will be re-entered too. //It is not a good idea to put so 
many addresses in the messages, the list address becomes lost and the 
server quite often rejects them... --Pedro/



-------- Mensaje reenviado --------
Asunto: 	Re: Information, computation, and causality in living systems: 
[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 5 - Kierkegaard, responsible free will 
and the meaning of the new transition in science
Fecha: 	Wed, 17 Jan 2024 05:21:07 -0700
De: 	Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com>
Para: 	Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com>, Carlos Gershenson 
<cgershen at gmail.com>, 0 <stukauffman at gmail.com>
CC: 	Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>, Andrea Roli 
<andrea.roli at unibo.it>, pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com 
<pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>, Eric Werner <eric.werner at oarf.org>, Dr. 
Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com>, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch 
<joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>, Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com>



Hi Lou and All. I of course never said, nor would I say, that we cannot 
use deduction. Lou I like your point about stable constraints. From my 
perspective, what Andrea and I have done is to demonstrate that we 
cannot deduce the evolution of ever new adaptations that arise as 
Darwinian preadaptation, or Verba and Goulds’ exaptations. These 
novelties are new uses of novel subsets of the causal properties of, 
e.g. physical objects, to achieve new functions in the evolving 
biosphere. This is precisely and example of unstable constraints. But 
the further point here is that we cannot deduce what these new 
constraints new relevant variables, will be.

Artificial Life has not yet achieve /open ended evolution/. Real 
evolution does, via the novelties above. Probably in parallel to 
Artificial Life, we have not achieved General Artificial Intelligence. 
Roli and I claim we will not achieve General Artificial Intelligence 
precisely because computers are algorithmic, evolving life and human 
mind are not. Roger Penrose makes the same claim.

I hope we can focus on the implications of this. First, are Andra and I 
correct? If Yes, the implication is that we do not know what is IN the 
Adjacent Possible of the Evolving biosphere or global economy. Then we 
do not know the Sample Space of the process, so can have no Probability 
Measure. Nor can we even define Random as G. Longo pointed out to me. 
  What does this mean for how the vast biotic world becomes? A central 
issue is: How does evolving life create the ever-new possible ways to 
co-exist, some of which are seized by heritable variation and genetic 
drift. The same holds for the evolving global economy. Venture 
capitalists cannot calculate the risk of an investment. Further novel 
technologies may destroy their current investment. What does this mean 
for our pride in Human Reason? For the link between science and art, 
Newton and history.


I think Roli and I are correct in our Third Transition. Please try to 
disprove our claims. If we are right, we seem to enter into a vast new 
world of ongoing creativity. And a central reason is this: Organisms 
really are Kantian Wholes. Selection acts on the Whole and indirectly 
selections on the Parts, liver, lung, and DNA genes. This is downward 
causation and Strong Emergence…so feared by physicists who are long 
comfortable with weak emergence as in second order phase transitions in 
ferromagnetic systems. And we have not yet even begun to consider MIND.

I hope today or tomorrow to forward a further paper by Andrea and Stu on 
the expected emergence of evolving life. To our surprise, it seems that 
the distinction from computer science of hardware and software may not, 
or does not, apply to how cells reproduce. If not, then what? A 
beginning suspicion is this: Aristotle’s four causes, Formal, Final, 
Material and Efficient, true of us and our architects, may (/may)/ 
require Free Will and conscious choosing mind. Maybe. Odd. What is 
Information? Where does new information come from?  No new information 
can arise in Newton’s prestated phase space, in Boltzmann’s prefigured 
litter box, or in Shannon’s source. Andrea and I are asking why, and 
where does new information come from? The evolving biosphere has not 
channeled some exogenous source of information that has guided its 
non-deductible flowering for 4 billion years.

Best,

Stu

> On Jan 16, 2024, at 9:41 PM, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is in response to Stu and the notion that deduction is not all (I 
> agree) and that it is impossible (I disagree).
> We use deduction to see the results of constraints that persist over 
> time. If these constraints change too much then we cannot reason from 
> them.
> But in many cases we know that certain constraints are in place and 
> with that we can deduce many other facts. This is how mathematics and 
> modeling using mathematics works.
> There is some given set of assumptions and what can be deduced from 
> them is valid just so long as these assumptions hold.
>
> When we are in situations where everything is up for grabs then no 
> deduction is possible. Most actual situations are somewhere in between 
> purely formal results from rules and the pure chaos. I agree with 
> Stuart that it is futile to try to deduce everything. The question 
> always is, can one deduce a key fact that will forward the action? See 
> the works of
> Conan Doyle for many examples.
>
> On the mathematical side, we have structures that everyone agrees to. 
> And in that realm it is just as certain as 2 + 2 = 4 that there are 
> infinitely many prime numbers and that the number of prime numbers 
> less than or equal to n is asymptotic to n/log(n) and that no 
> consistent formal system can capture all the truths of number theory. 
> We reasoned ourselves right out of the formal box because we have the 
> ability to reason (as evolved organisms). And luckily Stu agrees that 
> this evolution is not part of some formal system.
> Or so it seems.
>
> Everyone has to reason this out for themselves. We can be convinced by 
> at least powerful rhetoric that we are not machines (activated formal 
> systems) and we can see that
> indeed it could be that this convincing is a kind of illusion. I 
> suggest that individuals can each come to their own conclusions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-- 
Este correo electrónico ha sido analizado en busca de virus por el software antivirus de Avast.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!W_a-iZ9HNBoWOqx7lnQtR2bQjC_e0pKMxfIscCHgsfLjF1p8QP91E27tVtiTT3B0clQIN85Ud2JiDA3A-mwPxXX3AwYK$ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240117/1430d8ec/attachment-0001.html>