<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp91dec12eyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:24px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Alex, you mention entropy. the following paper might interest the members of this group.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><div><div style="text-align:center">Entropy is Wrong</div><div style="text-align:center"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">By</span></div><div style="text-align:center"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">Howard Bloom</span></div>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"> </p>
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one of modern
science’s most revered concepts.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">It’s
the law that the entropy in the universe is constantly on the increase. It’s
the law that disorder, chaos, and uselessness will take over in the end. </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span></div>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">The Second Law is so basic that one of the greats of 20th
century science, Sir Arthur Eddington, the legendary explainer of Einstein’s
theory of relativity, said in 1928,</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">"If someone points out to
you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's
equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.<span> </span>If it is found to be contradicted by
observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if
your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give
you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."[i]<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Brace yourself for “deepest humiliation.” February 15<sup>th</sup>,
my new book will be published-- The Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything You
Know About Nature Is Wrong.<span> </span>The Case of
the Sexual Cosmos argues that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.<span> </span>Dead wrong.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">To see why entropy gets this universe backwards, you have
to understand the history of the Second Law. It all started with the steam
engine.<span> </span>The steam engine was the
miracle-technology of its time.<span> </span>It was
to Europe in the 1850s what Ai is to us today. The steam engine had catapulted
Britain from a per capita income of 131.1 pounds in 1798 to a per capita income
of 191.8 pounds in 1852,[ii]
when the unnamed field of thermodynamics was getting its start. That’s an
increase of 46%.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><i>The Case of the
Sexual Cosmos</i> tells the story of how the 28-year-old founder of
thermodynamics, the son of a professor of mathematics at the Royal Belfast
Academical Institution, <span> </span>William Thomson,
better known today as Lord Kelvin, made a prediction in 1852 that would give
birth to the concept of entropy.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Since the age of 17, Thomson had been hooked on the
theory of steam engines.<span> </span>Not the
practical engineering, but the abstract theory.<span>
</span>The mathematical theory.<span> </span>And he
had been particularly hooked on reducing a steam engine to equations.<span> </span>Cutting-edge equations of the sort Thomson
had mastered—and published about[iii]--when
he was just seventeen.<span> </span>The equations of
French mathematician Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier. <span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Thomson asked in his 1852 paper "On a Universal
Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy,”[iv]<span> </span><span> </span>about "the loss of power experienced by
steam in rushing through narrow steam-pipes."<span> </span>And, he said "for the best steam
engines...at least three-fourths of their work...is utterly wasted."
Wasted in friction.<span> </span>He called this waste
“the dissipation of mechanical energy.”</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Then Thomson took a huge leap and generalized this waste
to the entire "material world."<span>
</span>He proclaimed that, "There is at present in the material world a
universal tendency to the dissipation of mechanical energy."<span> </span>That's a big jump, from the pipes of a steam
engine to the entire material world.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">But that's not the end of William Thomson's big
jumps.<span> </span>He concluded his paper with the
claim that, "Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have
been, and within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit
for the habitation of man."<span> </span>In
other words, William Thomson predicted catastrophe.<span> </span>He predicted that the earth will become
uninhabitable.<span> </span>And plants, animals, and
human beings will be out of luck.<span> </span>They
will die out.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">All because of a claim without empirical backup, a
massive assumption: that something true of the pipes of a steam engine would be
true of the entire earth.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Two years later, in 1854 <span>Thomson’s colleague at the University of Glasgow, William John Macquorn
Rankine, would call this collapse of the earth “heat death.”[v]</span><span> </span>And the notion of heat death is still alive
and kicking in the sciences today.<span> </span>For
example, widely-read theoretical physicist Sean Carroll says, “Entropy will
continue to be an interesting topic at least until the heat death of the
universe.”[vi]</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">But it took fifteen years from Thomson’s prediction for
Prussian physics professor Rudolf Clausius to come up with “the universal
dissipation of mechanical” energy’s killer app: The Second Law of
Thermodynamics.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Clausius had been engaged in an intellectual ping pong
match with William Thomson since 1850.[vii]<span> </span>The two bounced papers back and forth on an
audacious theory they shared—that heat is not caused by a particle called the
caloric.<span> </span>This was rebellion of the
highest order.<span> </span>The theory that heat is a
particle called the caloric had lofty credentials.<span> </span>The “Father Of Modern Chemistry” himself,
Antoine Lavoisier, had proposed that theory in the 1770s. <span> </span>And Lavoisier was a giant. But Thomson and
Clausius dared challenge him.<span> </span>Heat, they
were both convinced, was caused not by a particle but by the movement of
particles, the movement of atoms and molecules. <span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">By the mid-1850s, no one quite knows who and no one quite
knows when had come up with a word to describe what Clausius and Thomson had
been developing, thermodynamics.[viii]<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">But boiling down thermodynamics to a few basic rules was
hard.<span> </span>Clausius wrestled with the
challenge from 1850 onward. <span> </span>First, in 1865
he invented a new word, entropy.[ix]
Finally, in his 1867 <span>paper “The
Mechanical Theory Of Heat, With Its Applications To The Steam-Engine And To The
Physical Properties Of Bodies</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>The Mechanical<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>Theory Of Heat, With Its Applications To The
Steam-Engine And To The Physical Properties Of Bodies</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span>”[x]</span>,
Clausius got it.<span> </span>He summed up the field
that he and Thomson had spent seventeen years pioneering—thermodynamics.<span> </span>Clausius presented his summation in two
“theorems.”</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><span>“The two fundamental theorems of the mechanical theory</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE “<b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'>theory</span></b>” <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span><span> </span>of
heat,” Clausius pontificated</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE “<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>heat</span>” <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span>, were</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;tab-stops:220.5pt"><span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;tab-stops:220.5pt"><span>1.<span> </span>The
energy</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE “<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>energy</span>” <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span><span> </span>of the
universe</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE “<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'>universe</span>” <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span><span> </span>is
constant.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;tab-stops:220.5pt"><span>2.<span> </span>The
entropy</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE “<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'>entropy</span>” <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span><span> </span>of the
universe</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE “<span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'>universe</span>” <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span><span> </span>tends
to a maximum.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">Were Clausius’ two “theorems” supported by vast masses of
empirical evidence?</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">No.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">They were pronouncements made off the top of
the head.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">Based only on small-scale
observations of heat flow.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">And based on
theorizing about steam engines.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">In other
words, Clausius’ two theorems were not based on observations of deep time and
the vast universe.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">Yet they were snapped
into place as scientific permanences.</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Why are we saddled with the cosmic pessimism of
entropy?<span> </span>Because of Thomson’s assumption
that “the dissipation of mechanical energy” is the dominant force of the
cosmos.<span> </span>It’s not.<span> </span>And entropy’s underlying metaphor, its
underlying assumption, is wildly inaccurate.<span>
</span>The universe is not like a steam engine.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Meanwhile, have there been any empirical tests to see if
The Second Law is for real?<span> </span>Yes.<span> </span>At least one.<span>
</span>And it was a big one.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">In 1859, Charles Darwin’s new theory of natural selection
made an implicit prediction about the age of the earth:<span> </span>that it was unimaginably old. That implied
prediction appeared in Darwin’s first book on evolution: On the Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection.<span>
</span>And when it came to Darwin’s age of the earth, Thomson disagreed.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Thomson was
a Christian and a believer.<span> </span>He would
eventually become President of the Christian Evidence Society.<span> </span>In 1862, he wanted to prove Darwin’s theory
wrong.<span> </span>He wanted to demonstrate that the
earth was too young to have supported Darwin’s “slow changes,” changes that could
not produce new species “until,” as Darwin put it, “the hand of time has marked
the long lapse of ages.”[xi]<span> </span>This Darwinian process would have taken eons.
