Re: Relational space

[John M <***>]

Jamie,
I find your position mostly agreeable and based on some justification:
> My own answer has been to totally rearrange many
> empirical memes of observation and deduction in use
> by standard science. Similar to RR's re-forming the
> word/meme 'evolution'.<

Unfortunately RR was a professor, teaching the science community, so he
obviously formulated his words to more palatability to the reductionist
scientists. This is, why sometimes we find his sentences 'questionable' and
maybe not strong (consequent?) enough within his real principles.
I formulated 'my meme' of evolution as the "history of the universe" as
observed from the inside of it (universe-view, not Plenitude-view),  from
BigBang to its total re-dissipation into the Plenitude. Including the
Darwin-
picked C-H2O biology segment of our biosphere, which - in classical and
reductionistic scientific views constitutes a substantial chapter (model?)
in science. My basic deviation from literar RRism comes from me missing
a biological background: I consider 'life' just 'a' function within (my)
evolution term in the changing complexities of the universe - special only
for US since
we are 'in it' with awe. Molecules (if for argument's sake I accept them as
existing things - even if only as observable models) do move, we assign
diverse shapes/sizes, characters to them with a wide portfolio of functions.
Cairns-Smith's pre-life colloidal clay-polymers could easily serve as
predecessors to replicating conglomerates in a strong pre-symbiontic unity
with organic molecules around, then the latters took over with their larger
flexibility and - voila - LIFE as we imagine it now. (There is more to this
story).

Howard wrote to you 4 points as instrumental in Darwinian systems:
">>I think the minimum conditions for a Darwinian process require
1) units with heritable memory,
2) noise (mutation),
3) a population of memory controlled (or memory influenced) units,
4) ecological test of units (competition, selection).<<"
I would include the environmental changes influencing the process. It
seems to me as more than noise and they are in interaction with the
'internal' changes of the 'unit'. Those "minimum" 4 points are pretty
static to even constitute the core of a natural (dynamic) process.
Then he points to an exaple: AI programs, which IMO emphasise the
static of the 4 points only. I wonder if the 'smart' programs play along
potential (or unforeseeable) changes in the 'set' conditions for the process
when projecting predictions?

Just - when it comes to the conventional evolution-talk, please! no such
things as "in order to" or "adaptation". Survival is a consequence, not
a goal. Interaction of influencing environmental - and facilitating
structural changes are observed in hindsight as fitness, adaptation,
mutations for a *purpose*.
Biology observes the successful mutants only and doesn't even find the
unlimited disappearing ones. Then calculates population-statistics from the
negligible fraction of the total: from those that survive. To several
decimals.

UFT or TOE? I wouldn't even mention such 'know-it-all' levels at this - not
even embryonic state of our epistemic 'enrichment' in our cognitive
inventory.
We can include only the models we use. We formed the models without a
knowledge of the total. We observed that came to our sight - as we saw it.
Our technological-practical success gives us a feeling of omniscients.
Cheers

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Relational space


> It seems to me that RR struggled to deal with existing
> concepts and yet re-organize them in a different way
> that would be more complete and accomodating of aspects
> -as of that time - unaccounted for in the pantheon of
> notions.
>
> One of the ways to do that is to bend or focus or expand
> the applications of the notions understood, re-arrange them
> in more pleasing or complete ways, give them broader relevance.
>
> Such as .. considering the memes 'distance' and 'between'.
>
> In the simplest occurances they could be considered identical
> and isomorphic.  But on closer examination they are actually
> homeomorphic and distinctive though similar.
>
> A distance is an empirical measure of 'separation', the amount
> of space 'between' loci.
>
> It can be identified by a spatial measure; it can be identified
> by a temporal measure (rate of encounter/accounting);; these
> measures now being understood as "relative", as per conditions of
> process also.
>
> Then there is the topological notion of 'between', which has
> a -different- but related meme of 'relative'.  Here the aspect
> is 'juxta-position'. On a continuous closed line such as a
> circle, which of 3 given loci is -uniquely- "between" the
> other two?  and, does distance or between come into existence
> only after the loci do and are existentially specifiable, or
> must distance/between have an existential pre-instantiated
> presence -before- specific loci are locatable in the
> instantiated domain?
>
> I don't know where RR was headed with his musings,
> but I can relate to his wondering about such things.
> My own answer has been to totally rearrange many
> empirical memes of observation and deduction in use
> by standard science. Similar to RR's re-forming the
> word/meme 'evolution'.
>
> In point of fact, such a technique is the only way
> open to achieving an eventual UFT or TOE.  Which is
> the final coming to terms with model/reality.
>
> James
> 03/20/04
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?


> Howard,
>
> Do you see any way to coordinate Darwinian processes
> with non-living events and systems?
>
> James
> 03/20/04
>
>
> Howard Pattee wrote:
>
> > Life did not suddenly "exist" but arose gradually from non-living
> > organizations of matter. There were several billion years of
> > pre-Darwinian types of evolution that is the subject of much study
today.
> >