[FRIAM] Wizards[⚣]?

[Roger Critchlow]

Cmon, man, it gets where it gets as a result of going one way or another at
any number of intermediate decision points.  Remember the sticklebacks?
Two freshwater phenotypes, shallow water and deep water forms.  They look
different, feed differently, live in different parts of the lake, and are
reproductively isolated.  Introduce one form into a new lake, and the other
form appears after a generation or two.  To which phenotype did the
development KNOW it was going?

-- rec --


On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:23 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> n
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jon Zingale
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2021 6:34 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Wizards[⚣]?
>
>
>
> """
>
> 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?
>
> """
>
> 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: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.0681.pdf
>
> """
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> """
>
>
>
> Is this at all in the ballpark of your thinking on the matter?
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20211119/114496dd/attachment.html>