</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;">And it
would have replaced God as the creator of the earth’s plants and animals.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;">So Thomson
went to work to pin down the planet’s age.[xii]
Thomson mustered all the sciences he could, from the newly-discovered melting temperatures
of slate, sandstone, garnet and granite to new results from the Greenwich
Observatory measuring how tides were slowing down the earth.</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;">Not to mention the sophisticated equations of
Fourier and, of course, the new science Thomson and Clausius had named
thermodynamics.</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;">From all this, Thomson
concluded that our planet is between 20 million and 400 million years old.[xiii]</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;">Thomson felt that 98 million give or take 20
million was the most likely range.</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;">Which
proved precisely what Thomson wanted it to prove, that Charles Darwin's new
theory of evolution couldn't possibly be right.</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Or, as
Thomson put it, “We cannot, without violating the principles of probability,
assume the existence of any species, or the origin of any natural family, to be
due to the accumulation of variations, through the agency of natural selection,
in less than 400 million years.”[xiv]
Which means that on an earth only 20 million to 400 million years old,
evolution is impossible.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Darwin's theory
said evolution took place slowly over massive amounts of time. Thomson with his calculations proved something conclusive: the earth
had not been around long enough to allow for the Darwinian process to unfold.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Thomson’s
attack was one of the most telling that Darwin ever received.<span> </span>Said Mr. Darwin:</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><span>“I am greatly troubled at the short duration of the world according to
Sir W Thomson</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE <span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>Thomson</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span>.”</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><span>“Thomson</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE <span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>Thomson</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span>’s views on the recent age of the world have
been for some time</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-bidi-font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE <span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>time</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span><span> </span>one of
my sorest troubles.”</span><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"><span>“Then comes Sir W Thomson</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>Thomson</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span><span> </span>like
an odious spectre.”[xv]</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Twenty
three years later, in 1892, the “odious spectre” William Thomson would be given
the title “Lord Kelvin.”<span> </span>By Queen
Victoria herself.<span> </span>So how could he
possibly be incorrect?</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">In the end,
Charles Darwin turned out to be right about the earth’s age. William Thomson
turned out to be wrong. <span> </span>Thermodynamics
had led Thomson astray. <span> </span>But the error of
Thomson's prediction has been ignored for over 150 years. It has been written
out of the history of science.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">The irony
is that Thomson was given the title First Baron Kelvin, of Largs in the County
of Ay for doing something very anti-entropic—solving engineering problems to
build something startlingly new: the first transatlantic cable.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Why does William Thomson’s error need to be written back
into science’s history? Because in science when a theory makes predictions that
prove wrong, that theory must be modified or tossed away.<span> </span>And in the battle between William Thomson and
Charles Darwin, the theory of entropy failed utterly.<span> </span>The earth, it turns out, is not 400,000 years
old.<span> </span>It is 4.5 billion years old.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">But there is far more evidence against the Second Law of
Thermodynamics than Thomson’s failure to predict the age of the earth.<span> </span>It’s evidence that has piled up since Thomson’s
death in 1907.<span> </span>Evidence that the cosmos
began in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago and has been doing surprising things
ever since.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Says <i>The Case of
the Sexual Cosmos</i>, every step of the cosmos’ evolution has made the idea of
entropy look silly.<span> </span>Entropy and the
Second Law imply that at every evolutionary step, things should fall apart. But
in reality, cosmologists and astrophysicists have discovered that every step of
the cosmos’ evolution has been a step up, not a step down.<span> </span>A step toward more elaborate order, not less.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Things have not just fallen apart.<span> </span>They have not just followed the Second Law.<span> </span>They have fallen together. <span> </span>Or, as <i>The
Case of the Sexual Cosmos</i> puts it,</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">Even the dust of space has done
the very opposite of what [the Second Law of Thermodynamics] predicted.<span> </span>Instead of falling apart in a random whizzle,
instead of tumbling into a formless phmumph of entropy, instead of spreading
out in a uniform mist… space dust has come together in galaxies. Then in stars,
planets, moons, asteroids and solar systems. Every swirl of a galaxy and ring
around the rosy of planets circling a sun is a victory dance over entropy.
