<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Interesting. Reading it gave me one of those, “OH Crap! Why didn’t I thing of that?” moments. I now realize that I don’t know whether “fractality” is a descriptive concept (it presents a state of affairs that requires explanation) or an explanatory concept (gives an account of a state of affairs that has been presented) or a “tethered” concept, in which an explanation and a description are bound analytically to one another. George Williams once [wrongly] defined adaptation as “that which natural selection produces”. Thus Adaptation and Selection became tethered and statements of the form, “natural selection produces adaptation” became analytically, not empirically, true. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Is the fact of fractality tethered to an explanation of fractality? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Clark University<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jochen Fromm<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 5, 2020 6:52 AM<br><b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <Friam@redfish.com><br><b>Subject:</b> [FRIAM] The fractal dimension of group selection<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>We recently discussed the concept of a fractal dimension, and today morning I had the idea that we can apply it to the concept of group selection to measure how many dimensions an evolutionary system has. If you are interested take a look at<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://blog.cas-group.net/2020/07/the-fractal-dimension-of-group-selection/">http://blog.cas-group.net/2020/07/the-fractal-dimension-of-group-selection/</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-J.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>