Replicating Evolution?

[gnomon]

Bula!

1> The universe is observed to move in the direction of increasing entropy - I don't think we really know why (i.e. what is the force that impels the universe in that direction - except the momentum of the Big Bang which is still driving the bits of stuff that the universe is composed of apart at a fair rate of knots, downhill and with a following wind). But the point is entropy is what we see not why or how it happens.

Enformy or negentropy or whatever other term you want to use for the antithesis of entropy should, by analogy, be an observed phenomenon (the what, not the why or how) - and indeed it is - it is the observed phenomenon of (capacity for) system-building - a measure (perhaps) of the potential or capacity to produce useful systemic effects - of the (potential) components of the (potential) system.

2> Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any reliable way of actually measuring this potential in advance

3> So, really, I don't think enformy or negentropy or syntropy (Buckminster Fuller's preferred term) tell us anything more profound than Gibb's concept of "free energy" - i.e. that bodies have within them an inherent capacity to "do useful (system-building) work" despite the fact that the overall system(s) they are part of seem to be advancing inexorably in the direction of increasing entropy.

4> Unfortunately, despite the hopeful adoption and adaptation of these and other scientific ideas by New Agers etc., and as interesting, awe-inspiring and intriguing as it all is, none of it really gets us any closer to answering how or why?
perhaps we can only ever answer that for ourselves?

1__Entropy is not so mysterious. It's simply what happens when you blow something up---as in a Big Bang, or a piston engine. As condensed matter spreads-out over space, interactions between particles become fewer, and the whole thing becomes cooler until it simply fades away into . . . ??? By contrast, Enformy is a mystery, because new things self-assemble in an emergent process without any sign of external influence or divine intervention. A good illustration is a time-lapse video of a flower emerging from a stem---as-if it was filling-out a pre-formed formwork of a flower, but incrementally, and from the inside [see below]. Somehow a non-algorithmic code for Autopoesis is programmed into the mechanical system of matter & energy. How does blueprint DNA build living things from inert chemicals? Modern Science doesn't "see why" these things happen as they do, because the cause is holistic, and not amenable to reductive analysis.

2__The unpredictability of Enformy is what Kaufmann is referring to, in Reinventing The Sacred, when he calls Evolution "creative". Although he doesn't use that term, he goes to great lengths to show that the future path of any evolutionary process is non-algorithmic, hence non-calculable, and un-predetermined. Like Shannon's definition of Information, Enformy is a measure of order within statistical randomness .

3__Although evocative, the term Enformy alone tells us nothing useful for scientific purposes. But Enformy and Negentropy and Syntropy are based on insights that could form the kernel of a scientific theory of Emergence. As noted in some of the links above, the new science of Cybernetics is using these ideas in their research. Enformy is the science of the future, of where we're going, so it's path is inherently unpredictable.
Emergence : In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.
Cybernetics : Greek - the Steersman on a boat. The scientific study of communication and control processes in biological, mechanical, and electronic systems. The question remains, who is communicating, commanding, and controlling these mechanical processes? Who is the Cosmic Captain steering the vessel of Evolution?

4__Of course the Spritualist/New Agers are hoping that a positive uplifting holistic spiritual Science will replace the distasteful desecrating vivisectionist sciences of Modernism. But I think they will be surprised at how accommodating the scientific method is to holistic attitudes, as long as they lead to practical results. That remains to be seen. But for me, the notion of Enformy does seem to me to bring us a step closer to answering the "why?" questions you mentioned. And I'm referring to scientifically objective pragmatic answers, not just "god works in mysterious ways" subjective solutions to conundrums. As for the Final Answer, you'll just have to ask G*D next time you see H/er.



Emerging Flower video :
A life cycle from Enformy to Entropy

[scitsofreaky]

Jebus, I'm gone for one second and all hell breaks loose
First:

Scitsofreaky and Gnomon,

Are you guys cast members on The Big Bang Theory? If you're not physicists of some kind you sound like you are! (and I'm feeling kind of like Penny right about now....)

Hehe, I probably know about as much as the cast of the show.