Every swirl shuns the lapse into uselessness.<span>
</span>Every swirl defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">The Case of the Sexual Cosmos adds that:<span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">Twentieth century experts like
Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould[xvi]
did everything they could to prove the concept of progress wrong.<span> </span>But this is a universe that has progressed </p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in"> </p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">•<span> </span>from a nothing to a big bang, </p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">•<span> </span>from a big bang to the birth of quarks, </p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">•<span> </span>from quarks to protons and neutrons,<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">•<span> </span>from protons and neutrons to atoms.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">•<span> </span>from atoms to galaxies, planets, and molecules.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in">•<span> </span>And from molecules to life…to you and me.</p>
<div style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">Nature’s obsession with progress
is real.</span></div>
<div> </div><div><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">So is nature’s ability to produce startlingly new
realities. Very much like inventing the transatlantic cable that William
Thomson helped turn from fantasy to reality.</span></div>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;">This cosmos’ history of perpetual complexification is the
ultimate disproof of entropy.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center">***</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center"> <span style="letter-spacing: -0.02em;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><i>The Case of the
Sexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature is Wrong,</i> says that The
Second Law cries out to be replaced by a law that is almost its opposite, The
First Law of Flamboyance.<span> </span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">What is the First Law of Flamboyance? The Second Law of
Thermodynamics says that all things fall apart.<span>
</span>All things dissolve in a random soup.<span>
</span>And all energy lapses into uselessness.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><span>But the First
Law of Flamboyance says flamboyance in this universe is always on the increase.
Things in this cosmos do not just fall apart.<span>
</span>They fall together.<span> </span>In fact, they
fall together to generate startling new realities, new systems, new emergent
properties, new social identities, social identities like black holes,
galaxies, stars, planets, and life. Social identities whose intricacy defies
belief. <span> </span>Social identities like the
million cells in a flower.<span> </span>Social
identities like the 36 trillion cells that collude to be you or me.<span> </span>And those new intricacies do not just allow
energy to lapse into uselessness.<span> </span>They
invent.<span> </span>They give energy new uses.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><span>Why use the
word “flamboyance”?<span> </span>Aside from the
flamboyant displays of supernovas and the Milky Way?<span> </span>Because of another of the cosmos’ creations,
sex.<span> </span></span>Sex does its evolutionary
magic by constantly demanding more extravagance.<span> </span>From the flamboyance of<span> </span>a DNA molecule with roughly 30 billion
precisely choreographed atoms to the flamboyance of a peacock’s tail, the
flamboyance of a break dance at the Olympics, and the flamboyance of a military
parade in North Korea.<span> </span>Sex demands
greedy accumulation of surplus and gaudy display.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><i>The Case of the
Sexual Cosmos</i> points to the gaudiness of everything from dinosaurs to
tardigrades, elephant seals, hummingbirds, and human beings.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"><span>Yes,</span><span> The First Law
of Flamboyance says that the universe we live in continually produces new
material miracles and supersized surprises.<span>
</span>The universe does the very opposite of what the Second Law
predicts.<span> </span>And in science, Laws that make
inaccurate predictions must be modified.<span>
</span>Or discarded.<span> </span>That applies to
the Second Law of Thermodynamics.</span></p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Things do not just fall apart.<span> </span>They fall together. <span> </span>Entropy is wrong.</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"> </p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">______</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing">Howard Bloom of the Howard Bloom Institute has been
called the Einstein, Newton, Darwin, and Freud of the 21st century by Britain's
Channel 4 TV.<span> </span>One of his eight
books--Global Brain---was the subject of a symposium thrown by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense including representatives from the State Department,
the Energy Department, DARPA, IBM, and MIT.<span>
</span>His work has been published in The Washington Post, The Wall Street
Journal, Wired, Psychology Today, and the Scientific American. A former
Visiting Scholar at New York University’s Graduate Psychology Department, a
former Core Faculty member at the Graduate Institute in Meriden, Connecticut,
and the current Kepler Space University Professor of Practice, Bloom has been
published in journals or has spoken at scholarly conferences in twelve different
scientific fields, from quantum physics and cosmology to neuroscience,
information theory, and biopolitics.<span> </span>He
calls this multi-disciplinary approach “Omnology.” Says Pavel Kurakin, of the
Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Science,
“Bloom has created a new Scientific Paradigm.<span>
</span>It explains in vast and compelling terms why we should forget all we
know in complicated modern math and should start from the very beginning.”<span> </span>And concludes Joseph Chilton Pearce, author
of Evolution's End and The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, "I have finished
Howard Bloom's [first two] books, The Lucifer Principle and Global Brain, in
that order, and am seriously awed, near overwhelmed by the magnitude of what he
has done. I never expected to see, in any form, from any sector, such an
accomplishment.<span> </span>I doubt there is a
stronger intellect than Bloom's on the planet."</p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNoSpacing"> </p>
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoNormal"> </p>
<div><!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<!--[endif]-->
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn1">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[i]
Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1928), 74.</p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn2">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[ii]
Broadberry, Stephen N., Bruce MS Campbell, Alexander Klein, Mark Overton, and
Bas van Leeuwen. "British economic growth: 1270-1870." (2010).</p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn3">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[iii]
Thomson, W. (1841). On Fourier's Expansions of Functions in Trigonometrical
Series. Cambridge Mathematical Journal, 2, 258–262.</p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn4">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[iv]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Thomson</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Thomson</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>says that he
first communicated his “theory</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <b style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>theory</span></b>
<![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>of the dissipation</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>dissipation</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>of energy</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-no-proof:yes'>energy</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">… to the Royal Society</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Royal Society</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>of Edinburgh</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Royal Society of Edinburgh</span>
<![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>in 1852, in a paper entitled ‘On
a Universal Tendency in Nature to the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>On a Universal Tendency in Nature to
the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">.’” See William Thomson</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>William Thomson</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">, “Kinetic Theory of the Dissipation of Energy,” <i>Nature </i>9, 1874, pages 441–444,
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1038/009441c0__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QG_09Yw1LIQ2fEduZemrETXWitGSw1ISdKF-nXB4WjuPRJh0zQ309LCaDeFyvVz3RP6o2wFKDnhO6k8ydg$">https://doi.org/10.1038/009441c0</a></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn5">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[v]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>William John
Macquorn Rankine, "On the General Law of the Transformation of Energy.”</span>
<span style="font-size:12.0pt">William John Macquorn Rankine, "On the
General Law of the Transformation of Energy." Philosophical Magazine,
Series 4, 5, no. 30 (1853): 106–117. “Shortly after the events we have
described, Thomson</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE <span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thomson</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>[Lord Kelvin</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Lord Kelvin</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">] published 'On a Universal Tendency in Nature to the
Dissipation of Mechanical Energ</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>On a Universal Tendency in Nature to
the Dissipation of Mechanical Energy</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">y' [13] in 1852 (where in the introductory passage,
Thomson</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE <span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thomson</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>again invokes
Carnot</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE <span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Carnot</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>as the primary
source of thermodynamic thinking</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>thinking</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">). This paper begins a discussion of startling
implication; that the universe</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>universe</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>is irrevocably
heading towards a state of total dispersion, which was to be known by the 1860s
as 'the heat</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE <span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>heat</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>death</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>heat death</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span> </span>of the universe</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>universe</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">.'” Michael W. Collins, Richard C. Dougal, <i>Kelvin</i></span><!--[if supportFields]><i
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span></i> XE <span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Kelvin</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><i
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span></i><![endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">,
Thermodynamics and the Natural World</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">,
UK: WIT Press, 2016, page 266.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn6">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[vi]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://x.com/seanmcarroll/status/1642536269552181248__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QG_09Yw1LIQ2fEduZemrETXWitGSw1ISdKF-nXB4WjuPRJh0zQ309LCaDeFyvVz3RP6o2wFKDngFekh9vw$">https://x.com/seanmcarroll/status/1642536269552181248</a></span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn7">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[vii]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Rudolf Clausius, "Ueber die bewegende Kraft der
Wärme und die Gesetze, welche sich daraus für die Wärmelehre selbst ableiten
lassen," <span> </span>Annalen der Physik, 1850,
volume 79, pages 368–397 and 500–524. </span><span> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">"On the
Moving Force of Heat, and the Laws regarding the Nature of Heat itself which
are deducible therefrom," This is the first paper in which Clausius
mentions Thomson’s work.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn8">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[viii]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Reference sources of all kinds credit William Thomson
with introducing the term “thermodynamics” in his 1849 Paper "An Account
of Carnot's Theory of the Motive Power of Heat; with Numerical Results Deduced
from Regnault's Experiments on Steam."<span>
</span>Alas, that’s not accurate.<span> </span>The
phrase “thermo-dynamic engines” makes several appearances.<span> </span>But nowhere is there a suggestion of a
scientific approach called “thermodynamics.”<span>
</span>As to the origins of that term, the reference sources are either
inaccurate, muddled, or indifferent.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn9">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[ix]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Clausius, Rudolf. 1865. <em><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Times New Roman;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi">Ueber verschiedene für die Anwendung bequeme Formen der
Hauptgleichungen der mechanischen Wärmetheorie, Annalen der Physik und Chemie,
volume 125, pages 353–400. </span></em>Clausius, R. (1867). The Mechanical
Theory of Heat – with its Applications to the Steam Engine and to Physical
Properties of Bodies (translated by T. Archer Hirst). London: John van Voorst.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn10">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[x]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Rudolf Clausius</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Rudolf Clausius</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">, “The Mechanical Theory Of Heat, With Its
Applications To The Steam-Engine And To The Physical Properties Of Bodies,” edited
by T. Archer Hirst, London</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span> XE <span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>London</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">, John van Voorst, 1867.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn11">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[xi]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life. London: John Murray, 1859.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn12">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[xii]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life. London: John Murray.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn13">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[xiii]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Thomson, William (1862). 'On the Secular Cooling of
the Earth'. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 23, 167–169.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn14">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[xiv]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Thomson, William (1869). "Geological
Dynamics". Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, 3, 215-227.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn15">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[xv]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> These quotes appear in Paul Sen</span><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span>
XE <span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Paul Sen</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span><![endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt">, <i>Einstein</i></span><!--[if supportFields]><i
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span></span></i> XE <span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Einstein</span> <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><i
style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span></i><![endif]--><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">'s Fridge:
How the Difference Between Hot and Cold Explains the Universe</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">, page 72.</span></p>
</div>
<div id="ydp2c8f0af4edn16">
<p class="ydp2c8f0af4MsoEndnoteText">[xvi]<span style="font-size:12.0pt"> Gould, Stephen Jay. Full House: The Spread of
Excellence from Plato to Darwin. Harmony Books, 1996.</span></p>
</div>
</div></div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp4a9d5fddyahoo_quoted_7890246585" class="ydp4a9d5fddyahoo_quoted"><div class="ydp4a9d5fddyahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:24px;">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div class="ydp4a9d5fddquoted-text-header">
On Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 07:17:11 PM EST, Alex Hankey <alexhankey@gmail.com> wrote:
</div>
</div><div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;border-left: 1px solid #ccc;padding-left: 8px;margin: 0px 0px 0px 8px" class="ydp4a9d5fddinline_reply_quote_container" data-split-quote-node="true">
<div><br></div><div><br></div>
