Dear Gregg

Let's allow ourselves to crosspost this discussion on both the Intellectual
Deep Web and the Tree of Knowledge as the issues concern both forums.

To begin with, I agree. And we need to work on a much much more
sophisticated quantum information theory than just "The Universe is a
Computer". But information is absolute key.

Please note here however how important it is to connect "the strong
emergence" with "the rolling of the dice". Why? Because strong emergences
are totally unique. The proper word for a strong emergence is "miracle". So
we are dealing here with that once-in-history kind of event that may or can
not be repeated. I repeat: Emergences are not phase transitions. Yes, it is
100% casual. We are certainly neo-Aristotelians. But since the cause
involves an element of dice rolled it can not be repeated. It can
consequently only be described though the science of history and not
through the science of nature. This is absolute key to emergence theory as
the foundation of process philosophy. So if say "life" happened just once
and in only one place, no wonder it is so hard for us to understand what
"life" is and grasping the extraordinary causal conditions leading up to
its event. Don't expect it to have happened anywhere else even in our
gargantuan universe. But cherish the miracle that it did happen. Our ethos
is life-preserving and life-expanding. Not machine-.preserving and
machine-expanding.

Next consider the implications strong emergences have on the concept of
time. There is literally a very strong before and a very strong after the
event of the strong emergence. There is clearly a non-life universe before
and a life universe after. Especially for advanced life forms like human
beings (who are writing history for and to themselves which is essentially
what history and science are, human-to-human narratives, nothing else is of
interest to us since nothing else has agency, as Latour would say). When I
work with my physics colleagues I therefore advocate a system of two time
dimensions so that we may save Einsteinian spacetime for whatever it is.
But there is also a "duration" pumping along quite nicely outside the world
of relativist clocks. And it is along this hypertimeline that events and
emergences alike occur. This makes it possible to create an existentialist
philosophy for each human being with three episodes divided by two strong
emergences. Ancestral life prior to your birth, existential life in between
birth and death, and then third the heritage life after you are dead. This
is where I will use Aristotle, Hegel and Heidegger to beat up the
Platonists. Because it the Platonists keep insisting that time is an
illusion, no wonder they must arrive at the conclusion that they themselves
are illusions too. So why should they even open their mouths and even less
think? The thoughtless hypocrites.

God may not play dice but Quantum Organics indeed does. Therefore we live
in a world with a future of freedom and openness. Also meaning The Great
Flood can happen at any given time too. But it truly is process and change
all the way down. And all the way up. Meaning The Grand Narrative should
now be built from the Zoroastrian concepts *haurvatat *(imperfect
perfection) and *ameretat *(mortal immortality) rather than the Platonist
nightmares called perfection and immortality. Let's begin by clearing
physics and maths from every single damn infinity sign. Infinity signs are
just cheating.

Best intentions
Alexander

Den tors 7 mars 2019 kl 14:56 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]>:

