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

Thu Jan 18 13:48:14 CET 2024

Yes.  Stu

> On Jan 17, 2024, at 8:27 PM, Howard Bloom <howlbloom at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> if i read you right, deduction fails to account for invention.  is that correct?
> 
> with warmth and oomph--howard
> 
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 01:04:45 PM EST, Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks Pedro Stu
> 
>> On Jan 17, 2024, at 10:50 AM, Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
> 
> 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> <mailto:stukauffman at gmail.com>
> Para:	Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>, Carlos Gershenson <cgershen at gmail.com> <mailto:cgershen at gmail.com>, 0 <stukauffman at gmail.com> <mailto:stukauffman at gmail.com>
> CC:	Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se> <mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>, Andrea Roli <andrea.roli at unibo.it> <mailto:andrea.roli at unibo.it>, pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> <mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>, Eric Werner <eric.werner at oarf.org> <mailto:eric.werner at oarf.org>, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com> <mailto:plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com>, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>, Krassimir Markov <itheaiss at gmail.com> <mailto: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> <mailto: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.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!W_a-iZ9HNBoWOqx7lnQtR2bQjC_e0pKMxfIscCHgsfLjF1p8QP91E27tVtiTT3B0clQIN85Ud2JiDA3A-mwPxd8ebZJY$>	Libre de virus.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UN0x0z3ntSqce3G8yJniT6viKBLpAMOhP-WccdaFyn4WKPPHWeWrCI62VqL740Rt-nwN-pfxizgER4avTlt1_b0$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!W_a-iZ9HNBoWOqx7lnQtR2bQjC_e0pKMxfIscCHgsfLjF1p8QP91E27tVtiTT3B0clQIN85Ud2JiDA3A-mwPxd8ebZJY$>_______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
> 
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
> 
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
> 
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es <http://listas.unizar.es/>
> ----------
> 
> 
> __________________________
> Howard Bloom
> Howardbloom.net
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.howardbloom.institute__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UN0x0z3ntSqce3G8yJniT6viKBLpAMOhP-WccdaFyn4WKPPHWeWrCI62VqL740Rt-nwN-pfxizgER4av0r1QOvA$ 
> BRIC-TV's 66-minute film, The Grand Unified Theory of Howard Bloom,  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atYmiEZ6YDU__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UN0x0z3ntSqce3G8yJniT6viKBLpAMOhP-WccdaFyn4WKPPHWeWrCI62VqL740Rt-nwN-pfxizgER4avR-P7P4I$ 
> Best Picture, Science Design Film Festival. Best Documentary Feature, Not Film Festival, Italy. Now available  on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, Microsoft, Vimeo, Vudu, and Fandango.
> 
> Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), 
> Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker),
> The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic),  
> The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
> How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” Timothy Leary),
> The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” David Swindle, PJ Media), and
> Einstein, Michael Jackson & Me: a Search  for Soul in the Power Pits of Rock & Roll ("Amazing. The writing is revelatory." Freddy DeMann, manager of Michael Jackson and Madonna), Best Book of 2020, New York Weekly Times.
> A Quartz Magazine Pro
> Former Visiting Scholar, Graduate Psychology Department, New York University, Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Current Kepler Space University Professor of Practice.
> Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder, Space Development Steering Committee.  Member Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240118/c9953e0b/attachment-0001.html>