<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Dear Stu,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div>Think about physical laws.<div class="">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.</div><div class="">Some questions and thoughts.</div><div class="">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. </div><div class="">2. Once laws are given (or guessed) then some predictions are possible. </div><div class="">Clerk Maxwell guessed the laws of EM via Faraday’s experiments and Faraday’s field concepts. But then </div><div class="">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 </div><div class="">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. </div><div class="">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 </div><div class="">big molecules like DNA or their reproductive properties.</div><div class="">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.</div><div class="">The logic comes last.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class="">Lou</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 6, 2024, at 3:49 PM, Stuart Kauffman <<a href="mailto:stukauffman@gmail.com" class="">stukauffman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">HI Pedro and All,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thank you Pedro, perhaps we <i class="">are </i>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?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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 <i class="">constructed</i> itself, it did not create a description of itself sent to a distance assembly point.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Hm…. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Stu<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 5, 2024, at 2:20 PM, <a href="mailto:fis-request@listas.unizar.es" class="">fis-request@listas.unizar.es</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Send Fis mailing list submissions to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" class="">fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br class=""><br class="">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br class="">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>fis-request@listas.unizar.es<br class=""><br class="">You can reach the person managing the list at<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>fis-owner@listas.unizar.es<br class=""><br class="">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br class="">than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Today's Topics:<br class=""><br class=""> 1. Re: New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman (Terrence W Deacon)<br class=""> 2. Re: Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 4 (Krassimir Markov)<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 1<br class="">Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 08:47:37 -0800<br class="">From: Terrence W Deacon <deacon@berkeley.edu><br class="">To: Pedro C. Mariju?n <pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com><br class="">Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es, Skauffman <stukaufman@gmail.com><br class="">Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman<br class="">Message-ID:<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><CAOJbPRLC40bnKjupETxqd_tDLXziDZdwVTvXHVauFwcdwytxuA@mail.gmail.com><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class="">Beware of the cryptic Cartesianism of opposing informationalism to<br class="">physicalism (as in "it from bit").<br class="">By accepting this framing, we risk falling for the old idealism vs<br class="">materialism trap, just in a new form.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 3:59?AM Pedro C. Mariju?n <pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com><br class="">wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Dear Stuart and FIS colleagues,<br class=""><br class="">We are honored that you impart the FIS New Year Lecture this time. In this<br class="">list, quite a few members share the impression that we are involved in a<br class="">historical transition in science. Maybe, as you and Andrea Roli state, it<br class="">could be the Third Great Transition. That it revolves around putting into<br class="">question the predominance of physicalist views was coincidentally discussed<br class="">in a previous discussion session, when two pioneers of AI research (Yixin<br class="">Zhong from China and Eric Werner from Oxford) were arguing for a paradigm<br class="">change away for physicalism. Now you are providing strong arguments from<br class="">the biological self-construction and evolutionary points of view. An<br class="">important point is the argument on Kantian wholes, from the closure of<br class="">auto-catalitic sets. It could also be considered as the organizational<br class="">reliance on "cycles". In biological systems there is a towering presence of<br class="">cycles: from elementary reaction cycles, to enzyme work-cycles, to regional<br class="">reaction cycles, gene expression cycles (your Boolean networks!!), to<br class="">genetic macro-cycles... to the cell's entire life cycle. And an even larger<br class="">story could be told about cycles in complex organisms...<br class=""><br class="">To put the argument in a nutshell: bye to physicalism (as a fundamental<br class="">meta-scientific vision). Yes, but what would substitute for it?<br class="">I dare say "informationalism". You mention the biosphere and the global<br class="">economy, and even our cultures. Aren't all them based on the circulation of<br class="">"information flows" (in vastly different forms, of course)??