[FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Fri Nov 3 16:27:35 EDT 2017

Hi Glen, et al.,

I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my
> thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin,
> England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!

I'll give it an equally feeble try. 😋 Actually, I see these three
scientists as "groping" at something fundamentally the same: "How can
the *appearance
*of design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?"
Well, something like that.  So, this joint concern seems (to me) to fall
out naturally from the previous discussion concerning *teleonomy *or even
*purpose*.--the former being an explanation (or description? See later
discussion below.) or processes without *intention *and the later implying
intentionality of a "maker" or "efficient cause."

*Constructor Theory*, which could have been better described by Marletto,
IMHO, provokes the idea of constraints and "recipes," both being emergent
properties consistent with a Newtonian view of the universe as a physical
system that "began" with initial conditions (constraints) and laws of
motion--notwithstanding *how *it began. Through the interaction of emergent
particles as the universe evolved, new constraints emerged and interacted
to cause the emergence of even more constraints. One commenter did a pretty
good job to help Marletto along with the explanation; Summarized:

Without constraints, there would be a vast sea of undifferentiated and
> unlimited potential outcomes, but nothing would ever emerge to become
> ‘reality’
>  ...
>

> Yet where anything is possible, it is possible for a simple constraint to
> emerge. And as several constraints emerge and interact, they start to force
> ‘things’ to ‘behave’ in a certain way, rather than being equally spread
> across every possibility
>  ...
>

>  Within that reality, new types of more directly ‘constructive’
> constraints can emerge. Perhaps a particular molecular structure, which
> having occurred enables other types of reactions that were previously
> highly unlikely.  And each of these changes the probability curves,
> increasing the likelihood that a next-stage constraint will eventually
> emerge, shaping and ‘constructing’ the stuff around it, further changing
> and channelling the possible outcomes, and setting the groundwork which
> will enable yet more complex ‘constructors’ (and ‘constructeds’) to
> emerge.  Eventually, these constraints/constructors shape reality to such
> an extent that very highly complex outcomes which “should” be utterly
> inconceivable in a pure-possibility-laws-model of probability are instead
> absolutely inevitable. We see many examples: simple life emerges, radically
> changing the behaviour of molecular interactions; eventually a new
> ‘constructor’ emerges that enables complex life, which fundamentally
> changes how these organisms interact; complex life itself enables the
> development of specialised organs that provide sensory and motor and
> intra-cellular communications functionality; sentient, motile life enables
> the development of purposive behaviour and (potentially) basic
> consciousness; etc.
>  ...
>

> At each stage, a new step - however infinitely unlikely before - becomes
> possible. Where will it end? Who knows, we seem to be only 13.8 billion
> years into the process, with probably several trillion to go. Each
> successive major development step seems to accelerate the capability and
> complexity of the emerging system by several magnitudes. Effectively, it
> really does look as though absolutely nothing is forever impossible (unless
> it contravenes the laws of physics, and even then … maybe we - or something
> down the line, at any rate - can eventually change them, creating another
> universe entirely?)"

*Jeremy England*'s *New Physics of Life* is really an attempt to explain
how life emerging from inert matter was inevitable. I have read the same
conclusion somewhere (?)
<http://nautil.us/issue/20/creativity/the-strange-inevitability-of-evolution>
for the inevitability (and the remarkability) of the emergence of eukaryote
life from prokaryote life ... I think I remember Nick Lane as saying it was
a one-off (anyone?).  I seem to remember this because it caused
immediate cognizant dissonance within my own mind. Anyway, Constructor
Theory would say that it was certainly possible, which seems
tautological at this point.  England's Theory should resonate with students
of complexity science and anyone interested in Nobel-Prize-winning physical
chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics
and self-organizing dissipative structures (or physicist Erwin
Schrödinger's 1944 book "What is Life?").  All of these, including
Constructor Theory, are attempts at explaining the emergence of biological
entities from the perspective of physics and self-organizing systems. A
universal metabolism of sorts? Grand homeostasis?  Heraclitus' *Logos*?

*Lee Smolin*, if you follow all of his work, sees physics as largely being
stalled and in trouble.  I tend to agree with this lament, especially with
the rise of String Theory as some kind of Grand Unification Theory or
Theory of Everything that is largely unfalsifiable and unpredictive. Physicist
Lisa Randall also seems to think that such a theory hardly explains life
<https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729000.300-a-theory-of-everything-wont-provide-all-the-answers/>,
for example. In the current context, Smolin has taken the theory of
evolution to the level of cosmology in explaining how the initial
conditions of the universe--the "tuned" parameters--became what they
were--so filling in what Constructor Theory leaves out.  However, Smolin
seems to also channel Heraclitus (and Henri Bergson and Alfred North
Whitehead) where he sees no permanence in nature ... even with the laws of
physics. Everything is a process (goal-directed? ... this is where it gets
interesting.). And, there is (explained) both variability and replication
in his Cosmological Natural Selection Theory, just as we see at the level
of biology.

it's important to avoid putting the cart before the horse.  It's not that
> the universe is tailored to produce life.  It's that the universe is what
> it is and life-like systems just happen to be a very likely outcome in this
> universe.

This concern brings us back to the issue of teleonomy and the rise of
apparent design in a universe that exhibits a no-design physics. Unless one
believes in Intelligent Design--the model underlying religion--or
Aristotle's efficient cause (a force outside of the system) and final cause
(intention or goal) model--the model underlying pre-19th century science
<https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/was-aristotle-an-advancement-in-western-science.818947/>--for
where the universe is going then I think you, Smolin, England, Deutsch, and
I are on the same page. Teleonomy was a term invented by Colin Pittendrigh
in 1958 "to free that study [of goal-directed processes] from the
encumbrances of *teleological *explanations ["The Misappropriation of
Teleonomy
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302329059_The_Misappropriation_of_Teleonomy>,"
Nicholas S. Thompson, 1987]."

This is interesting in the context of the Constructor Theory idea of a
"recipe."  Also, Jacques Monod in his *Chance and Necessity* [1971] refined
the idea of teleonomy in biology to preserve the scientific concept of
objectivity in biology (and allow him to wax philosophical about apparent
design in biology) that:

... nevertheless obliges us to recognize the teleonomic character of living
> organisms, to admit that in their structure and performance they act
> projectively--realize and pursue a purpose.  Here therefore, at least in
> appearance, lies a profound epistemological contradiction.  In fact the
> central problem of biology lies with this very contradiction, which, if it
> is only apparent, must be resolved; or else proven to be utterly insoluble,
> if that should turn out indeed to be the case [Chater I, "Of Strange
> Objects," *Chance an Necessity*, pp 21-22].

Ernst Mayr, with the same concern as Monad and Pittendrigh, in (Mayr, E.
(1974) “Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis.” Boston Studies in the
Philosophy of Science, Volume XIV, pages 91 -117) refined the definition of
teleonomy
<http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/teleological-and-teleonomic-newer.html>
(original
paper is behind a paywall).  Mayr introduces the idea of a "program," which
would seem to be cognitively fungible with Contractor Theory's (digital)
"recipe" (or "baked in knowledge").  Nick explains in "The Misappropriation
of Teleonomy" that Mayr sees a program as the defining characteristic of
teleonomic processes. But, Mayr sees evolution as obviously *not *such a
teleonomic process as it is obviously *not *controlled by a program ...
presumably, because it is obviously *not *goal-directed.  Nick seems
perplexed, given Mayr's definition of teleonomic processes, as to why Mayr
excludes evolution.  But, I think the point Nick is making has more to do
with Mayr's circular reasoning. Nick sees teleonomy as a "*descriptive
study of organizational properties of processes and structures without
reference to any particular explanatory system.*"  I think I agree with
this, as teleonomy is a description of a feature of evolution and, thus,
not a mechanism that begat (or explain the *how *of) that feature. [note:
to be teleological, would be to describe the *why *(intention) of that
feature ... thus, the concern.]