Moving on, I feel that siti has done a good job (better than I could) making points about Entropy and Enformy, so I think I am going to take it from the last post. (If I need to clarify anything, or if anyone objects to this, please let me know. I don't think anything all too important will be missed.)

1__Entropy is not so mysterious. It's simply what happens when you blow something up---as in a Big Bang, or a piston engine. As condensed matter spreads-out over space, interactions between particles become fewer, and the whole thing becomes cooler until it simply fades away into . . . ??? By contrast, Enformy is a mystery, because new things self-assemble in an emergent process without any sign of external influence or divine intervention. A good illustration is a time-lapse video of a flower emerging from a stem---as-if it was filling-out a pre-formed formwork of a flower, but incrementally, and from the inside [see below]. Somehow a non-algorithmic code for Autopoesis is programmed into the mechanical system of matter & energy. How does blueprint DNA build living things from inert chemicals? Modern Science doesn't "see why" these things happen as they do, because the cause is holistic, and not amenable to reductive analysis.

I think you kind of missed the point of what siti was saying. I think the point was that you seem to be putting a "why" into entropy, when entropy is just an observation of how the universe works. (That's my interpretation, and obviously I could be reading one or both of you wrong.)
Also, I still don't see how it follows that Enformy is necessary to explain anything. Your example, to me, seems nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. Just because we may not currently know every detail of development doesn't mean what we currently think is wrong (or perhaps a better way of putting it: just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean our current theoretical framework is wrong.) Besides, Enformy doesn't seem to shed any actual light on it either, and it is even more mysterious given that it is a "hypothetical force." We don't seem to actually understand it any better than your example of the flower (perhaps even less).

A bit further off topic (which is...?), but it seems strange to me the apparent dualism of Enformy. Really, it seems to me that the grounding for the argument that it is a necessary force is that there most be "something" that counters Entropy. Why? I don't think reality is necessarily dualistic, there doesn't have to be a Yin for every Yang. Maybe I've been too influenced by non-dualist philosophy, but it seems to me that many supposed dualisms appear to be so because of the way our minds work. Hot and cold I think are a good example (but I don't think it is necessarily analogous to Entropy/Enformy). While to us they are opposites, in reality they are just too ways of looking at one thing: amount of energy in a given system. But in our minds we see to opposing values: either it is hot (ouch, that burns), or cold (brrrr) (yeah, yeah, I know, there are grades within this, but I don't think that change the point I'm trying to make in this example). Why this is the way it is is way too far off topic to get into, but I don't think it is a controversial stance. I think the heart of the matter is that we cannot easily escape our dualist mindset so we tend to try to impose it upon the universe, but I can't think of a logical reason for doing so. Without a dualist base to sit upon, I don't see why we should introduce another unknown (i.e. Enformy) without first finding a better foundation for doing so.

But seriously, what is the topic again?

[siti]

Bula!

1.

Entropy is not so mysterious. It's simply what happens when you blow something up

Exactly - isn't that what I said?

By contrast, Enformy is a mystery

Only if you take it as a reason for things happening - if you take it as an observed (but unexplained) aspect of reality analogous to entropy it also is "simply what happens" in a middle-aged universe in which matter retains sufficient capacity (energy/enformy/excess unused entropy perhaps) to (a) clump together with other bits of matter and (b) achieve a level of complexity in which un-predetermined emergent effects may arise from the interaction of such bits of matter within complex systems. This is not so mysterious - it is an everyday observation as common to our experience as is entropy. But we still have no clear explanation as to why either of these things happen - we just observe that they do.

2. I interpret Kauffman's ideas as indicating that any "creative purpose" there may be in the evolutionary process must be inherent and internal to the evolving system - although it is clearly influenced by external environmental factors, no external "laws" can be brought to bear on them that would fully entail the next step in the evolution of the system or the complex emergent effects that might thereby arise. It is a bit like the unfolding interactive script analogy - there is no pre-scribed finale (or even a concluding scene in any particular act), just an evolving ad-lib plot to which we all (from bacteria to baboons, pineapples to people) contribute by means of our "capacity to enform" the next generation.

On the information theory analogy, I'll let Kauffman answer this for himself in his recent blog.

