[Fis] Second Law: The Unending Debate

Mon Mar 3 07:27:36 CET 2025

 jason, you have an amazing life story and an amazing ability to write with utmost clarity.
i've downloaded your power point and will hopefully have time to enjoy myself with it friday or saturday.
with warmth and oomph--howard

    On Sunday, March 2, 2025 at 10:59:27 PM EST, Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com> wrote:   

 Hi Howard, Glad to meet the virtual you - and thank you for your kind praise. I did run into your jargon of "omnology," and asked my RA (not Research Assistant, but Robot Assistant) what it means. I got a number of Chinese interpretations: 全知学，宝藏学，博学，全学，which means "Know-it-all-logy, Treasureology, Broad-PhD-ics, and Everything-whole-ics."  I was born in a remote province in south China and we had a local dialect, so I suddenly got it in our dialect: "万金油“ - literally "Ten-thousands-gold-oil," the name of a special ointment that said to cure a lot of sicknesses (from headaches to mosquito bites to car sickness to fever etc., English name Tiger Balm. Its usefulness has surpassed traditional medicine in social dynamics - during my second escape (through the USSR and Berlin Wall) from China in the summer of 1989, my ex-wife and I carried two types of bribery currency - small bottles of vodka and a full bag of "Ten-thousands-gold-oil" (they are little red metal cases just a bit larger than a quarter but thicker). On that 7 day long trip in USSR, for bigger trouble we gift a vodka, for small convience we tip one Tiger Balm. Works magic! I'm sharing this with you because in my local dialect, this same name is used to call an omnologist! A person who "knows-it-all!"
That story told, I do share the same interests in "those emergent properties" that we encounter in all kinds of complex systems - from what's going on inside one brain to social dynamics and organization behaviors all the way to the evolution of our civilization, there are a number of specific research agenda that are attracting my attention. But one understanding from my learning might cause me to be not compatible with your omnology, which is "the Localness Limit of X," (X={consciousness, cognition, knowledge, science, rationality, & wisdom})  (Sorry for the simplest/easiest form of math.) I've attached a PPT about this point in case you're interested in continuing the discussion.
Best regards - Jason------------------------------------Jason Jixuan Hu, Ph.D.Independent Research Scholar Organizer: Club of REMY:  https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.clubofremy.org__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUVb12BW6vyvU9OVjHlDhGyFpKQtBHPKJjRnmYhExWN1KCgcvbMbG58AjN0eF_mgexTt5Jlk88R6ApRSMg$  General Partner: WINTOP Group: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.wintopgroup.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUVb12BW6vyvU9OVjHlDhGyFpKQtBHPKJjRnmYhExWN1KCgcvbMbG58AjN0eF_mgexTt5Jlk88S3JiAgzA$  Introduction: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drjasonhu.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUVb12BW6vyvU9OVjHlDhGyFpKQtBHPKJjRnmYhExWN1KCgcvbMbG58AjN0eF_mgexTt5Jlk88Tqwyr5ag$ 
Wiki Page: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tinyurl.com/JJH008__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUVb12BW6vyvU9OVjHlDhGyFpKQtBHPKJjRnmYhExWN1KCgcvbMbG58AjN0eF_mgexTt5Jlk88SdbTLTYw$   Video: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tinyurl.com/JJHsprachoffice__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUVb12BW6vyvU9OVjHlDhGyFpKQtBHPKJjRnmYhExWN1KCgcvbMbG58AjN0eF_mgexTt5Jlk88QehAdmZg$ : jjh at wintopgroup.commobile: jasonthegoodman at gmail.com---------------------------------------------------

On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:23 PM Howard Bloom <howlbloom at aol.com> wrote:

 jason--extremely well written contribution.  in clear language with scarcely any jargon.
enclosed is the mystery i'm exploring with all my heart.  it starts like this:

Thereis a massive mystery hiding in science. A mystery called emergent properties. Plus the mystery of one of the most important of those emergentproperties—you.  Your identity.  And how it has managed to sustain itselfdespite the fact that you’ve gone from a baby to a toddler to a child to ateenager, to a young adult, with middle age and old age in your future somewhere.  Despite all of your physical propertieschanging dramatically—from your height and weight to your brainpower and your athleticabilities—the 80 trillion constantly changing cells of you have managed to pulloff the illusion of being just one person, just one special person, with thename you go by. So which is really real, your constantly changing mass of cellsand your steadily shifting physical properties or your identity, your you?  

with warmth and oomph--howard

__________________________Howard BloomThe Howard Bloom Institutehttps://howardbloom.instituteAuthor of: The Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature is Wrong, coming March, 2025 ("A massive achievement, WOW!"  Richard Foreman, MacArthur Genius Award Winner, Officer of the Order of Arts & Letters, France)Previous books: 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),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 ProProfessor of Practice, Kepler Space University Co-founder, The Asian Space Technology SummitFormer Visiting Scholar, Graduate Psychology Department, New York University, Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; 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.
BRIC-TV's 66-minute film, The Grand Unified Theory of Howard Bloom,  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atYmiEZ6YDUBest__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUVb12BW6vyvU9OVjHlDhGyFpKQtBHPKJjRnmYhExWN1KCgcvbMbG58AjN0eF_mgexTt5Jlk88ScFYS-gQ$  Picture, Science Design Film Festival. Best Documentary Feature, Not Film Festival, Italy. Available  on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, Microsoft, Vimeo, Vudu, and Fandango.

    On Sunday, March 2, 2025 at 11:10:09 AM EST, Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com> wrote:   

 Were such debates already finished by Popper (demarcation through falsification)? Or by Wittgenstein (Shut up - (if you run out of correct language))?
I agree with Howard that math is just "one of many" but not "only" language. There exist, say, music and emotional gestures (such as what we just saw in the drama in the White House two days ago), dances, arts, architecture, etc. You count them.
One Russian scientist said long ago that the wings of science are methodologies, and facts are like air. Without air, wings cannot work. Now, what is this thing called "fact"?
It is the stable eigenstate reachable by our cognitive system. 
Recently, the phenomenon of the LLM's tendency to confabulate has been highlighted. I think it is like a mirror for us to re-examine our cognitive system (and our rationality). How reliable is it, actually?  
Is anyone here interested in discussing possible types of rationality/science and the role/position of math and logic? In the context of "Information" or "Informatics", of course. But I tend to collect Informatics and Systemics and Cybernetics together in a 3-D or 4-D framework (adding time), at least as a thought experiment.
Best regards - Jason 
On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:00 AM Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Some days ago there was a thought-provoking exchange between two FISers which I was incidentally following-- Howard Bloom and Andrei Igamberdiev. The argument was about an essay --with a critical stance on the vulgar use of the second law-- that Howard had written to be published in the Journal BioSystems, the chief editor of which is Andrei. They have allowed me to compile the whole exchange (the initial essay is not included). Here it is:

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

Andrei's comments on Howard's manuscript:
  Dear Howard,  I have read your manuscript with great interest. I like many ideas and challenging points expressed in it. Your criticism of the Second Law is based on important arguments that should be analyzed in detail and evaluated by the scientific community.  However, as I mentioned in my previous letter, this style and arrangement of the paper is not suitable for a journal specializing in natural science such as BioSystems, and probably for any other similar journal.  It is more suitable for a journal specializing in philosophy or a popular scientific magazine discussing hot topics in modern science.  You are suggesting that the concept of entropy and the Second Law are wrong completely. However, they work for ergodic systems, i.e. the systems having the property that, given sufficient time, they include or impinge on all points in a given space and can be represented statistically by a reasonably large selection of points. Definitely, the Universe as a whole is not ergodic, and it may be possible to prove that living systems are also not ergodic. Thus, the Second Law and the concept of entropy have severe limitations that are often not considered by scientists.  Robert Rosen discussed this idea but very briefly. In particular, he mentioned that complexity is not the objective property of the system but it is the characteristics arising from its description (including the internal description by the system itself). He criticized the concept of entropy from this point.  Recently, Stuart Kauffman attempted to limit the Second Law and to formulate the Fourth Law that he is considering as more general. You can check his papers (see, e.g., Kauffman, S., 2022. Is There a Fourth Law for Non-Ergodic Systems That Do Work to Construct Their Expanding Phase Space? Entropy (Basel) 24(10), 1383. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.3390/e24101383__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUVb12BW6vyvU9OVjHlDhGyFpKQtBHPKJjRnmYhExWN1KCgcvbMbG58AjN0eF_mgexTt5Jlk88TDkxI2WA$   Thus, in my opinion, it is really important to analyze the assumptions taken for the formulation of the Second Law and the possible limitations connected to it. It is more productive to concentrate on possible limitations of the Second Law Instead of claiming that it is wrong. I don’t see this development in your paper. The Law of Flamboyance is suggested vaguely without any definite physical formulation. This presentation may be useful for general philosophical discussion but not as an introduction it as a new physical law.  The paper contains many interesting references to the debates of famous scientists, which would be useful for a popular scientific publication, however, in its current form it is not suitable for BioSystems or another journal with a similar scope.  I am sorry for not being supportive at this time, but your interesting essay does not fit the scope of BioSystems.  With best regards,  Andrei ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard's response: 
   andrei, hi, 
  thanks for an extremely thought provoking, generous, and engaging turndown. 
  i look forward to the next time we have an opportunity to communicate. 
  with warmth and oomph--howard