<br class="">Let us think, for instance, on the enormous disarray created by the new<br class="">social networks in our societies... we do not much understand the<br class="">psychological changes derived for the intertwining of natural vs artifical<br class="">info flows in our societies.<br class=""><br class="">I am just reading Joseph's just arrived comments, philosophically and<br class="">formally oriented. Fine. I would ad that we are lacking a vast<br class="">informational view that can help us to understand that strange world put<br class="">into action 3,000 million years ago, full of emergent realms. So, filling<br class="">in the gap that physicalim is unable to fill in consistently.<br class=""><br class="">Best regards to all,<br class="">--Pedro<br class=""><br class="">*PS. If anyone has doubts about the messages effectively distributed in<br class="">the list, go please to the instantaneous archive:<br class="">http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/<br class=""><http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/>*<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br class="">El 04/01/2024 a las 23:54, Stuart Kauffman escribi?:<br class=""><br class="">Hello to All,<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I am truly grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with you the<br class="">recent Stuart Kauffman and Andrea Roli paper, ?A Third Transition In<br class="">Science?? J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 4/ 14 2023. I attach a link below. It?s<br class="">eventual publication in a fine journal after almost two years has its own<br class="">wry history.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Andrea and I think we are correct, but we may be wrong. More, I only<br class="">slightly begin to understand what our results, if correct, mean.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I had thought that the First Transition in science was Newton?s invention<br class="">of Classical Physics in 1689 A.D. And I thought the Second Transition was<br class="">the reluctant discovery of quantum mechanics between 1900 and 1927 A.D.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I begin to suspect I was wrong. The First Transition in science was in<br class="">1299A.D. when the first mechanical clock was invented and installed at the<br class="">Wallingford Abby. It was installed because the monks were often late for<br class="">prayers. Within less than a century, Europe was dotted by chuch towers with<br class="">ever - more impressive mechanical clocks. Modern people in 1379 A.D. must<br class="">have begun to wonder if the World itself was some amazing clockwork<br class="">machine. Then Copernicus, 1543 A.D., then Kepler, Galileo and Newton.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">This, then, was the Second Transition in Science. Yes, yes, yes! The<br class="">World is a vast clockwork machine. No room for God?s miracles ? the Deistic<br class="">God of the Enlightenment. No room for mind ? Descartes lost his Res<br class="">cogitans to Newton?s Res extensa. No Free Will.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">With Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger cam a loss of determinism, but<br class="">still within the Newtonian Paradigm. And no mind and no responsible Free<br class="">Will.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">If Andrea and I are correct, this Third Transition demonstrates for the<br class="">first time since 1299AD, 725 years later, that the evolving biosphere is<br class="">not a clockwork machines. Evolving life is not a machine at all.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Are the two of us correct? If so, what does this Third Transition<br class="">portend? These issues now lies before us.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Merci a tous,<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Stu Kauffman<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">A Third Transition in Science? Link<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QWqRy48IxgI7uqQVW1zW2bni_amdH6RTRyIDsnv2KVgCUL0gLsvl9TQg9-0nZwoqnXSch1vxIkH0HogQ-8uUlw$ <br class=""><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0HwbrDZ8$><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0Kbsj3yQ$> Libre<br class="">de virus.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QWqRy48IxgI7uqQVW1zW2bni_amdH6RTRyIDsnv2KVgCUL0gLsvl9TQg9-0nZwoqnXSch1vxIkH0HoiCeiZeGQ$ <br class=""><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$><br class=""><#m_-7995677017021347638_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Fis mailing list<br class="">Fis@listas.unizar.es<br class="">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br class="">----------<br class="">INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL<br class=""><br class="">Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por<br class="">la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br class="">Puede encontrar toda la informaci?n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el<br class="">siguiente enlace:<br class="">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas<br class="">Recuerde que si est? suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de<br class="">baja desde la propia aplicaci?n en el momento en que lo desee.