<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Were such debates already finished by Popper (demarcation through falsification)? Or by Wittgenstein (Shut up - (if you run out of correct language))?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">I agree with Howard that math is just "one of many" but not "only" language. There exist, say, music and emotional gestures (such as what we just saw in the drama in the White House two days ago), dances, arts, architecture, etc. You count them.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">One Russian scientist said long ago that the wings of science are methodologies, and facts are like air. Without air, wings cannot work. Now, what is this thing called "fact"?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">It is the stable eigenstate reachable by our cognitive system. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Recently, the phenomenon of the LLM's tendency to confabulate has been highlighted. I think it is like a mirror for us to re-examine our cognitive system (and our rationality). How reliable is it, actually? </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Is anyone here interested in discussing possible types of rationality/science and the role/position of math and logic? In the context of "Information" or "Informatics", of course. But I tend to collect Informatics and Systemics and Cybernetics together in a 3-D or 4-D framework (adding time), at least as a thought experiment.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Best regards - Jason </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 5:00 AM Pedro C. Marijuán <<a href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">Dear FIS Colleagues,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">Some days ago there was
a thought-provoking exchange between two FISers which I was
incidentally following-- Howard Bloom and Andrei Igamberdiev.
The argument was about an essay --with a critical stance on the
vulgar use of the second law-- that Howard had written to be
published in the Journal BioSystems, the chief editor of which
is Andrei. They have allowed me to compile the whole exchange
(the initial essay is not included). Here it is:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1"><i><b>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</b></i></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1"><i><b>Andrei's comments
on Howard's manuscript:</b></i></font></p>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
Dear Howard,</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
I have read your manuscript with great interest. I like many
ideas and challenging points expressed in it. Your criticism of
the Second Law is based on important arguments that should be
analyzed in detail and evaluated by the scientific community.</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
However, as I mentioned in my previous letter, this style and
arrangement of the paper is not suitable for a journal
specializing in natural science such as BioSystems, and probably
for any other similar journal. It is more suitable for a
journal specializing in philosophy or a popular scientific
magazine discussing hot topics in modern science.</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
You are suggesting that the concept of entropy and the Second
Law are wrong completely. However, they work for ergodic
systems, i.e. the systems having the property that, given
sufficient time, they include or impinge on all points in a
given space and can be represented statistically by a reasonably
large selection of points. Definitely, the Universe as a whole
is not ergodic, and it may be possible to prove that living
systems are also not ergodic. Thus, the Second Law and the
concept of entropy have severe limitations that are often not
considered by scientists.</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
Robert Rosen discussed this idea but very briefly. In
particular, he mentioned that complexity is not the objective
property of the system but it is the characteristics arising
from its description (including the internal description by the
system itself). He criticized the concept of entropy from this
point. Recently, Stuart Kauffman attempted to limit the Second
Law and to formulate the Fourth Law that he is considering as
more general. You can check his papers (see, e.g., Kauffman, S.,
2022. Is There a Fourth Law for Non-Ergodic Systems That Do Work
to Construct Their Expanding Phase Space? Entropy (Basel)
24(10), 1383. <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.3390/e24101383__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!X_TnWreE2VnrNpXNmanG239L-iTIsfU9RUiO1BL80Mit-J9e3SqGppF5gLgMr140kwtoJ_KWPm2jrHSEhJJ7pfoUjIQr$" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/e24101383</a></font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
Thus, in my opinion, it is really important to analyze the
assumptions taken for the formulation of the Second Law and the
possible limitations connected to it. It is more productive to
concentrate on possible limitations of the Second Law Instead of
claiming that it is wrong. I don’t see this development in your
paper. The Law of Flamboyance is suggested vaguely without any
definite physical formulation. This presentation may be useful
for general philosophical discussion but not as an introduction
it as a new physical law. The paper contains many interesting
references to the debates of famous scientists, which would be
useful for a popular scientific publication, however, in its
current form it is not suitable for BioSystems or another
journal with a similar scope.</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
I am sorry for not being supportive at this time, but your
interesting essay does not fit the scope of BioSystems.</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