> Alexander,
>
>
>
>  Fascinating comments. I generally consider emergence ontologically rather
> than ontically, and so you have me mulling over a shift in perspective. For
> now, let me say that my descriptive ontology of emergence emphasizes the
> concept of behavior and the behavior/language games of scientists, mapping
> the correspondence between the two. I will offer a few brief comments and
> then share an idea I had that might connect to your quantum organics and
> ultimate ontic emergence. But first, I suggest we also try to get the
> descriptive ontological terms down. As we have noted, emergence has gotten
> a bad rap and we need to have a shared language system describing it so
> that it is not dismissed by the misguided reductionists. So, let’s do both
> ontic and descriptive ontological. Toward that end (and building off your
> note), I offer three kinds of emergence: 1) time/event; 2) weak-causal
> explanatory and 3) strong-causal explanatory, which are as follows:
>
>
>
>   Time/Event emergence. This is the most basic and simply refers to the
> unfolding wave of behavior/process. Things are happening at each moment in
> time that have never happened before and the information content of the
> universe is increasing as the number of events increases. Of course, many
> events do not involve emergence in terms of novel properties/entities/forms
> that have cause effect, part-whole implications going forward. For example,
> oftentimes the aggregate of the event can be characterized in simple
> additive terms and nothing new follows other than the event itself.
> However, it should be noted that this is not what is traditionally meant by
> emergence in the “interesting” sense of the word. Event/time/process
> emergence corresponds to the (global) Time dimension on the ToK.
>
>
>
>   Of course, sometimes new properties and entities do emerge. This
> corresponds to the vertical/complexity dimension on the ToK. The ToK
> embraces the descriptive distinction between “weak” emergence and “strong”
> emergence. Weak emergence involves fundamental transformations of entities
> and properties *within* dimensions of complexity. The shift from physical
> to chemical changes is an example of weak emergence in the language system
> of the ToK. Chemical changes and properties are different and emergent in
> fundamental ways, but they still are part of Matter and the material
> sciences. Likewise the shift from bacteria/simple cells into eukaryotic
> cells was a major emergent shift, but it occurred within the dimension of
> Life, and thus is classified as a “weakly” emergent event.
>
>
>
>   Then you have strong emergence, which are the dimensions of complexity.
> The Big Bang resulted in Matter, which is the first example of strong
> emergence. The other dimensions of complexity that follows, Life, Mind, and
> Culture (the forms of the souls of the living in Aristotle’s metaphysics?)
> are strongly emergent as a function of information-communication cumulative
> causal processes. Unlike Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture all process
> information, communicate and remember the past and use it to predict the
> future. This idea about weak versus strong as characterized by levels
> versus dimensions is a novel descriptive ontological claim, unique to the
> ToK metaphysical language system.
>
>
>
>   Finally, your comment on quantum organics feels right to me. Indeed, it
> reminds me of Lee Smolin’s Darwinian conception of the evolution of the
> material universe, which I think you are positively inclined towards as am
> I. It also perhaps could align with a metaphorical model of gravity I
> developed a long time ago, as I was using the ToK to try to conceptually
> merge quantum mechanics and general relativity into a picture of “quantum
> relativity.” The idea was that the “shape” of how gravitational spacetime
> unfolded/evolved/retained history (i.e., the relationship between mass,
> space and time) might be as follows: quantum mechanics/organics provided
> the variation, gravitation was the selection, and time itself was the
> retention. Why did I think of gravity as a form of “selection”? I conceived
> it as a form of “regression” to the mean. That is, my journey took me
> toward seeing bits of matter as bits of data on a grid. And, just as
> regression refers to the shift toward a central tendency, so to does
> gravity. The idea here is that the base of the universe is a “quantum
> foam”, and there are quantum fluctuations everywhere. Mass refers to the
> density of the digits of behavioral information localized in spacetime. The
> relations between masses in spacetime can be considered a “co-relation” in
> spacetime (noting the relationship between correlation and regression). I
> speculated that this was more than just an analogy. That is, I wondered if
> gravity is actually a form of a regression to the central tendency. And
> quantum fluctuations represent the rolling of the dice. The closer and more
> dense the material information is packed, the stronger the regression
> between clusters. At this point, this is fully metaphorical and a big
> problem is that I don’t speak advanced mathematics and thus can’t advance
> the argument. I can say I shared it with John Wheeler back in 2001 and he
> thought it was “intriguing” and hooked me up with a physics colleague of
