<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
line-break: after-white-space;">
<p><font size="+1"><i>Note: this message from Stuart and Louis lacks
the fis address. Given its interest I am re-entering it into
the list. </i><i>Another reply message from Plamen will be
re-entered too. </i><i>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</i></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Mensaje reenviado --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Asunto:
</th>
<td>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</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Fecha: </th>
<td>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 05:21:07 -0700</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">De: </th>
<td>Stuart Kauffman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stukauffman@gmail.com"><stukauffman@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Para: </th>
<td>Louis Kauffman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:loukau@gmail.com"><loukau@gmail.com></a>, Carlos
Gershenson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cgershen@gmail.com"><cgershen@gmail.com></a>, 0
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stukauffman@gmail.com"><stukauffman@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">CC: </th>
<td>Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gordana.dodig-crnkovic@mdu.se"><gordana.dodig-crnkovic@mdu.se></a>, Andrea Roli
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andrea.roli@unibo.it"><andrea.roli@unibo.it></a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com"><pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com></a>, Eric Werner
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eric.werner@oarf.org"><eric.werner@oarf.org></a>, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:plamen.l.simeonov@gmail.com"><plamen.l.simeonov@gmail.com></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch"><joe.brenner@bluewin.ch></a>,
Krassimir Markov <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:itheaiss@gmail.com"><itheaiss@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Artificial Life has not yet achieve <i>open ended evolution</i>.
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.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 (<i>may)</i>
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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stu<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jan 16, 2024, at 9:41 PM, Louis Kauffman
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:loukau@gmail.com"><loukau@gmail.com></a> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">This is
in response to Stu and the notion that deduction is
not all (I agree) and that it is impossible (I
disagree).
<div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>There is some given set of assumptions and what
can be deduced from them is valid just so long as
these assumptions hold. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 </div>
<div>Conan Doyle for many examples.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>Or so it seems.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 </div>
<div>indeed it could be that this convincing is a kind
of illusion. I suggest that individuals can each
come to their own conclusions.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /><table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;"><tr><td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a href="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$" target="_blank"><img src="https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"/></a></td><td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Libre de virus.<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!W_a-iZ9HNBoWOqx7lnQtR2bQjC_e0pKMxfIscCHgsfLjF1p8QP91E27tVtiTT3B0clQIN85Ud2JiDA3A-mwPxd8ebZJY$" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a></td></tr></table><a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>