<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
And in yet another a parallel (tangetial?) thread on QM, free will,
and Life.<br>
I think this is an *interestingly different* or at least
*complementary* ontological commitment:<br>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory,
mesoscopic anthropic principle and biological
evolution</b></p>
<p><i>Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Realizing the
multiplicity
of worlds it provides an opportunity of explanation of some
important
events which are assumed to be extremely improbable. The
Mesoscopic
Anthropic Principle suggested here is aimed to explain
appearance of
such events which are necessary for emergence of Life and
Mind. It
is complementary to the Cosmological Anthropic Principle
explaining
the fine tuning of fundamental constants. We briefly discuss
various
possible applications of the Mesoscopic Anthropic Principle
including
the Solar Eclipses and assembling of complex molecules.
Besides, we
address the problem of Time’s Arrow in the framework of the
ManyWorlds Interpretation. We suggest the recipe for
disentangling of quantities defined by fundamental physical
laws and by an anthropic selection. The main emphasis is made
on the problem of the biological
evolution.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5545.pdf">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5545.pdf</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/17/20 1:44 PM, Steve Smith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:70caa8b1-be10-7e43-90a5-d250ca20f888@swcp.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Despite my reputation for doing otherwise, I don't *intend* to
splatter this already splattered thread, but I can't help
observing that from what little biosemiotics I am familiar with,
it seems like what we are hashing significantly overlaps their
core tenets.<br>
</p>
<p>From Biosemiotics (Hoffmeyer, von Uexkull):</p>
<p> “[i]n a world where nothing was predictable, Life would be
out of a job” (Hoffmeyer, Signs 28).</p>
<p><a
href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Signs_of_Meaning_in_the_Universe/L5nSVthCFzUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22on+nature%27s+tendency+to+acquire+habits%22&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.google.com/books/edition/Signs_of_Meaning_in_the_Universe/L5nSVthCFzUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22on+nature%27s+tendency+to+acquire+habits%22&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p> "Meaning is the guiding star that biology must follow. The
rule of causality is a poor guide: causal relationships deal
only with antecedents and consequences, thereby completely
concealing from us broad biological interrelationships and
interactions11 (Meaning 43)." </p>
</blockquote>
<p><a
href="https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/viewFile/30210/21688#:~:text=In%20the%20relation%20between%20the,star%20that%20biology%20must%20follow."
moz-do-not-send="true">https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/viewFile/30210/21688#:~:text=In%20the%20relation%20between%20the,star%20that%20biology%20must%20follow.</a></p>
<p>My summary of the issues is roughly that what makes "life"
unique from all other forms/organizations of matter is the
*apparent* ability/goal of sensing/predicting/acting. <br>
</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/17/20 12:29 PM, ∄ uǝlƃ wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5b155556-c552-ab87-cb51-76720f7da2a8@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Yes! That's an excellent example of when faith is useful. I've argued that that particular usage isn't canonical, though. The canon I learned was that faith is a truncation of inference useful in many types of circumstance. In the end, it boils down to let's just get on with it and see what happens ... as opposed to hand-wringing and worrying - analysis paralysis. I also think it plays an important role in hypothesis formation. E.g. if we take physics *seriously*, there must be some thing, XYZ, that plays the role of a magnetic monopole. Such "taking seriously" is an act of (revocable) faith. I.e. you don't have to stop the presses and derive everything from first principles ever day all day, arguing about fundamental concepts ... you just get on with it and see what happens. Relatedly, the "shut up and calculate" accusation is really a strawman. Everyone *wants* to go deeper. But many of us have jobs, and grass to mow, and children to raise, etc. We can't spend all our time thinking about the One True Meaning of "free will".
On 6/17/20 11:09 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Maybe this has a lot to do with why people have "faith", they just get tired of trying to figure it all out, and it is so much easier to accept what a large group of your peers tells you. I think true wisdom starts when one realizes those limitations.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>