3.

The question remains, who is communicating, commanding, and controlling these mechanical processes? Who is the Cosmic Captain steering the vessel of Evolution?

We (evolving material becoming things) are.

4.

As for the Final Answer, you'll just have to ask G*D next time you see H/er.

I did - and s/he has provided some very interesting and thought provoking clues - thanks God!

[gnomon]

1> I think you kind of missed the point of what siti was saying. I think the point was that you seem to be putting a "why" into entropy, when entropy is just an observation of how the universe works. (That's my interpretation, and obviously I could be reading one or both of you wrong.)

2> Also, I still don't see how it follows that Enformy is necessary to explain anything. Your example, to me, seems nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. Just because we may not currently know every detail of development doesn't mean what we currently think is wrong (or perhaps a better way of putting it: just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean our current theoretical framework is wrong.) Besides, Enformy doesn't seem to shed any actual light on it either, and it is even more mysterious given that it is a "hypothetical force." We don't seem to actually understand it any better than your example of the flower (perhaps even less).

3> A bit further off topic (which is...?), but it seems strange to me the apparent dualism of Enformy. Really, it seems to me that the grounding for the argument that it is a necessary force is that there most be "something" that counters Entropy. Why? I don't think reality is necessarily dualistic, there doesn't have to be a Yin for every Yang.

1__No, I got the implication of Siti’s questions. And, he’s right : to apply a philosophical “why” to the mechanism of Entropy is exactly what I was doing. Entropy, considered as an isolated phenomenon, is simply “how” the world works, which is a scientific usage of the concept. But by looking at it “in the round” so to speak, I am attempting to place Entropy, and its complement Enformy, into a broader philosophical perspective. Like Shannon’s term “Information”, Entropy alone has no higher meaning beyond a mechanical function, but together with Enformy, the whole interactive holistic system explains not only “how” the world functions, but suggests a “why” : its significance to the human mind.
__Most scientists are Atheists because, as materialists, they can see no sign of a higher purpose to the universe, beyond the random accidents of atomic collisions as described by the Law of Thermodynamics. But if there are meaningful patterns encoded* in that statistical randomness, the question arises “to what end?” Entropy implies that our world is wandering aimlessly through the abyss of stochastic possibility (what could be), and our vehicle is running out of gas, so it looks like we will end up stranded in the middle of Nowhere. Enformy counters that existential Waiting-for-Godot scenario with a simple observation that Entropy is not an absolute deterministic law of nature, because there are loopholes and exceptions where Life & Mind can emerge despite the efforts of Entropy to stamp it out.
__Enformy simply looks at the other (positive) side of the matter/energy coin. Entropy/Enformy is a complementary concept, not dualistic in the sense you inferred.

*Note : I don’t intend to imply that God is playing hide & seek trivia games with us, as in the “Bible Code” thing a few years ago. In this case, the code is written in the World of God rather than a book called the “Word of God”. Imaginative humans can easily interpret randomized words into fictional stories. But extracting falsifiable scientific data from the substance of reality is on another scale of difficulty. Deciphering the Code of Nature is what Science is all about.

2__Apparently you are looking for a reductive explanation. But Enformy is a holistic concept. As such, it is difficult to explain in words. When you eventually come to an intuitive understanding of the whole idea, a light bulb will turn on in your head.
<< TES [Theory of Enformed Systems] explains the origin, fundamental properties, and behaviors of holistic systems at all ontological levels. TES does not displace the current scientific paradigms; instead, it forms their foundation. >> http://twelvelinks.blogspot.com/2006/08/enformy.html

3__The “apparent” dualism of Enformy is inherent in the reality of our world. As I have stated repeatedly in threads on similar topics, athough my personal worldview is ultimately monistic and holistic, the physical world, whose evolution we are discussing, is categorically dualistic from top to bottom : matter/antimatter, matter/energy, hot/cold, male/female, yin/yang. But when you resolve those dualities in a complementary concept, the result is holistic. Does that make sense?