<br class="">http://listas.unizar.es<br class="">----------<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class="">-- <br class=""><br class="">*Professor Terrence W. DeaconUniversity of California, Berkeley*<br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240105/5083d3c2/attachment-0001.html><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 2<br class="">Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 23:19:59 +0200<br class="">From: Krassimir Markov <itheaiss@gmail.com><br class="">To: fis@listas.unizar.es<br class="">Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 4<br class="">Message-ID:<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><CAKEQgkxjFRQ6=gw15cJ6DNN-BcU0soEHvi-42hxiJPC45wk1GA@mail.gmail.com><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class="">Dear Prof. Kauffman and FIS Colleagues,<br class="">Warm Wishes for health and happiness in (and not only!) New Year !<br class=""><br class="">Dear Prof. Kauffman,<br class="">Thank you very much for the interesting article and the ideas presented in<br class="">it.<br class="">I fully agree that set theory cannot be used for the purposes you state in<br class="">the article.<br class="">I agree with all your conclusions and opinions ...<br class=""><br class="">But ...<br class=""><br class="">Only at the level of set theory!<br class=""><br class="">Modern mathematics has already proposed theoretical foundations by which to<br class="">model the complexity and unpredictability you speak of.<br class=""><br class="">This is the Category Theory.<br class=""><br class="">I do not have the opportunity to go into details here, but I will try to<br class="">explain the difference in a sentence or two.<br class=""><br class="">In set theory, we work with elements and functions from one element to<br class="">another element.<br class=""><br class="">In category theory, we work with structures and morphisms (mappings) of<br class="">structures into structures, and a special place is occupied by functors,<br class="">which are mappings of categories into categories.<br class=""><br class="">I have been using Category Theory for modeling information phenomena for<br class="">many years and I am satisfied with the results.<br class="">Maybe someday we'll have a chance to talk in more detail.<br class=""><br class="">With respect,<br class="">Krassimir<br class=""><br class=""><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$ ><br class="">????<br class="">??????https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoxbM1Dfw$ <br class=""><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$ ><br class=""><#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><br class=""><br class="">?? ??, 5.01.2024??. ? 13:59 <fis-request@listas.unizar.es> ??????:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Send Fis mailing list submissions to<br class=""> fis@listas.unizar.es<br class=""><br class="">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br class=""> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br class="">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br class=""> fis-request@listas.unizar.es<br class=""><br class="">You can reach the person managing the list at<br class=""> fis-owner@listas.unizar.es<br class=""><br class="">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br class="">than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."<br class="">Today's Topics:<br class=""><br class=""> 1. Re: New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman (joe.brenner@bluewin.ch)<br class=""> 2. Re: New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman (Pedro C. Mariju?n)<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br class="">From: "joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner@bluewin.ch><br class="">To: Skauffman <stukaufman@gmail.com><br class="">Cc: pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com, fis@listas.unizar.es, plamen@simeio.org<br class="">Bcc:<br class="">Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:41:33 +0100 (CET)<br class="">Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman<br class=""><br class="">Dear Stuart (if I may), Pedro and Plamen,<br class=""><br class="">Happy New Year and best wishes for 2024 to All! As Pedro and Plamen may<br class="">recall, I have been ?at home in Stuart?s Universe? for some time. His<br class="">article, however, brings clearly into focus the issues to be resolved in<br class="">science and philosophy, including logic.<br class=""><br class="">As you may not recall, however, I have been arguing for all this time, *contra<br class="">vents et mar?es*, in favor of some very specific additions. Among other<br class="">things these, have their ground in the very much neglected Buddhist<br class="">insights into the relational structure of reality (co-dependence or<br class="">co-instantiation) in the work of both Nagarjuna (2nd - 3rd Centuries<br class="">C.E.) and Yamauchi Tokuryu (19th -20th Centuries).<br class=""><br class="">To be as brief as possible here, Stuart?s article refers to or implies<br class="">needed changes in the following areas:<br class=""><br class="">- Free will as necessary for individual and collective<br class="">responsibility;<br class=""><br class="">- Total separability in the part-whole relation:<br class=""><br class="">- Inapplicability of standard set theory;<br class=""><br class="">- Dynamic implications of the Axiom of Choice; (I have sent my<br class="">philosophical-logical interpretation of this Axiom to some 45 people<br class="">without an answer, not that I was wrong or ignorant ? nothing.)