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

If you see some format in a post that interests you, one can copy the code used to produce it but clicking on the button at the bottom of each post. There are also resources on the home page of EVC.These boxes are made by placing one's content between the following "["qs"]"place content here"["/qs"]". You do not use the "quote marks. I added also the bold here. It is done the same way except "b&/b" are used instead.Click on peek, copy to your clipboard the area of interest, delete the other posters content and insert yours. That's all there is to it.

quote:

---

“When chemical ingredients are mixed together the resultant compounds (Whole) has a property that cannot be found in the original ingredients”. However the underlying chemical reactions in these examples are completely reducible to basic chemistry and physics and nothing unexplained emerges in this case. So, why an explanation of chemical reactions need an Emergence semantic is a mystery to me.

---

Well in the 80s Stuart Kaufmann was invited to Cornell by Simon Levin before they collaborated on the use of numerical methods and the Wrightian Adaptive Lanscape (1987) and Simon had me help Stuart with the preparation of his transparencies.I walked with Stu over to the Baker Hall where he spoke of his “auto catalytic” sets and I saw emerge a shock over the faces of the chemists of not having thought a simple set of chemicals may have properties NOT contained in the sum of the individual reactions separately. This experience pretty much dissuaded me from any belief in “emergence” of the kind that uses chemistry to buttress claims pretty much as Miosim thought.The reason I did not write on the topic directly was because the notion of the whole being larger than the sum of its parts, in terms of downward causation from a higher level of organization, IS NOT NECESSARILY, the same thing as a conceptually linked percept with which those asserting emergence find sufficient for some philosophical purpose.During the walk over with the transparencies that were about to be shown to the chemists at Cornell, I spoke rather hurriedly with Dr. Kaufmann about my own interests in finding applications of the notion of actual infinity to populations of creatures. Stuart knew what mathematical entity I spoke of, but had no idea how it might be applied. At this point I told him that Simon thought it was not something I should be thinking of, if I was him. But Stuart Kaufmann immediately said that if thinking of actual infinity actually helped me to think in terms of theoretical biology then I SHOULD continue to think about it. Simon had already decided that my use of incidence geometry to change Euclid’s axioms in morphology as to present a view of the whole is more than the sum of it’s parts was “too philosophical for him”. Earlier Von Weisacker, who spoke on the use of actual infinity in quantum mechanics was quite impressed with my facility expressing what was Cantors and not Aristotle’s notion. You see to think of actual infinity one has to have a potential infinite whole and then simply postulate the NEXT thing thereafter. This is a mathematical example of the whole is greater than the sum. But you see if one ONLY was thinking in terms of chemistry Miosim may have a point about there being no need for any such whole to be greater than *some* sum.Well, at the time I had thought that Betrand Russell telescoping the problem of Cantor’s wholes to being one of paradoxs'' meant nonmyopically to be that symbolic logicians had some kinds of systems to denote what I was able to get across with Kaufmann and Von Weisacker but after Gladyshev contacted me I realize now I was niave. The problem is a simple one. I told Simon to see the complex as simple. That is all there is to it. Simon could not.How to relate Euclid’s axioms possibly modified to respect this discursivity of an actual infinite I think has probably been sublimated by me into my panbiogeographic axioms
http://axiompanbiog.com/aboutus.aspx
so I did not feel that I could address the topic specifically as Miosism framed it.You see I have no need for emergence but I still find organisms supervienent on the individual parts(whether reductionistic in Mioism and Kaufmann’s sense or my own logical atoms) and hence contrary to Dawkins’ view. 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). Gladyshv did not use actual infinity however but simply Gibb’s plenuum. So I really was not sure whether my own ideas are hidden because they are my own or if they apply to whatever properties Miosim connoted. One of the issues is if “behavior” is part of his idea of emergence or not. Behavior is not such for a chemist necessarily but it may be for a biologist etc. And then there is Kant’s difference of the mathematically and the dynamically sublime . .

I have no idea how much "dialectical materialism" influenced Dr. Gladsyhev if at all while I am aware a little about how Richard Lewontin intended it. Georgi Gladyshev tries to use "phenomenology" to bring Gibbs' Yale out of the doldrums and so it may be a philosophical difference of Husserl and logos rather than Hegel (thesis-antithesis) at play here, where one might Aufhebung (I dont know the German word that Hegel used and Derrida continued) but Miosim may not approve. We will have to see.