PS---Is this foundational enough for you? In 2006, these authors were discussing the anti-entropic effects of what I am now calling "Enformy", but then they didn't have a concise word to express the inverse of Thermodynamics, except perhaps the clumsy term "Negentropy". The whole point of the book is that Entropy should be life-destroying, but somehow life arises anyway. Why? Enformy.
<<Scientists, theologians, and philosophers have all sought to answer the questions of why we are here and where we are going. Finding this natural basis of life has proved elusive, but in the eloquent and creative Into the Cool, Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan look for answers in a surprising place: the second law of thermodynamics. This second law refers to energy's inevitable tendency to change from being concentrated in one place to becoming spread out over time. In this scientific tour de force, Schneider and Sagan show how the second law is behind evolution, ecology, economics, and even life's origin.
Working from the precept that "nature abhors a gradient," Into the Cool details how complex systems emerge, enlarge, and reproduce in a world tending toward disorder. >>
______Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan, Into The Cool : Energy Flow, Thermodynamics & Life
http://www.amazon.com/Into-Cool-Energy- ... 943&sr=1-1

[gnomon]

Scitsofreaky and Gnomon,

Are you guys cast members on The Big Bang Theory? If you're not physicists of some kind you sound like you are! (and I'm feeling kind of like Penny right about now....)

What are you tryin to say? Are you implying that we are geeky egg-headed big-worded nerds, who have friends-who-are-girls, but no girl-friends? I resemble that scurrilous insinuation-by-innuendo!

[gnomon]

Bula!

1> Enformy: Only if you take it as a reason for things happening - if you take it as an observed (but unexplained) aspect of reality analogous to entropy it also is "simply what happens" in a middle-aged universe in which matter retains sufficient capacity (energy/enformy/excess unused entropy perhaps) to (a) clump together with other bits of matter and (b) achieve a level of complexity in which un-predetermined emergent effects may arise from the interaction of such bits of matter within complex systems. This is not so mysterious - it is an everyday observation as common to our experience as is entropy. But we still have no clear explanation as to why either of these things happen - we just observe that they do.

2> I interpret Kauffman's ideas as indicating that any "creative purpose" there may be in the evolutionary process must be inherent and internal to the evolving system

3> On the information theory analogy, I'll let Kauffman answer this for himself in his recent blog.

4>We (evolving material becoming things) are.

5>I did - and s/he has provided some very interesting and thought provoking clues - thanks God!

1__I don't take Enformy as the reason for the creative "happenings" within the meanderings of evolution; merely the mechanism for those happenings. G*D's reasons for doing things the hard way are still opaque to me, but I have made some guesses.
__Apparently you don't agree with my antithetical inference from the "everyday observation" that, except for a slight tendency toward local organization, Science has found that this universe is going-to-hell-in-a-hand-basket. From thermodynamic evidence, most scientists have concluded that there is no sign of purpose or intention or creativity in the world, hence no God. However, it's the same easily overlooked "tendency" (in a "positive" direction) that led me, as an Agnostic, to make some allowance for the possibility of a purposeful God.
__Kaufmann was also inspired by those counter-Entropic creative "happenings" to theorize that the universe is creating its own meaning in the process of becoming god-like : << Stuart Kauffman argues that the qualities of divinity that we revere—creativity, meaning, purposeful action—are properties of the universe that can be investigated methodically. >> http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Sacred-Science-Reason-Religion/dp/0465018882/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1332210178&sr=8-3 And I agree with that assessment, except that I have reasons to believe that the creativity of the physical world was pre-coded, as En-Form-Action, into an evolutionary program embedded in the original singularity. Evolution is what happens when you run the create-a-world program.
__Kaufmann would be disappointed to hear you say that Entropy & Enformy are simply mechanical "happenings"---"we just observe that they do"---minor details with no significance in the Big Picture :
<< But LaPlace's particles in motion allow only happenings. There are no meanings, no values, no doings. The reductionist worldview led the existentialists in the mid-twentieth century to try to find value in an absurd, meaningless universe, in our human choices. But to the reductionist, the existentialist's arguments are as void as the spacetime in which their particles move. Our human choices, made by by ourselves as human agents, are still, when the full science shall have been done, mere happenings, ultimately to be explained by physics.>>
__When I "take it as a reason for things happening" I am trying to explain Entropy/Enformy by Meta-Physics in addition to Physics. This is one detail that even Kaufmann overlooked. His only reference to "metaphysics" is a scornful reference to the <<metaphysical poets>>, who <<split asunder---reason and the remaining human sensibilities.>> In the Enformationism thesis "Meta-Physics" is differentiated from Cartesian spiritualized metaphysics.

