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

[Carl Tollander]

Yes, Nick, that.  Sorry to hijack the thread.  Carry on.

Carl


On Nov 6, 2017 10:30, "Nick Thompson" <nickthompson at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to
> shoe-horn it in.
>
> Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to
> Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a
> reference to Kuhn,  I really liked Sabine's rant.  High time.
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
> To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles
> Sanders Peirce
>
> Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you
> suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled
> falsifiable noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for
> similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the
> light's better by the lamp post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that
> entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire
> space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?
>
>
> On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> > Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> >
> > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> > ysics.html?m=1
> >
> >
> > On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:
> gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a
> similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to
> find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to
> ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> >
> >     But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept
> of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of
> possible states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and
> Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the
> proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set
> of states or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you
> posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but
> England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying
> much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with
> England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my
> stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
> >
> >     If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then
> all 3 seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?
>
>
> --
> ☣ 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
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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/20171106/d246e37a/attachment.html>