If the water is biological or biology is the object of the question then blaming a sound aspect of human physiology as recieving a system among some sum of "elements" and interactions rather than your preferred sum of interactibility seems to affect a conflation of any "increase" in forms vs "increase" in size IF both genes and atoms are considered material therefor.The quotes on said increase are provided by Gould quoting Darwin in the his "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" but refer as best I can intellectualize to the following use case:

quote:

---

THE AMERICAN NATURALIST Vol.LXVIII "Evolutionary Relative Growth In The Titanotheres by Dr. A. H. Hersh

---

Therefore unless you restrict your thought to H20 rather than water among lipids and ions organically I can not agree that there is some human error here. I would have not a problem understanding your sum rather than the one that includes elements and nucelons and quarks etc (Kant's notion of "community") except that one would have to KNOW the information content of genes vs. atoms per whole individual organims WITHIN the economy of places available on Earth and THIS we do not know at all today. If you think otherwise I would be happy to hear.If by "elements" you are simply arguing against Wolfram's dissection of the same scientific experience, I may not disagree with you.Edited by Brad McFall, : footnote and thumb print

That is fine.When you wrote
"-“A WHOLE COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED USING PROPERTIES OF ITS ELEMENTS”"
can the would "can" replace "could"?When you use the word "could" I do not know if you are referring to anything I wrote or if it meant to be associated with your other sentence. Wolfram
Wolfram Demonstrations Project
and other sites,
seems to think that a whole could be thus explained.Are you a logical positivist??Are you familiar with Gold's ideas in linguistics??
http://www.lps.uci.edu/...lications/Johnson.GoldsTheorem.pdf
I think I can demonstrate to you that a fininte to an infinite baseline representation
http://axiompanbiog.com/hierarchy.aspx
can be learned even if an infinite language cannot. Memorization works here where it might not for the child learning to open the same box.If you give me some time I will show this synthesis of already completed analysis on my web site. If you think however that there is something wrong with me and not our use of quoting there is nothing I can say anymore. You need not give up on me so easily.

I was objecting to you your removal of “elements” from your SYSTEM ‘ in message 20 during your attempt to justify using the phrase “A WHOLE COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED USING PROPERTIES OF ITS ELEMENTS” rather than "THE WHOLE IS MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS" if I understand you correctly this time.Thus I could not tell when you used the words “could not”, whether you were saying that any whole I tried to write about in this thread could not be whole or if you meant essentially the same phrase as, “A whole can not be explained using the properties of its elements”. I had suspected that this was simply a difference in English as a first language. The problem for me is that it is phrased in the "past tense". I did not find the example in Corning but I see he has it phrased that way. I DO NOT grant organacists the luxuray perhaps afforded by Corning of saying that (the) a (biological) whole IS NOW (since 50s-70s)no longer explained by the parts or not a simple sum without elements. I think that is revisionary to some extent and hopeful thinking. If there were no Dawkins or Wolfram it might be a true statement but we still have both today.I am definitely not as holistic as Corning
Page Not Found - University of Chicago PressI was fingering through this book and almost bought it last week but decided that I probably would not be able to find any use for his words. I guess I can look into it again. Besides, looking at the PDF you referred to shows that whatever evolution Corning is involved in has to go through Mayr’s use of “why” (ultimate)and “how”(proximate) which really can be got a-round (French biologists have done so) with a proper discussion of “actual” and “possible”).I think I understand more cleaerly now, “where you are coming from”. You probably have more in common with Martin than me.I would probably need to rewrite(above link) Corning’s

quote:

---

11. Biological Adaptation in Human Sciences: A Basic Needs Approach
Part III - From Thermodynamics and Information Theory to Thermoeconomics and Control Information
12. To Be or Entropy: Thermodynamics, Information, and Life Revisited
13. Thermoeconomics: Beyond the Second Law

---

because I do not feel there need be anything “subversive” in a more holistic approach than Dawkins or Wolfram. By making a system all interaction and no elements deprives my intution of much I use often.And looking a little further into your linked PDF I see "why" I am less holistic than Corning. Corning wrote

quote:

---

Russell, for instance, argued that analysis "enables us to arrive at a structure such thatthe properties of the complex can be inferred from the properties of the parts"

---

Russell really didnt "argue" this. This was just how he approached NATURE (REALLY THIS WORD) from logical atomism. Russell's "analysis" can be brought further. That is what I am doing. But he also had different uses of the word "simples" and "simplex". Anyway particulars vs generality covers it. The parts that Russell referred to ARE PART interaction ( the issue is about "relation"S and as to if one uses higher orders of relations where lower ones suffice parsimoniously (this is how Russell avoided direct application of Cantor thought of Kant)) as emergentists insist but it remains to be seen how far computational vivisections can retain the the same supposed. If Russell had argued it, I do not think that organicists would exist. They do too.Edited by Brad McFall, : typoEdited by Brad McFall, : Russell info

No worries, as the Brits say.I was only covering all bases. Sometimes people present one thing but are thinking something else. I realized clearly after your last post that there was no way that you could have been a positivist.As for a different sum well, that is up to you now ( I will provide some thing on Gold on mywebsite later). It was hard for me to parse out all of the various contents in your initial OP. I do think that analysis can be carried further but I would probably only find people of logic persuasions rather than granola heads (colloqiual term for "down to earth") as those most likely to follow me initially as I roll back the whole over a hole.