2__I think you are correct that Kaufmann is saying that the creativity of the universe is "inherent and internal to the evolving system". And I agree with that assessment too. But I go one step further to assume that the creativity of the program was encoded by a Master Programmer, rather than just "happening" as an accident.

3__Kaufmann says <<In this post I shall argue that information theory does not apply, is, in fact, useless, with respect to the evolution of the biosphere.>> Again, I agree with that appraisal. But I should point out that Shannon's reductive Information Theory is not equivalent to my holistic Enformationism. Enformation theory provides a place for meanings, values & doings, both by a Prime Doer and He/r created agents.
__He concludes his blog : << With no pre-stated alphabet, information theory, as now available, has no relevance to evolution.>> By contrast, Enformation Theory postulates that the "pre-stated alphabet" [a set of parameters] of evolution is actually the digital language of mathematics, which is part & parcel of the Evolutionary Code. Is the logic of arithmetic peculiar to our universe or is it eternal?

4__I agree that we, as hopeful existentialists, are forced to create our own meanings as we act out our roles in the play of Life. And the final meaning of the world is still un-written. But the initial purpose and direction was given to the nascent universe in an explosive act of creation.

5__Did S/he mention me? Would you care to share some of those clues with a fellow seeker and devotee?

[siti]

Bula!

Kaufmann would be disappointed to hear you say that Entropy & Enformy are simply mechanical "happenings"---"we just observe that they do"---minor details with no significance in the Big Picture

That's overstating what I said - I was not implying that things "just happen" for no reason, I was making the distinction between observation and explanation of a commonplace event. Enformy "happens" everyday right before our eyes, just as entropy does. Flowers open and die, weather patterns emerge and dissipate, babies are conceived, born, grow...etc. In that sense, enformy is no more a mystery than entropy - i.e. it is an observed effect - a phenomenon. It does not explain why a flower forms any more than entropy explains why it dies. I'm not sure I am making a much better job of explaining, but I think it would be like saying that the observed phenomenon of life is the explanation for the existence of living things; or that the observed phenomenon of death is the explanation of the process of dying. Do you see what I am getting at?

Anyway, moving on, I also have no problem with talking about metaphysics - except that I'm not sure what it really means. Etymologically it seems to mean "beyond physics" or "beyond nature". I think I share Kauffman's skepticism about ideas of some kind of "science beyond nature" - I don't think there really can be such a thing. But certainly there are organic, ecological, holistic effects that are beyond the standard materialist/reductionist/analytical models of nature that have persisted for the last 400 or so years in the West. But nature is, by nature, synthetic (at least some of the time) - whereas science is generally analytic (at least most of the time), so we have to bridge the gap somehow - if that bridge is what is meant by "metaphysics", then it really means "beyond reductionist physical analysis" and I am OK with that.

On the "pre-stated alphabet" aspect, I think this is another way of expressing the greatest difference between our respective ideas - I sincerely doubt the existence of a primordial program of any kind - we have argued this point repeatedly using many different illustrations - cosmic programmer, billiard player etc. etc. I remain unconvinced, but it is just a matter of opinion because there is no way to observe or measure anything "prior to" the Big Bang or "beyond" the confines of our space-time universe.

Did S/he mention me? Would you care to share some of those clues with a fellow seeker and devotee?

S/he always mentions you! I thought we were sharing clues? Don't forget, for a pandeist, "all that groks is God"!

[gnomon]

1> That's overstating what I said - I was not implying that things "just happen" for no reason, I was making the distinction between observation and explanation of a commonplace event.

2> Anyway, moving on, I also have no problem with talking about metaphysics - except that I'm not sure what it really means.

3> I sincerely doubt the existence of a primordial program of any kind -
because there is no way to observe or measure anything "prior to" the Big Bang or "beyond" the confines of our space-time universe.