So, fair enough.  But, could the emerging works of Smolin, but especially
Deutsch|Marletto, and England be used to explain "How can the *appearance *of
design emerge (in biology) in a no-design (in physics) universe?"
Constructor Theory seems to be trying to construct a bridge to span the
knowledge gap between (no-design) physics and (teleonomic) biology:

Thinking within the prevailing conception has led some physicists –
> including the 1963 Nobel Prize-winner Eugene Wigner and the late US-born
> quantum physicist David Bohm – to conclude that the laws of physics must be
> tailored to produce biological adaptations in general. This is amazingly
> erroneous. If it were true, physical theories would have to be patched up
> with ‘design-bearing’ additions, in the initial conditions or the laws of
> motion, or both, and the whole explanatory content of Darwinian evolution
> would be lost.

> So, how can we explain physically how replication and self reproduction
> are possible, given laws that contain no hidden designs, if the prevailing
> conception’s tools are inadequate?

> By applying a new fundamental theory of physics: *constructor theory*.

So, to the list of Smolin, Deutsch|Marletto, and England, add Monad,
Pittendrigh, and Mayr as pioneers in 'trying' to construct
*explanatory *systems
that can explain teleonomic processes in an unintentional universe.

Well, that's enough for now. Lunch ...

Again, (only) fun stuff to consider.  Hope it helps your review the "living
systems as entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting.

Cheers,

Robert

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:59 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for posting your intro materials to purpose of the universe.  I
> haven't looked at them, yet, but will (probably next week).
>
> But since I'm making a feeble attempt to review the "living systems as
> entropy maximizers" theme for another meeting, the below paragraph of yours
> tweaked me.  It strikes me that Smolin's "maximal variety" (e.g. [⛤])
> conception meshes well with England's conception of physical (non-living)
> adaptation, as well as Constructor Theory's "any non-impossible recipe".
> The first two (Smolin and England) seem to be intuitionistic in that they
> imply a recipe (follow the path with the most options), whereas
> Deutsch/Marletto are (perhaps) more classical (in logic/math terms) by
> allowing any recipe that doesn't contradict known constraints.
>
> I *think* it's a mistake to read Smolin's conception as implied by the
> Marletto quote, which was about Bohm and Wigner.  I'm ignorant of what Bohm
> and Wigner actually suggested.  But Smolin seems to propose that things
> like stars exhibit (some) similar properties to living systems, especially
> in their ability to "maintain themselves as constant source of light and
> heat", despite the high entropy bath in which they sit.  So, when
> considering things like cosmological constants and how they seem "tuned for
> life" (e.g. [⛧]), it's important to avoid putting the cart before the
> horse.  It's not that the universe is tailored to produce life.  It's that
> the universe is what it is and life-like systems just happen to be a very
> likely outcome in this universe.
>
> I'd *love* it if you (or anyone) would argue with me and help me refine my
> thinking or, better yet, change my mind and be able to explain how Smolin,
> England, and Deutsch/Marletto are fundamentally different!
>
>
> [⛤] http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/150602938.pdf
> [⛧] https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0702115.pdf
>
> On 10/29/2017 12:57 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> >
> > In the context of *information *being another physically fundamental
> entity in the universe along with *energy *and *matter*, I brought up David
> Deutsch <https://www.edge.org/video/constructor-theory>'s Constructor
> Theory <https://aeon.co/essays/how-constructor-theory-solves-the-
> riddle-of-life> at the FRIAM as a very recent contender to build a new
> physics based on this uber-reductionist viewpoint. I haven't heard much
> more progress on this over the last two years and I think Deutsch is
> relying on his postdoctoral research associate, Chiara Marletto, to bring
> this into the domain of biology.  Constructor Theory is to address this
> conclusion: "The conclusion that the laws of physics must be tailored to
> produce biological adaptations is amazingly erroneous."  So this theory
> would indeed compete with Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection Theory.
> But, Constructor Theory might be very much in line with Jeremy
> England's Physics Theory of Life
> > <https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-for-a-
> physics-theory-of-life-20170726/> (Note: this is from /QuantaMagazine/,
> which we also discussed) and, perhaps with Nobel-Prize-winning physical
> chemist Ilya Prigogine views derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> and self-organizing dissipative structures.  Fun stuff to read about ...
>
> --
> ☣ gⅼеɳ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171103/bbb7a9b8/attachment.html>