<br class=""><br class="">- Non-algorithmic, but regular features of the real world;<br class=""><br class="">I look forward very much to a dialogue on these and other issues,<br class=""><br class="">Cheers, as far as possible,<br class=""><br class="">Joseph<br class=""><br class="">----Message d'origine----<br class="">De : stukauffman@gmail.com<br class="">Date : 04/01/2024 - 23:54 (E)<br class="">? : fis@listas.unizar.es<br class="">Cc : pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com, plamen@simeio.org<br class="">Objet : [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman /Pedro and Plamen is this<br class="">what you need? stu<br class=""><br class="">Hello to All,<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I am truly grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with you the<br class="">recent Stuart Kauffman and Andrea Roli paper, ?A Third Transition In<br class="">Science?? J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 4/ 14 2023. I attach a link below. It?s<br class="">eventual publication in a fine journal after almost two years has its own<br class="">wry history.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Andrea and I think we are correct, but we may be wrong. More, I only<br class="">slightly begin to understand what our results, if correct, mean.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I had thought that the First Transition in science was Newton?s invention<br class="">of Classical Physics in 1689 A.D. And I thought the Second Transition was<br class="">the reluctant discovery of quantum mechanics between 1900 and 1927 A.D.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I begin to suspect I was wrong. The First Transition in science was in<br class="">1299A.D. when the first mechanical clock was invented and installed at the<br class="">Wallingford Abby. It was installed because the monks were often late for<br class="">prayers. Within less than a century, Europe was dotted by chuch towers with<br class="">ever - more impressive mechanical clocks. Modern people in 1379 A.D. must<br class="">have begun to wonder if the World itself was some amazing clockwork<br class="">machine. Then Copernicus, 1543 A.D., then Kepler, Galileo and Newton.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">This, then, was the Second Transition in Science. Yes, yes, yes! The<br class="">World *is* a vast clockwork machine. No room for God?s miracles ? the<br class="">Deistic God of the Enlightenment. No room for mind ? Descartes lost his Res<br class="">cogitans to Newton?s Res extensa. No Free Will.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">With Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger cam a loss of determinism, but<br class="">still within the Newtonian Paradigm. And no mind and no responsible Free<br class="">Will.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">If Andrea and I are correct, this Third Transition demonstrates for the<br class="">first time since 1299AD, 725 years later, that the evolving biosphere is<br class="">not a clockwork machines. Evolving life is not a machine at all.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Are the two of us correct? If so, what does this Third Transition<br class="">portend? These issues now lies before us.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Merci a tous,<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Stu Kauffman<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">A Third Transition in Science? Link<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoI7pfKPU$ <br class=""><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Qqk-MU8YHDOqCRFRhl7TeX1dkVGTkGVguvuvh9b0bDsQA5fo9VckJgLmoyonQDdvxMbEBRHMUpOBTww1u06J-5k$><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br class="">From: "Pedro C. Mariju?n" <pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com><br class="">To: Skauffman <stukaufman@gmail.com>, fis@listas.unizar.es<br class="">Cc:<br class="">Bcc:<br class="">Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 12:59:18 +0100<br class="">Subject: Re: [Fis] New Year Lecture - Stuart Kauffman<br class="">Dear Stuart and FIS colleagues,<br class=""><br class="">We are honored that you impart the FIS New Year Lecture this time. In this<br class="">list, quite a few members share the impression that we are involved in a<br class="">historical transition in science. Maybe, as you and Andrea Roli state, it<br class="">could be the Third Great Transition. That it revolves around putting into<br class="">question the predominance of physicalist views was coincidentally discussed<br class="">in a previous discussion session, when two pioneers of AI research (Yixin<br class="">Zhong from China and Eric Werner from Oxford) were arguing for a paradigm<br class="">change away for physicalism. Now you are providing strong arguments from<br class="">the biological self-construction and evolutionary points of view. An<br class="">important point is the argument on Kantian wholes, from the closure of<br class="">auto-catalitic sets. It could also be considered as the organizational<br class="">reliance on "cycles". In biological systems there is a towering presence of<br class="">cycles: from elementary reaction cycles, to enzyme work-cycles, to regional<br class="">reaction cycles, gene expression cycles (your Boolean networks!!), to<br class="">genetic macro-cycles... to the cell's entire life cycle. And an even larger<br class="">story could be told about cycles in complex organisms...<br class=""><br class="">To put the argument in a nutshell: bye to physicalism (as a fundamental<br class="">meta-scientific vision). Yes, but what would substitute for it?<br class="">I dare say "informationalism". You mention the biosphere and the global<br class="">economy, and even our cultures. Aren't all them based on the circulation of<br class="">"information flows" (in vastly different forms, of course)??<br class="">Let us think, for instance, on the enormous disarray created by the new<br class="">social networks in our societies... we do not much understand the<br class="">psychological changes derived for the intertwining of natural vs artifical<br class="">info flows in our societies.<br class=""><br class="">I am just reading Joseph's just arrived comments, philosophically and<br class="">formally oriented. Fine. I would ad that we are lacking a vast<br class="">informational view that can help us to understand that strange world put<br class="">into action 3,000 million years ago, full of emergent realms. So, filling<br class="">in the gap that physicalim is unable to fill in consistently.<br class=""><br class="">Best regards to all,<br class="">--Pedro<br class=""><br class="">*PS. If anyone has doubts about the messages effectively distributed in<br class="">the list, go please to the instantaneous archive:<br class="">http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/<br class=""><http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/>*<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br class="">El 04/01/2024 a las 23:54, Stuart Kauffman escribi?:<br class=""><br class="">Hello to All,<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I am truly grateful to have this opportunity to discuss with you the<br class="">recent Stuart Kauffman and Andrea Roli paper, ?A Third Transition In<br class="">Science?? J. Roy. Soc. Interface, 4/ 14 2023. I attach a link below. It?s<br class="">eventual publication in a fine journal after almost two years has its own<br class="">wry history.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Andrea and I think we are correct, but we may be wrong. More, I only<br class="">slightly begin to understand what our results, if correct, mean.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I had thought that the First Transition in science was Newton?s invention<br class="">of Classical Physics in 1689 A.D. And I thought the Second Transition was<br class="">the reluctant discovery of quantum mechanics between 1900 and 1927 A.D.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">I begin to suspect I was wrong. The First Transition in science was in<br class="">1299A.D. when the first mechanical clock was invented and installed at the<br class="">Wallingford Abby. It was installed because the monks were often late for<br class="">prayers. Within less than a century, Europe was dotted by chuch towers with<br class="">ever - more impressive mechanical clocks. Modern people in 1379 A.D. must<br class="">have begun to wonder if the World itself was some amazing clockwork<br class="">machine. Then Copernicus, 1543 A.D., then Kepler, Galileo and Newton.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">This, then, was the Second Transition in Science. Yes, yes, yes! The<br class="">World is a vast clockwork machine. No room for God?s miracles ? the Deistic<br class="">God of the Enlightenment. No room for mind ? Descartes lost his Res<br class="">cogitans to Newton?s Res extensa. No Free Will.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">With Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger cam a loss of determinism, but<br class="">still within the Newtonian Paradigm. And no mind and no responsible Free<br class="">Will.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">If Andrea and I are correct, this Third Transition demonstrates for the<br class="">first time since 1299AD, 725 years later, that the evolving biosphere is<br class="">not a clockwork machines. Evolving life is not a machine at all.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Are the two of us correct? If so, what does this Third Transition<br class="">portend? These issues now lies before us.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Merci a tous,<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Stu Kauffman<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">A Third Transition in Science? Link<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoI7pfKPU$ <br class=""><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2022.0063__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0HwbrDZ8$><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RH-1N1FEJfqU41WdGgs7y8jJfe5UgMaHIJlh56CZUw76fWIEwZkUE9gIll06GR3L150IpC24ewV5iF7LveZK0Kbsj3yQ$> Libre<br class="">de virus.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Tk1UTgfW-nil9p-FpOx_8br863v36zD2frnSNU3nLkVuQ3b4QFYWywpUTtXGpgeiMPnVfFr0lweoxbM1Dfw$ <br class=""><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$><br class=""><#m_-5327561665015284833_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Fis mailing list<br class="">Fis@listas.unizar.es<br class="">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote>-------------- next part --------------<br class="">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20240105/9c080885/attachment.html><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Subject: Digest Footer<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">Fis mailing list<br class="">Fis@listas.unizar.es<br class="">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">End of Fis Digest, Vol 108, Issue 5<br class="">***********************************<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">Fis mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" class="">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br class="">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<br class="">----------<br class="">INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL<br class=""><br class="">Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br class="">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<br class="">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.<br class="">http://listas.unizar.es<br class="">----------<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>