<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Yes. The paradox of development is that it always gets where it’s going even though it doesn’t KNOW where its going. That’s what makes ca rules so enticing. Constructor theory sounds interesting. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>n<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Nick Thompson<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style='color:#0563C1'>https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><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>Jon Zingale<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 17, 2021 6:34 PM<br><b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] Wizards[<span style='font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif'>⚣</span>]?<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#333333'>"""</span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#333333'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><pre style='white-space:pre-wrap'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Oh, for instance: I tried to get development psychologist to think about the implication of Wolfram’s patterns. They just weren’t interested. Where’s the soul?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='white-space:pre-wrap'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>"""</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='white-space:pre-wrap'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>The first thing that crosses my mind is constructor theory and that got me wondering about support from the life-level community. It seems that one of the theories founders, Chiara Marletto, wrote a bit on the subject: </span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.0681.pdf">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.0681.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='white-space:pre-wrap'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>"""<br>Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory explains how the appearance of purposive design in the sophisticated adaptations of living organisms can have come about without their intentionally being designed. The explanation relies crucially on the possibility of certain physical processes: mainly, gene replication and natural selection.<br><br>In this paper I show that for those processes to be possible without the design of biological adaptations being encoded in the laws of physics, those laws must have certain other properties. The theory of what these properties are is not part of evolution theory proper, and has not been developed, yet without it the neo-Darwinian theory does not fully achieve its purpose of explaining the appearance of design.<br><br>To this end I apply Constructor Theory’s new mode of explanation to provide an exact formulation of the appearance of design, of no-design laws, and of the logic of self-reproduction and natural selection, within fundamental physics. I conclude that self-reproduction, replication and natural selection are possible under no-design laws, the only non-trivial condition being that they allow digital information to be physically instantiated. This has an exact characterisation in the constructor theory of information. I also show that under no-design laws an accurate replicator requires the existence of a “vehicle” constituting, together with the replicator, a self-reproducer.<br>"""</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></pre><pre style='white-space:pre-wrap'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></pre><pre style='white-space:pre-wrap'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Is this at all in the ballpark of your thinking on the matter?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></pre></div></div></div></body></html>