<div><div id="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943"><div><div><div>Dear Kate, Lou, and Everyone, especially Pedro, <div><br clear="none"></div><div>What Pedro's eloquent and interesting response to Kate fails to recognize is that these kind of organism responses are Not, repeat Not, the usual kind of 'mechanical response' delivered by ordinary physical systems. </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Physical systems are normally mechanically stable, and sequences of responses to identical stimuli are distributed according to the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. effectively identical. </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Organisms, on the other hand, obey the laws of Fractal Physiology, where sequences of responses are characteristic of critical instabilities from the field of phase transitions. </div><div>(A switching process, On / Off, is analogous to a phase transition, with little fine control.) </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Critical Instabilities, however, offer extremely delicate control with the opportunity to regulate the magnitude of response as a continous variable, i.e. smoothly. 'Upregulation' and 'Downregulation' are the terms commonly used to describe this kind of continuous, finely attuned control.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Not surprisingly, all organisms now found on earth obey the laws of Fractal Physiology when they are in Good Health. (Health in this context can be defined as Optimal Regulation, i.e. capable of being continuously regulated.) </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>The physics of Critical Instabilities adds a completely new dimension to biology, removing it from the suppositions of mechanics. It is fairly easy to show that the highly complex system of interacting feedback loops involved in system regulation possess the property of Perfect Self-Observation, and thus a Subjective Sense of Self -- Self Awareness, Consciousness. </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>The supposedly 'inanimate' systems responding to external stimuli, as discussed in Pedro's contribution, are totally different from what he supposed. They are not mere mechanisms, as science has always considered; rather, they exhibit the very different behaviour described above. They are thus more closely related to manifestly conscious, purposeful beings like ourselves. </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>The brilliant book on single cell intelligence, Sensitive Souls, by Cambridge's Brian Ford, provides a more empirical perspective on these radical conclusions. </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>As I think all those following this thread will appreciate, these facts entirely alter the way we should evaluate organisms and biology -- Life itself, and thus, the science and scientific models, which we invoke when describing their various behaviours. </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>All best wishes to all, </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Alex </div><div><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><div class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943gmail_quote ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943gmail_quote_container"><div id="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943yqt95317" class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943yqt9388898530"><div dir="ltr" class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943gmail_attr">On Thu, 16 Jan, 2025, 04:15 Katherine Peil, <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:ktpeil@outlook.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ktpeil@outlook.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none"></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;" class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943gmail_quote">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943m_7462681504861895897WordSection1">
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Hi Lou, Pedro et al, <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Lou:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> Thank you for your clarifications as it concerns probability: Let me see if I’ve got you right: So Bayesian
probability concerns <i>frequencies that come from counting</i>, while Quantum probabilities reflect
<i>the <b>predictive </b>frequency of certain events</i>. If so, in terms of cybernetics, would Quantum probability qualify as more of a
<i>feedforward process (before the fact)? Bayesian, more (after the fact) feedback?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<u></u><u></u></i></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">As for self-reference, I’m fully on board with the circle as “a sign that that distinguishes itself as well as other distinctions” (and there is far more to say here). But my curiosity
concerns the “distinctions” themselves, how they relate to boundary conditions that distinguish a system from its “external” environment, which are fluid, dynamic, interpenetrating, and interactive. And how they relate to the idea of an Umwelt that is part
perception (requiring an internal mental model) and part sensation (the registration of changes in the immediate external environment). Many thanks in advance. To find words that can sufficiently transcend interdisciplinary boundaries is no small task, and
I greatly appreciate your patience and flexibility. I look forward to your Zoom session this Friday.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Pedro: We are in hearty agreement about the primacy of action – behavior – in the conceptualization of Perception, and the enactive nature of Cognition. Indeed, that is a central
point of my emotion work. But when we look away from complex brains and focus upon the sensory-motor control chemistry of the lowly bacterium, the primacy of self-directed animation becomes clear. (Specifically, an environmental affordance, say a chemical
gradient, is sensed via receptor complexes on the outside of cell membrane which initiates a signal transduction cascade on the inside. This begins with the placing of Phosphorylation mark of the inside tails of that receptor, which triggers a specific (either/or)
rotational direction of the flagellum: Either Counterclockwise which moves the creature toward the gradient, or Clockwise creating a little tumble away in a different direction). Please not that this self-directed animation is
<i>hedonic animation</i>, movement toward that which is beneficial and away from that which is harmful<i>.</i>
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">But when you say…”<i>cognition
<b>does not produce models of the world”</b>, </i>this is where I disagree and offer more to the story. The above is only one half of the process, the direct stimulus-response, the “registration” of sensory stimulus upon the organism and its hardwired motor
response. This happens in the immediacy of <i>real time</i>. The second half of the story begins with the placement of a second chemical signal, a
<i>methylation mark</i> (on the inside tails of those same receptor complexes), coincidental to the specific direction of the flagella, a mechanism that
<i>serves as an evaluative memory trace on a longer time scale. </i>Counterclockwise motion is associated with approach behavior, and while clockwise is associated with avoidance, hence the
<i><u>innate informative</u></i> <i>Pavlovian logic </i>of “good for me” (reward), or “bad for me” (punishment).
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">In short, via its duration in time, the methylation process forges a crack between the registered sensory stimulus and hardwired response, arguably opening a space for what we mean
by “cognition” and “perception” and the emergence of the enactive mind. This is why I have added the 5<sup>th</sup> E to the 4E enactive mind model (embodied, embedded, enactive, extended, and
<b>emotion driven</b>). Moreover, the methylation signaling process works in concert with bioelectric signaling, in the form of membrane depolarization and ion fluxes, those that Mike Levin’s work suggests inform morphogenic development. The role of methylation
marks is central to what we are learning about Epigenetics, which I would argue may have predated Genetics proper, highlighting the active evolutionary role of the agent in response to its immediate environment.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">I hope this helps clarify my position and look forward to your upcoming criticisms on autopoiesis.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Kate Kauffman<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div id="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943m_7462681504861895897mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal">On 1/15/25, 10:48 AM, "Fis" <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es</a>> wrote: Katherine Peil Kauffman<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="ydp4a9d5fddyiv2021008943MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Send Fis mailing list submissions to<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899277694%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PcXzyBDB27jGXHMyMsvZdhDUcUuxT6qMPCp8WV223Lo%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="mailto:fis-request@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fis-request@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