> his at UPENN. Unfortunately, since I did not speak advanced math, our lines
> of communication quickly broke down. He was, however, fine with the causal
> picture of the universe afforded by the ToK and thought there might be
> something to the idea in that it offered a novel way to link macro-level
> gravity with micro-level quantum organics. Consider it a crazy idea that
> might advance the picture of ontic emergence via a novel way to capture the
> material dimension of complexity in terms of (quantum) variation,
> (gravitational) selection and (historical) retention.
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* [log in to unmask] <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 7, 2019 5:34 AM
> *To:* Intellectual Deep Web <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: What is intelligence, really?
>
>
>
> Dear Gregg
>
>
>
> I agree 100%. I'm with you 100%. And even within quantum organics (I
> prefer this term over the misnomer quantum mechanics) reductionism
> collapses as there apparently is DIFFERENCE within quantum physics and this
> difference in itself can not be accounted for within reductionism. You see,
> reductionism is ultimately the Platonist fantasy about the Platonist
> himself being the singular point at which existence as a whole starts (his
> own existence as the only existence as Heidegger would refer to this
> narcissistic fantasy). Then the metaphor is transferred onto the
> singularity as The Big Bang. But while the singularity required no space
> (in physics, space and not time is the ultimate illusion, entanglement
> proves this), the beginning of everything is not some solid point without
> difference. Because difference starts with time (one momentum being
> different from the next) and spatial difference only follows later (to then
> be followed by such assymetries as matter being larger than anti-matter,
> the past being larger than the future etc). So I am a radical emergentist.
> The continuum also runs deeper than discretion (hypertime dictates time
> rather than the other way around). But perhaps then we should afford to
> study what genuine emergences really are, ontically rather than
> ontologically speaking, and how about probabilism as a start? That's still
> the question I'm engaged with. Yes, emergences exist, but in what way is an
> emergence different from a non-emergent momentum? And if we follow
> Whitehead and claim all momenta are emergent, what does that mean?
>
>
>
> Best intentions
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
> Den tors 7 mars 2019 kl 00:48 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]>:
>
> Alexander,
>
>    Thanks for your note. I think the onus of responsibility rests with
> those who argue for any kind of pure form of reductionism. For me, what I
> shared characterizes *what emergence is*. (Not sure about your writing
> “what emergence does”).
>
>    I use ToK as a metaphysical system to organize empirical science. It is
> empirically the case that science describes the behavior of objects and it
> is necessary to describe objects at the appropriate level of analysis.
> Explanatory reductionism is obviously and empirically false. That is,
> “higher sciences” are remaining autonomous and not being eliminated as we
> learn more. Psychology, the science of animal-mental behavior, will never
> be and can never be reduced to brain science or any other branch of
> biology. The animal behavioral “law of effect” exists on its own terms. In
> fact, psychology has us helped understand neuroscience far more than the
> reverse. All of this is because the state of nature is “part-whole”
> interdependence. Parts influence wholes, and wholes influence parts. And
> science studies behavior of objects in contexts. They explain the
> behavioral phenomena in holistic and in functional terms. Reductionism and
> logical consistency are features, but are minor relative to holism and
> functionalism. Both Eastern
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bschawaii.org_shindharmanet_studies_coarising_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=QwTfO14xXsIXhy5KAr-IzL1OM1RDh6DRqDw1YADl7iM&s=TllvTwUwr1HVYJZSA8CZtc3PjVTWXz5dv-Mm3EfWL5I&e=>
> and Western (here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Janus-3A-5FA-5FSumming-5FUp&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=QwTfO14xXsIXhy5KAr-IzL1OM1RDh6DRqDw1YADl7iM&s=S0qV5oztoo0CaqQy0lWAw_uibc7RkjONdnpioVCwEqs&e=>,
> here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sunypress.edu_p-2D5577-2Dthe-2Dorders-2Dof-2Dnature.aspx&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=QwTfO14xXsIXhy5KAr-IzL1OM1RDh6DRqDw1YADl7iM&s=AB90kxmAaFCBIeN9rOC_cFeCzIMUlLx-P7TYG57wMCc&e=>,
> here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_William-5FC.-5FWimsatt&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=QwTfO14xXsIXhy5KAr-IzL1OM1RDh6DRqDw1YADl7iM&s=KjQTEV7GTH-fmCdZEZPLo6xmG8vOLskNUCVi5WUHTg0&e=>,
> here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Re-2DEmergence-2DEmergence-2DEmergentist-2DHypothesis-2DReligion_dp_019954431X&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=QwTfO14xXsIXhy5KAr-IzL1OM1RDh6DRqDw1YADl7iM&s=Gy2ebcBcfxc0sHTcB35gj41iKlGK55u4Q6ojZF8O9zg&e=>)
> folks have made good arguments for this key point (which basically
> undercuts explanatory and ontological reductionism)
>
>    Ontological reductionism also seems blatantly misguided IMO and I have
> never seen a good, coherent argument for it. Reduce to what, exactly?
> Sociology to psychology? Psychology to neuroscience? Neuroscience to
> biochemistry? Finally quantum mechanics and general relativity? It is a
> fantasy of the modern intellectual Western tradition. To show how confused
> everyone is, I had lunch one time with Patricia Churchland
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__patriciachurchland.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=QwTfO14xXsIXhy5KAr-IzL1OM1RDh6DRqDw1YADl7iM&s=Ly1FF0liwHRwIoEq5snEvKo_wJJJu84OimcX0QyLEJg&e=>,
> famous for her (and her husband Paul) “eliminative reductionism.”  I pulled
> out the ToK System and shared that, and she said, “Yes, that is what I
> mean. I can get behind that!”
>
>    Emergence is an empirical and historical fact; emergence is the way
> science works (i.e., behavioral/functional processes at the level of whole
> entities), emergence is depicted by the ToK and PTB.
>
>    Also re chance, my read of quantum indeterminism is that such phenomena
> are fundamentally stochastic in nature
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Stochastic-5Fquantum-5Fmechanics&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=QwTfO14xXsIXhy5KAr-IzL1OM1RDh6DRqDw1YADl7iM&s=4ILUes8OKK5OCisaI4QvOBSU6ANvmGmvPJdYOZZfS4Q&e=>.
>
>
>  Best of intentions,
>
> Gregg
>
>  *From:* [log in to unmask] <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2019 10:30 AM
> *To:* Intellectual Deep Web <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: What is intelligence, really?
>
>  Yes, dear Gregg, I know what emergence does as I also see the products
> of emergences throughout history.
>
> But this does not explain what emergence is. Emergence is apparently
> irreversible. But why is that? Does chance exist? And if so, how?
>
> Because if so, emergence theory will ultimately kill reductionism. But as
> long as neither the reductionists nor the emergentists prove why they are
> right, the verdict is still out.
>
> And for process philosophy this is absolutely essential. Even the question
> of whether reality is ultimately discrete or continuous hinges on this
> issue.
>
> What is emergence? If we solve that we no longer have to accept
> reductionism's absurd claim that everything was built into the big bang
> from the very start and time is therefore illusional.
>
> Stahlman wants to return to the soul. I agree. But even the soul
> disappears in a reductionist universe. If one wants a return to the soul,
> one had better fight for process and emergence.
>
> Best intentions
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
> Den mån 4 mars 2019 kl 14:22 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]>:
>
> Alexander,
>
>
>
>   I will jump in here and say that the Tree of Knowledge System offers a
> visual depiction regarding the relationship between reduction and
> emergence.
>
>
>
>
>
> It offers a novel way to think of modern science as mapping behaviors in
> the universe at different levels and dimensions (and frequencies), which
> gives us a “Periodic Table of Behavior” arranged in rows and columns as
> such:
>
>
>
>
>
> Emergence is key both because wholes have different properties and
> spacetime “durations” than their parts (it is obviously meaningless to talk
> about events happening at the Cultural dimension such as this dialogical
> exchange in terms of Planck times and distances).
>
>
>
> In addition to size/property dynamics associated with emergence, the ToK
> also shows that qualitatively different patterns of behavior emerge as a
> function of different information-communication systems. Life-genetic,
> Mind-neuronal, and Culture-Language (what you refer to as ideology). To my
> way of thinking, information/communication causation connects to
> Aristotle’s formal cause and I think his conception of “soul” at the
> vegetative, animal and human levels
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Aristotle-23_media_File-3AAristotelian-5FSoul.png&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=1XBzkZw9G-lQXpeRQzw3QQhxBYu8-sB2sH8dxo-u2sg&s=qpJpRCkHchGa3Cd9T2u9PzSjsoERy_ayCLBM9RZ3Egs&e=>
> lines up very nicely with this formulation (i.e., Life/Organisms,
> Mind/Animals, Culture/Persons).
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Intellectual Deep Web" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [log in to unmask]
> To post to this group, send email to
> [log in to unmask]
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_intellectual-2Ddeep-2Dweb_78ed879daf58413d9b2f99239a5a8d9e-2540jmu.edu&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rRtHKeyWbKH8TJqYZuRVimhBtqjzISfwFbA-3fx-d6E&s=0sHxtiS_Po29BGxsqSSj9cQ8MnyFMJMndyT2KQuJ9X0&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_intellectual-2Ddeep-2Dweb_78ed879daf58413d9b2f99239a5a8d9e-2540jmu.edu-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rRtHKeyWbKH8TJqYZuRVimhBtqjzISfwFbA-3fx-d6E&s=OVBnTYFRIV_rr82QKQ_2HfvLsG65MYCACYTKq6Jap5w&e=>
> .
> For more options, visit https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_optout&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rRtHKeyWbKH8TJqYZuRVimhBtqjzISfwFbA-3fx-d6E&s=bTFyD7LZln-UNIQMq2ZqRiGPStP1gA--ld2cDcptvLk&e=.
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1