1__The 19th century discovery of the thermodynamic (disorganizing) principle---later labeled Entropy---that concentrated effective energy inevitably dissipates into a diluted feckless broth of leftovers, began as a theory of what heat is. Since then, that simple observation has evolved into one of the fundamental "laws" of modern science. Give the 21st century definition of the organizing principle (Enformy) some time, and it may eventually become a fully-developed theory with practical applications (e.g. Complexity, Cybernetics) . Anyway, a detailed mechanical explanation must be preceded by acknowledgement that something important is going-on that justifies further investigation; followed by statement of a hypothesis, which might be met with skepticism or incomprehension.
<< Any method involving the notion of entropy, the very existence of which depends on the second law of thermodynamics, will doubtless seem to many far-fetched, and may repel beginners as obscure and difficult of comprehension.>>
—Willard Gibbs, Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids (1873)
__Morphogenesis is a set of theories of how biological organisms, such as flowers, develop their ultimate shape through a gradual emergent process; Enformy might be a more general term for the same thing. Since it is a holistic emergent phenomenon, though, the science of Morphogenesis will probably remain in the realm of speculation and philosophy for a while, before acceptance as an "official" scientific explanation. But Enformy suits my non-scientific purposes right now, as a reasonable explanation for the non-mechanical processes & phenomena of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenesis

2__When I use the term "Meta-Physics", I spell it with a hyphen to distinguish my Enformationism definition from the more common usage. Aristotle, aptly but perhaps pragmatically, divided his encyclopedia into two volumes based on their subject matter. Volume One was concerned with natural phenomena (things), and Volume Two discussed human ideas & attitudes about those things. Ironically, those books were later given simple generic labels equivalent to Physics I and Physics II. But the after-thought implication of "meta" (after) took on a completely different meaning when it was translated as "beyond" or "above". Henceforward, Christian Theologians assumed that Aristotle was talking about Spiritual Things, such as ghosts & miracles. But I doubt that Ari made such a distinction between Observation & Theory.
<< This was misread by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant "the science of what is beyond the physical".>>
__In the Enformationism thesis, I have taken that mistaken medieval notion and turned it around, to give it a 21st century redefinition. This new meaning for Meta-Physics combines two cutting-edge scientific concepts, Information Theory & Quantum Theory, into Enformation Theory. As scientists sliced their "atoms" into ever smaller pieces, the definition of Matter/Energy began to merge with the definition of Information/Mathematics. I won't go any further into the controversial details here, except to summarize that what we think of as Physics may ultimately be the same thing as Information : immaterial relationships (ratios, values). From that insight (or wild speculation, if you prefer) I have concluded that Real Physics (things & happenings) and Ideal Meta-Physics (ideas & consciousness) are simply different states of Generic Information (the power to create new forms & ideas). In other words, Physics can be reduced to what is commonly known as Spirit, which is the realm of those "meanings, values, doings" that Kaufmann found missing in Modern Physics. However, due to centuries of scholastic baggage, I try to use the neutral & technical term "Information" in place of "Spirit", but ultimately it's all the same : ideas in the Mind of God.
<< The English word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, meaning "breath", but also "spirit, soul, courage, vigor">>

3__I respect your doubts; I've been there myself. My former Agnostic self would be embarrassed by some of the outrageous things I'm saying in these threads.
__If there is no such thing as Eternity or Infinity, then Primordial Programs would be impossible. So first we must establish in what sense those un-real states might exist. If there is nothing of any consequence prior to the Big Bang, then it would be a waste of time to speculate on a "time-before-time" or a "place-beyond-space", or a "mind-before-matter". Those controversial notions could spark a long debate, or a quick exeunt from dialog.
__Who's concerned with practical measurement of things beyond spacetime? Enformy is a theory of right-here-right-now. G*D though is a theory of nowhere-notime, otherwise known as Enfernity. Science has its limits, but fortunately, through the wonderful tool of philosophical theorizing we can still go where no man has gone before, and explore beyond the bounds of space & time. This of course is based on the assumption that Logic & Reason are also timeless.