ps.  here's what your extraordinarily knowledgeable thoughts have prodded me to:

MIT physicist and cosmologist Max Tegmark says that math is the universe.  and many believe that ideas without a mathematical foundation are not science.
 Jesus had an opinion on this sort of thing.  he said about the strictness of the high priests of his day, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.  the same is true of mathematics in science.  math is a tool of science.  science is not a tool of mathematics.   
  in other words, often math helps us understand the cosmos.  but the living things in the cosmos vastly outstrip our math.  Newton was able to reduce the solar system to math.  but if darwn had been forced to mathematize his origin of species, there would have been no evolution.  no darwinism.  no origin of species. 
  which explains more, newton's principia or darwin's origin?  in reality, they are both potent tools of understanding.  but the number of puzzles that neither of them can solve is vast.   
  each of them--Darwin's approach and Newton's-- is far more limited than it imagines.  and math is far more limited in its powers than today's scientific community thinks.   
  it's important to keep this in mind: newton's principia has almost no equal signs. in other words, newton did not have modern algebraic equations.  he expressed his laws with the math of his day: geometry, ratios,diagrams, and verbal reasoning.  today it would be said that newton's principia is not sufficiently mathematical to be taken as serious science. 
  we forget that the equation was only invented in 1557 and only put to common use 80 years later.  in other words, our math is primitive.  it's the equivalent of the first collection of stone tools 3.2 million years ago, the oldowan stone toolkit.   
  the new developments in math 300 years from now will startle us.  but science will still be mistaken if it imagines that all that we see and know can be expressed in equations.  
  tegmark is wrong.  the cosmos is not a product of math.  math is a product of the cosmos. and the most startling thing in this universe, life, is ahead of the meager grasp of equations by light-years. 
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrei's response:   Hi Howard,  thank you for your engaging response. I completely agree with you regarding Max Tegmark. Together with Joseph Brenner, I tried to express the views on mathematics that are completely opposite to Tegmark's, in our book "Philosophy in Reality" (Springer, 2021). However, in the scientific discourse, it is difficult to develop the framework to describe the origin of mathematics as we use the reasoning that assumes the existence of some formal structures before they develop in reality. We can further discuss possible solutions of this paradox.  I will look forward to our future communication.   With warmest regards, Andrei  
     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Final Note: 
   What Howard wrote to Andrei was turned into an article and posted it on substack.  The announcement of that article on X got a quarter million views. 
  see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://howardxbloom.substack.com/p/why-math-must-not-godzilla-science__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QUVb12BW6vyvU9OVjHlDhGyFpKQtBHPKJjRnmYhExWN1KCgcvbMbG58AjN0eF_mgexTt5Jlk88TPSVXT8Q$ 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 _______________________________________________
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
----------

_______________________________________________
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
----------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250303/971cbdf0/attachment-0001.html>