[FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 190, Issue 1

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Is the size of the universe invariant across iterations, though?  I.e. is the old universe, after the iteration, now adjacent to the current universe, just in the opposite direction?  Or is there some sense that the current universe is expanding to incorporate that unit slice of the adjacent universe?

It seems it would have to be the latter for any kind of co-creation.

On 4/1/19 1:22 PM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> Jon, I don't think anything can be prestatable in the adjacent possible, including what I call the "third space" and you guys call the phase space.  As to the modal realism, maybe.  We begin the journey starting with the "Actual."
> 
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:55 AM Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     It would appear that in some contexts, describing adjacent possibility as being
>     dependent upon a  prescribed `phase space ` misses something. Perhaps it is more
>     desirable to imagine that agents and worlds co-create, and that possibilities emerge
>     locally in the process.
> 
>     To these ends, it seems reasonable to me that we can characterize adjacent possibles as
>     a kind of  /modal realism/ a`la David Lewis. Sure, there are a number of philosophical
>     objections to be made and Wikipedia will outline a good number of them for interested parties.
>     Still, my remark was not meant to be meaningless. I do think that such modeling is a potentially
>     useful technology.
> 
>     As Dan Piponi outlines, in an inspired moment of blogging, Evaluating Cellular Automata is Comonadic <http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/12/evaluating-cellular-automata-is.html>.
>     Unlike classical conceptions of cellular automata, it appears likely that generalizing to the level of
>     comonad may allow us to escape `pre-stating the phase space` and by it's very nature the associated
>     co-bind operator develops locally. Sure my previous comment was pithy, but not meant to troll.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