You can reach the person managing the list at<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="mailto:fis-owner@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fis-owner@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br clear="none">
than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Today's Topics:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
1. Re: Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38 (Louis Kauffman)<br clear="none">
2. Re: Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38 (Pedro C. Mariju?n)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Message: 1<br clear="none">
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 10:42:33 -0600<br clear="none">
From: Louis Kauffman <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:loukau@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">loukau@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">
To: Stuart Kauffman <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:stukauffman@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">stukauffman@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">
Cc: fis <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a>>, Marcus Abundis <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:55mrcs@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">55mrcs@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38<br clear="none">
Message-ID: <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:D98184CD-067B-43E1-89ED-389280CA2911@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">D98184CD-067B-43E1-89ED-389280CA2911@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
See my previous email. I assert that human consciousness cannot be encompassed by any single formal system.<br clear="none">
This goes beyond set theory. I assert the validity of arguments such as those given in Penrose books Emporer?s New Mind, but state these arguments in my way<br clear="none">
And without speculation about what kind of physics goes beyond Turing.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
As I said before, such arguments are hard for some people to take. The assertion really is that if you accept the original Goedelian argument, then it tells you that a human cognizer reasoning about
<br clear="none">
a formal system can do more than the formal system on its own. If you accept this, then you cannot be such a formal system without being inconsistent. I do think that people find this annoying.<br clear="none">
But there it is. And maybe you find it annoying because it is proving what you already knew.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
NotTuring<br clear="none">
LK<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
1. We prove Goedel?s Theorem as follows: <br clear="none">
Let T be a formal system that is consistent <br clear="none">
and contains at least the Peano axioms for number theory.<br clear="none">
I examine T as a mathematical object and produce (via Goedel coding) <br clear="none">
a sentence G that declares its own unprovability in T. <br clear="none">
This declaration has an external meaning and it is <br clear="none">
devised so that a proof of G in T would lead to a contradiction. <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Thus, since T is consistent, G cannot be proved in T. <br clear="none">
But G states the non-provability of G in T. <br clear="none">
Thus G is true but not provable in T. <br clear="none">
We have proved, from outside T, that G is true. <br clear="none">
This proof is a mathematical proof of the statement G <br clear="none">
and it does not contradict T?s unprovability inside T, <br clear="none">
since we work in the larger system of <br clear="none">
reasoning about formal systems, including T.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
2. Could I be identical with T as above? <br clear="none">
Certainly not. <br clear="none">
For I have proved G. <br clear="none">
So if I = T, then T has proved G. <br clear="none">
I have shown that T cannot prove G.<br clear="none">
Thus if I = T, then T is inconsistent. <br clear="none">
We have assumed that T is consistent. <br clear="none">
Therefore I am not identical with T as a mathematical reasoner.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
3. Could I be a Turing machine T, <br clear="none">
consistent and rich enough to contain Peano Arithmetic? <br clear="none">
Suppose it is so and <br clear="none">
go to 1. and 2. above <br clear="none">
to arrive at the conclusion that <br clear="none">
this is not possible.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
4. Go back to 1. <br clear="none">
and note that I have the capacity to take T as an object of study. <br clear="none">
The discussion in 2. and 3. leads to the <br clear="none">
ancient questions about whether a person can know themselves. <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
In the mathematical context, <br clear="none">
if I do stand outside my own processes of reasoning <br clear="none">
and then reason about these processes, <br clear="none">
this is a practical capacity that I have.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
The history of mathematics and logic is <br clear="none">
a long spiral of such self-examination. <br clear="none">
In order for it to spiral as it does, <br clear="none">
the whole process can not be encompassed in a single formal system. <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
This is the import of Goedel?s theorem <br clear="none">
and it actually applies to the entities <br clear="none">
that we call persons, <br clear="none">
individual reasoners with understanding. <br clear="none">
The individual reasoners are not single formal systems <br clear="none">
(to the extent that they are consistent).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
> On Jan 15, 2025, at 7:09 AM, Stuart Kauffman <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:stukauffman@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">stukauffman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Hello to All, <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> in support of Lou, I attach two references that say the becoming of the world, including, presumably, human consciousness, is beyond any mathematical formulation based on set theory.<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Kind wishes, <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Stu<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2021) The World Is Not A Theorem? Entropy vol 23, issue 11
<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2022), What is Consciousness? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society,_ _2022<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 3:38?AM, Marcus Abundis <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:55mrcs@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">55mrcs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">
>> <br clear="none">
>> < I am sympathetic with mathematical and formal modeling of ?cognitive processes? but feel that it should be clear that formal models will not capture the whole phenomenon. ><br clear="none">
>> <br clear="none">
>> For *myself*, while I accept an essential truth lies in this statement . . . I am ALSO inclined to think 'surrendering' prematurely is a lack of scientific imagination ('heavy lifting') ? where 'science' is SUPPOSED to be in the business of continually reinventing
itself. That said, I also accept that many do not see science as an actual/active creative process. For me, it is different. I think the core issue here is ?cognitive processes = psychology?, a notoriously . . . .uhhh, I am not sure of the best word to use
here, so I will just say 'difficult topic'.<br clear="none">
>> <br clear="none">
>> And thanks for the lovely taoist imagery . . . taoism being the last word in Natural Psychology.<br clear="none">
>> <br clear="none">
>> Marcus<br clear="none">
>> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">
>> Fis mailing list<br clear="none">
>> <a shape="rect" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
>> <a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899293606%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fjd4SUfnIx4JvBE%2B4obKAqatB5G86lzgozolpVhERD0%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
>> ----------<br clear="none">
>> INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL<br clear="none">
>> <br clear="none">
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br clear="none">
>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci?n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:
<a shape="rect" href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsicuz.unizar.es%2Finformacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899301754%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7Tnws6ELVMX6uVo3Esotr02oMmC%2BzPjo%2F8eyilg3M%2BU%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
>> 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 clear="none">
>> <a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899308433%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7EA7aS74Y1mryKhwHEHuAuO8s%2B6guLB%2BLB7AO%2Fb4FIQ%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
>> ----------<br clear="none">
> <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
-------------- next part --------------<br clear="none">
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br clear="none">
URL: <<a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250115/4d41fae6/attachment-0001.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fpipermail%2Ffis%2Fattachments%2F20250115%2F4d41fae6%2Fattachment-0001.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899315000%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yDWOc0H7s3UHrGMu1xyHg2vKRaRutrk3%2FvykGTgLBRc%3D&reserved=0</a>><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
------------------------------<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Message: 2<br clear="none">
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:47:31 +0100<br clear="none">
From: Pedro C. Mariju?n <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">
To: <a shape="rect" href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38<br clear="none">
Message-ID: <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:102f3b64-2ab4-43bc-baa2-62a65c124045@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">102f3b64-2ab4-43bc-baa2-62a65c124045@gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Dear Lou and List,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
May I enter some dissonance? Human cognition, not necessarily being <br clear="none">
"neurocentric" as Kate says, is well grounded (partially) by following <br clear="none">
the Action-Perception Cycle, or perception-action cycle.<br clear="none">
Starting with an interesting abstract (/The Pragmatic Turn: Toward <br clear="none">
Action-Oriented Views in Cognitive Science, /MIT Press 2016--with <br clear="none">
several editors, and a bunch of brilliant contributors):<br clear="none">
/"Experts from a range of disciplines assess the foundations and <br clear="none">
implications of a novel action-oriented view of cognition. Cognitive <br clear="none">
science is experiencing a pragmatic turn away from the traditional <br clear="none">
representation-centered framework toward a view that focuses on <br clear="none">
understanding cognition as ?enactive.? This enactive view holds that <br clear="none">
cognition does not produce models of the world but rather subserves <br clear="none">
action as it is grounded in sensorimotor skills. In this volume, experts <br clear="none">
from cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, robotics, and <br clear="none">
philosophy of mind assess the foundations and implications of a novel <br clear="none">
action-oriented view of cognition. Their contributions and supporting <br clear="none">
experimental evidence show that an enactive approach to cognitive <br clear="none">
science enables strong conceptual advances, and the chapters explore key <br clear="none">
concepts for this new model of cognition. The contributors discuss the <br clear="none">
implications of an enactive approach for cognitive development; <br clear="none">
action-oriented models of cognitive processing; action-oriented <br clear="none">
understandings of consciousness and experience; and the accompanying <br clear="none">
paradigm shifts in the fields of philosophy, brain science, robotics, <br clear="none">
and psychology..."/<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Nowadays there is plenty of literature along these lines, starting with <br clear="none">
Gibson's ecological approach to vision. The basic claim is that the <br clear="none">
perceiver's ability to perceive is constituted (in a fundamental part) <br clear="none">
by sensorimotor knowledge. Even in our own languages we would find a <br clear="none">
sort of mirror image of the underlying cognizing engine: in a sentence, <br clear="none">
for instance, there is a subject/object (perception or meta-perception <br clear="none">
of an entity) that connects with a verb (action, or meta-motor <br clear="none">
transformation) forming a minimal cognitive episode, which is extended <br clear="none">
to connect with further episodes.? I dare say that maths themselves may <br clear="none">
participate of this scheme: various entities or objects (variables) <br clear="none">
experiment actions (operations) that transform the expression in an = <br clear="none">
one, with renewed variables and operations. Maths somehow externalize <br clear="none">
our inner processes of thought in world observation-action and make them <br clear="none">
more universal and abstract, though far more schematic and deprived of <br clear="none">
the intrinsic far richer "cognit" connectivity. But the result is an <br clear="none">
uncanny efficiency (as Eddington put: "The Unreasonable /Effectiveness/ <br clear="none">
of /Mathematics/ in the Natural Sciences").<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Better if I leave my further criticisms on autopoiesis for a next occasion.<br clear="none">
Best--Pedro<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
El 15/01/2025 a las 17:42, Louis Kauffman escribi?:<br clear="none">
> See my previous email. I assert that human consciousness cannot be <br clear="none">
> encompassed by any single formal system.<br clear="none">
> This goes beyond set theory. I assert the validity of arguments such <br clear="none">
> as those given in Penrose books Emporer?s New Mind, but state these <br clear="none">
> arguments in my way<br clear="none">
> And without speculation about what kind of physics goes beyond Turing.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> As I said before, such arguments are hard for some people to take. The <br clear="none">
> assertion really is that if you accept the original Goedelian <br clear="none">
> argument, then it tells you that a human cognizer reasoning about<br clear="none">
> a formal system can do more than the formal system on its own. If you <br clear="none">
> accept this, then you cannot be such a formal system without being <br clear="none">
> inconsistent. I do think that people find this annoying.<br clear="none">
> But there it is. And maybe you find it annoying because it is proving <br clear="none">
> what you already knew.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> NotTuring<br clear="none">
> LK<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> 1. We prove Goedel?s Theorem as follows:<br clear="none">
> Let T be a formal system that is consistent<br clear="none">
> and contains at least the Peano axioms for number theory.<br clear="none">
> I examine T as a mathematical object and produce (via Goedel coding)<br clear="none">
> a sentence G that declares its own unprovability in T.<br clear="none">
> This declaration has an external meaning and it is<br clear="none">
> devised so that a proof of G in T would lead to a contradiction.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> Thus, since T is consistent, G cannot be proved in T.<br clear="none">
> But G states the non-provability of G in T.<br clear="none">
> Thus G is true but not provable in T.<br clear="none">
> We have proved, from outside T, that G is true.<br clear="none">
> This proof is a mathematical proof of the statement G<br clear="none">
> and it does not contradict T?s unprovability inside T,<br clear="none">
> since we work in the larger system of<br clear="none">
> reasoning about formal systems, including T.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> 2. Could I be identical with T as above?<br clear="none">
> Certainly not.<br clear="none">
> For I have proved G.<br clear="none">
> So if I = T, then T has proved G.<br clear="none">
> I have shown that T cannot prove G.<br clear="none">
> Thus if I = T, then T is inconsistent.<br clear="none">
> We have assumed that T is consistent.<br clear="none">
> Therefore I am not identical with T as a mathematical reasoner.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> 3. Could I be a Turing machine T,<br clear="none">
> consistent and rich enough to contain Peano Arithmetic?<br clear="none">
> Suppose it is so and<br clear="none">
> go to 1. and 2. above<br clear="none">
> to arrive at the conclusion that<br clear="none">
> this is not possible.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> 4. Go back to 1.<br clear="none">
> and note that I have the capacity to take T as an object of study.<br clear="none">
> The discussion in 2. and 3. leads to the<br clear="none">
> ancient questions about whether a person can know themselves.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> In the mathematical context,<br clear="none">
> if I do stand outside my own processes of reasoning<br clear="none">
