<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Steve writes:<o:p></o:p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MN0PR11MB598567E21EBEF935C3F86B6CC5C22@MN0PR11MB5985.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white"><
</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#191919;background:white">She
starts out with simple Materialist/Vitalist contrasts but
alludes (nearly) to Marcus latest snark: <i>"</i></span><i>
Simulate from first principles: <a
href="https://www.vasp.at/" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.vasp.at/</a>
><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt">What’s odd is this idea
there is something about nature that can’t be described in
a repeatable way, such that a digital computer could
simulate it, in principle. Paradoxically, to defend
that idea, one would have to describe an experiment that
could illustrate counter examples -- concepts that could
not be said. It is obfuscation by construction.</span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Absolutely "in principle"...</p>
<p>and wonderfully "concepts that could not be said" returns us to
the domain of "effing the ineffable"...<br>
</p>
<p>What I'm fascinated with in the case of this work (assembly
theory in general?) is the (potential/aspirational/proposed)
qualitative difference between things which are possible vs things
which are probable and perhaps a whole pantheon of
subclassifications of types or orders of (contingent) probability
(might be something like Buddhist "conditioned phenomena" and
"dependent origination). <br>
</p>
<p>I think I take her point to be that there are things expressible
in nature (specifically "life" in this case) which have not been
and will not be described in a repeatable way until they are...
and that there are informational (fully deterministic) processes
which don't exist until they do. To wit: Molecular formation and
then chemical reactions which couldn't exist until they could
(physical regimes below plasma) and pre-biotic organic chemistry
dressing the stage for proto-biological processes to become A)
possible and B) likely and C) in-some-sense-inevitable. The
autocatalysis and autopoesis of self-organizing systems (at all
levels of abstraction and complexity) being salient I think.</p>
<p>I'd not claim that the most complicated (and complex) systems in
existence can't be simulated en-silico (more aptly en-digitalia?)
but rather that as each new phase of organization of matter and
energy that emerges as the universe unfolds is
"non-prestateable"... only that it is unlikely (different than
entirely impossible) that the complexity (and therefore
mean-time-to-discovery/expression/autocatalysis).</p>
<p>While evolutionary processes of life seem to have
achieved/discovered/emerged "eyes" (sight organs) several (11?)
times, so much (all) of life (and other complex adaptive systems)
occurs at the tip of the current scaffolding in place.</p>
<p>This topic explodes (flying off in all directions at once as I am
wont to do) out into the questions implied in daveW's work on
evolution V engineering (in Business Systems). My understandiing
of assembly theory is at best nascent/formative/inchoate so I
won't try to push it any further here. I suspect that there are
several here who have a better grasp on assembly theory and
perhaps their own nascent thoughts about these questions
(probability V possibility) and information-theoretic measures of
emergent complexity than I do... perhaps I am just "tossing a
word salad" here (to mix metaphors win a way Doug Roberts would be
proud)?</p>
<p>ericS, jonZ, REC, SG, yourself and gepr all come to mind (I know
there are more I'm not naming) as folks who have been raising and
fighting dogs in very salient domains for their whole career. Me,
I mostly just bet on them.<br>
</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MN0PR11MB598567E21EBEF935C3F86B6CC5C22@MN0PR11MB5985.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a>
to (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>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>