With best regards,</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">
Andrei</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1"><b>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</b></font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1"><i><b>Howard's
response: </b></i><br>
</font></div>
<div style="line-height:1.284;margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">andrei, hi,</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">thanks for an extremely thought provoking, generous,
and engaging turndown.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">i look forward to the next time we have an
opportunity to communicate.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">with warmth and oomph--howard<br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<p dir="ltr"><font face="Verdana,sans-serif" size="1">ps. here's what your extraordinarily knowledgeable
thoughts have prodded me to:</font></p>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:24px">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p dir="ltr"><font size="1">MIT
physicist and cosmologist Max Tegmark says that math
is the universe. and many believe that ideas without
a mathematical foundation are not science.</font></p>
<div><font size="1">Jesus had an opinion on this sort of
thing. he said about the strictness of the high
priests of his day, the sabbath was made for man, not
man for the sabbath. the same is true of mathematics
in science. math is a tool of science. science is
not a tool of mathematics. </font></div>
<div><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1">in other
words, often math helps us understand the cosmos. but
the living things in the cosmos vastly outstrip our
math. Newton was able to reduce the solar system to
math. but if darwn had been forced to mathematize his
origin of species, there would have been no
evolution. no darwinism. no origin of species.</font></div>
<div><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="1">which explains more, newton's
principia or darwin's origin? in reality, they are
both potent tools of understanding. but the number of
puzzles that neither of them can solve is vast. </font></div>
<div><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="1">each of them--Darwin's approach and
Newton's-- is far more limited than it imagines. and
math is far more limited in its powers than today's
scientific community thinks. </font></div>
<div><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1">it's
important to keep this in mind: newton's principia has
almost no equal signs. in other words, newton did not
have modern algebraic equations. he expressed his
laws with the math of his day: geometry,
ratios,diagrams, and verbal reasoning. today it would
be said that newton's principia is not sufficiently
mathematical to be taken as serious science.</font></div>
<div><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="1">we forget that the equation was only
invented in 1557 and only put to common use 80 years
later. in other words, our math is primitive. it's
the equivalent of the first collection of stone tools
3.2 million years ago, the oldowan stone toolkit. </font></div>
<div><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="1">the new developments in math 300 years
from now will startle us. but science will still be
mistaken if it imagines that all that we see and know
can be expressed in equations.</font></div>
</div>
<div><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1">tegmark is
wrong. the cosmos is not a product of math. math is a
product of the cosmos. and the most startling thing in
this universe, life, is ahead of the meager grasp of
equations by light-years.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1"><i><b>Andrei's
response:</b></i></font></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2">
Hi Howard,</font></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2">
thank you for your engaging response. I completely
agree with you regarding Max Tegmark. Together with
Joseph Brenner, I tried to express the views on
mathematics that are completely opposite to Tegmark's,
in our book "Philosophy in Reality" (Springer, 2021).
However, in the scientific discourse, it is difficult
to develop the framework to describe the origin of
mathematics as we use the reasoning that assumes the
existence of some formal structures before they
develop in reality. We can further discuss possible
solutions of this paradox.</font></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2">
I will look forward to our future communication. </font></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2">
With warmest regards,</font></div>
<font size="2">Andrei <br>
</font></div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div><font size="1">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<b><br>
</b></font>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1"><b><i>Final
Note: <br>
</i> </b></font>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1">What
Howard wrote to Andrei was turned into an article
and posted it on substack. The announcement of
that article on X got a quarter million views.</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1">see <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://howardxbloom.substack.com/p/why-math-must-not-godzilla-science__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!X_TnWreE2VnrNpXNmanG239L-iTIsfU9RUiO1BL80Mit-J9e3SqGppF5gLgMr140kwtoJ_KWPm2jrHSEhJJ7pccCyLRx$" rel="nofollow" style="letter-spacing:-0.02em" target="_blank">https://howardxbloom.substack.com/p/why-math-must-not-godzilla-science</a><br>
</font></div>
<div dir="ltr"><font size="1">------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p></p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
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>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>