THE SIMPLICITY OF THE COMPLEX SYSTEMS - essay about origin of Life

I don't know what a progress physics made last years but according Einstein's relativity we were unable to distiguish gravity force from force due acceleration. So I think gravity is not good example considering the fact that grativity constant can probably change during time (according Dirac and some other nowadays scientists too). This is interesting. It sounds like some ancient theories that in microcosmos is hidden macrocosmos.
Anyway in time being I am convinced that studying lower levels (reductionism) did not help in biology to underestand higher ones. Adolf Portmann dismissed such studies too - studying what is behind scene/stage doesn't help us to underestand what is Shakspeare play about either. Studying genome sequences do not explain mimicry patterns on wings - their meaning, their evolution etc. I have written about this in thread Mimicry and neodarwinism.

Your article is much more interesting as your introductory post. Its really very incentive."Internal forces" is something I agree fully with as the source of animal evolution. Despite of darwinistic mainstraim such opinion were held by prominent biologists like Punnett, Berg, Heikertinger and John Davison nowadays.You extented consciousness beyond living systems. It is an old idea in new clothes but I have never imagine it can be applicable to chemistry and atoms nowadays. Very inspiring indeed.

The topic introduced by miosim is very interesting. I am surprised that so few answers it induced. Even Brad didn't address the problem.What's more even Russian marxists during deep communism (let say 1960-1980) introduced often "structuralistic" conception into problem of evolution to explain it's complexity. They were darwinists in a peculiar dialectic way. They tried to apply marxistic mantra of "dialectic contradiction" in living organisms as another source of their evolution.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : spelling of course

Very interesting Brad. Need time to digest it. (Link too.)

quote:

---

The qualitative vs quantitative distinction narrated by Gladyshev speaks to how difficult it is to get a whole downward causal but not necessarily emergent (regardless of my personal ontology).

---

That reminds me of the pillar of the marxistic teaching of (somehow very mysterious) "change of quantity into quality". This was probably Hegel concept anyway. Reading book on evolution written by prominent Russain and Slovak marxists-structuralist (educated in math and physics very well - many of them were academics btw.) from around 1980 denying from materialisticc point of view even the 2nd law in living organisms surprised me very.Maybe Miosim would response.