> and then reason about these processes,<br clear="none">
> this is a practical capacity that I have.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> The history of mathematics and logic is<br clear="none">
> a long spiral of such self-examination.<br clear="none">
> In order for it to spiral as it does,<br clear="none">
> the whole process can not be encompassed in a single formal system.<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> This is the import of Goedel?s theorem<br clear="none">
> and it actually applies to the entities<br clear="none">
> that we call persons,<br clear="none">
> individual reasoners with understanding.<br clear="none">
> The individual reasoners are not single formal systems<br clear="none">
> (to the extent that they are consistent).<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 7:09 AM, Stuart Kauffman <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:stukauffman@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">stukauffman@gmail.com</a>> <br clear="none">
>> wrote:<br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>> Hello to All,<br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>> in support of Lou, I attach two references that say the becoming of <br clear="none">
>> the world, including, presumably, human consciousness, is beyond any <br clear="none">
>> mathematical formulation based on set theory.<br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>> Kind wishes,<br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>> Stu<br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>> Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2021) The World Is Not A Theorem? Entropy <br clear="none">
>> vol 23, issue 11<br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>> _Kauffman, S. and Roli, A. (2022), What is Consciousness? <br clear="none">
>> _/Biological Journal of the Linnean Society/,_ _2022<br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
>>> On Jan 15, 2025, at 3:38?AM, Marcus Abundis <<a shape="rect" href="mailto:55mrcs@gmail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">55mrcs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br clear="none">
>>><br clear="none">
>>> <??I am sympathetic with mathematical and formal modeling of <br clear="none">
>>> ?cognitive processes? but feel that it should be clear that formal <br clear="none">
>>> models will not capture the whole phenomenon. ><br clear="none">
>>><br clear="none">
>>> For *myself*, while I accept an essential truth lies in this <br clear="none">
>>> statement . . . I am ALSO inclined to think 'surrendering' <br clear="none">
>>> prematurely is a lack of scientific imagination ('heavy lifting') ? <br clear="none">
>>> where 'science' is SUPPOSED to be in the business of continually <br clear="none">
>>> reinventing itself. That said, I also accept that many do not see <br clear="none">
>>> science as an actual/active creative process. For me, it is <br clear="none">
>>> different. I think the core issue here is ?cognitive processes?= <br clear="none">
>>> psychology?, a notoriously . . . .uhhh, I am not sure of the best <br clear="none">
>>> word to use here, so I will just say 'difficult topic'.<br clear="none">
>>><br clear="none">
>>> And thanks for the lovely taoist imagery . . . taoism being the last <br clear="none">
>>> word in Natural Psychology.<br clear="none">
>>><br clear="none">
>>> Marcus<br clear="none">
>>> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">
>>> Fis mailing list<br clear="none">
>>> <a shape="rect" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
>>> <a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899321420%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PL2BSRYoOlpxxGs0VHfqX53h5k0oM6587nvYT%2BzeVyM%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
>>> ----------<br clear="none">
>>> INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL<br clear="none">
>>><br clear="none">
>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo <br clear="none">
>>> gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br clear="none">
>>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci?n sobre como tratamos sus datos en <br clear="none">
>>> el siguiente enlace: <br clear="none">
>>> <a shape="rect" href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsicuz.unizar.es%2Finformacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899328193%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DL0hZ6TBa7D6oZerKanfDX3qEFV%2B%2BtN5lclctNZ4%2FxM%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
>>> Recuerde que si est? suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse <br clear="none">
>>> de baja desde la propia aplicaci?n en el momento en que lo desee.<br clear="none">
>>> <a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899334885%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=BUksu6D6EdZcx8wRJP%2FojBgOdrGehJAA9fRxJhDObKU%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
>>> ----------<br clear="none">
>><br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">
> Fis mailing list<br clear="none">
> <a shape="rect" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
> <a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899341339%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=PbvlTLcHXmD6VbjB0ech%2BJjWFLELFYUGiycAGJJCfhQ%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
> ----------<br clear="none">
> INFORMACI?N SOBRE PROTECCI?N DE DATOS DE CAR?CTER PERSONAL<br clear="none">
><br clear="none">
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br clear="none">
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci?n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:<a shape="rect" href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsicuz.unizar.es%2Finformacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899347768%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qOIwyLxri99mlQqjq%2Bami%2Bwrk7MzmByB1FEk5b6bY7c%3D&reserved=0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsicuz.unizar.es%2Finformacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899347768%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=qOIwyLxri99mlQqjq%2Bami%2Bwrk7MzmByB1FEk5b6bY7c%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
> 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 clear="none">
> <a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899354059%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=foDXWwYfzolRVkokFjNS09AupSY%2Bp%2F2R7tFxtBQHvAg%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
> ----------<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
-------------- next part --------------<br clear="none">
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br clear="none">
URL: <<a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250115/d352f78b/attachment.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fpipermail%2Ffis%2Fattachments%2F20250115%2Fd352f78b%2Fattachment.html&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899361043%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=yIWKMbLKZKtPtHYLptd2OQxoNFcNPfI8%2FGQH5eVNNeY%3D&reserved=0</a>><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
------------------------------<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Subject: Digest Footer<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
_______________________________________________<br clear="none">
Fis mailing list<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=05%7C02%7C%7C3fc9a7aafd0842fd1df508dd358cc54a%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638725600899367662%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FXukIR3IrEhm7plpij60kqzvPZclIXQCDsVUIVKyEes%3D&reserved=0</a><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
------------------------------<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
End of Fis Digest, Vol 118, Issue 49<br clear="none">
************************************<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br clear="none">
Fis mailing list<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br clear="none">
----------<br clear="none">
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br clear="none">
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a shape="rect" href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br clear="none">
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.<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">
----------<br clear="none">
</blockquote></div></div></div></div>
</div></div><div class="ydp4a9d5fddyqt9388898530" id="ydp4a9d5fddyqt59477">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">Fis mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br clear="none">----------<br clear="none">INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br clear="none">Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a shape="rect" href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br clear="none">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.<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br clear="none">----------<br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>