Hey -- it's your place, so I'm happy to comply with whatever "tone"
you'd like around here (w/ Emotional Warfare and all that jazz) . . .
I'm reading Chaisson and, sorry, I don't see anything that details the
*meaning* of any of these terms in it. What is "energy" (across all
these domains)? What does erg/second/gram mean in
psychological/cultural terms (i.e. why does he have to "normalize"
it)? And why doesn't he use the term "information"? What am I
missing (and what the hell is an astrophysicist doing talking about
"Big History" anyway) . . . ??
I first started working in detail on "energy rate/flux density" in the
mid-70s, after some careful analysis of attempts to apply the 2nd Law
to life in the early-70s (or maybe late-60s, since it was a focus of
my undergraduate work in biology.) My conclusion back then was that it
simply didn't work. Mathematics without meaning. Physics over-reach
I will try to find the basis of his Figure 5 "Rising complexity,
empirically based" and ascertain if anyone else thinks this makes
sense. Note that there is only one curve. This "metric" simply
cannot account for "dimensions" even if if does work for "complexity"
(which I'm pretty sure it doesn't.) That's why others seem to rely on
"degrees of freedom" (which, of course, arrives with its own set of
Thanks for my homework assignment,
P.S. Perhaps the psychological "urge" to try to be the one who unifies
everything *and* then makes it "evolve" is more important than the
actual empirics of the situation? Since the 1970s I've been involved
with dozens of people who've tried to do this and, as best I can tell,
they all failed. Why would anyone want to do that? What causes us to
pursue this path and what does Plato have to do with it
P.P.S. I did find Chaisson's 2006 "Epic of Evolution" on MotW.
Unfortunately his 2004 "Energetics Agenda" article in "Complexity"
isn't online but I did find his 2014 "The Natural Science Underlying
Big History" (in which Fig. 5 becomes Fig.2, attached.) Btw, there
are no footnotes in this part of the article, implying that he's
pretty much on his own.
Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Mark,
> My intent was just to set a healthy boundary so that the tone of
> our list is clear.
> I think a book comparing Deacon's approach to the ToK would be great.
> Another key concept in my system is behavior. I am working on
> mapping that, as I think it is central. Attached is an emerging
> draft powerpoint on it. Behavior connects to both energy and
> information. For a good, highly quantitative conception of energy
> and complexity that overlaps with the ToK map, see the attached
> paper from Chaisson.
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link: