[FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

[Nick Thompson]

Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to shoe-horn it in.  

Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a reference to Kuhn,  I really liked Sabine's rant.  High time. 

Nick 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ?
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles Sanders Peirce

Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant.  Are you suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled falsifiable noodles at the wall?  Or are you suggesting my hunt for similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the light's better by the lamp post)?  Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate?


On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> Hey, don't hold back, Sabine.
> 
> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph
> ysics.html?m=1
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     OK.  So, I  hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to ascribe teleology (teleonomic).  You're right that I agree up to that point.
> 
>     But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of possible states surrounding any given system.  In 2 of them (England and Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization.  In the 3rd (Marletto), the proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set of states or distributions of those states.  In your prior post, you posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but England *contra* Smolin.  My response was that Smolin seems to be saying much the same thing as England.  So, if Marletto is consistent with England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin.  And my stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin.
> 
>     If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then all 3 seem quite consistent.  What am I missing?


--
☣ gⅼеɳ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove