TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

August 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 10:04:52 -0600
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (6 kB) , Loeb Synergy, (495 kB)
Gregg:

Hey -- you're the one who has to deal with David Christian, not me . . . <g>

Your "Quick ToK System Sketch" seems to make the same error.  There is  
*nothing* "exponential" in reality.  Nothing (and certainly not  
"complexity") follows the curve you have drawn.  I don't know  
Chaisson's work but, from what you've shown, he seems to also make the  
same mistake.

Indeed, to further emphasize the point, there are no "actual  
infinites" in physical reality.  None.  As Georg Cantor was told about  
his "transfinites" in the 1860s.

All known natural processes -- including star life-cycles, nuclear  
chain-reactions, bacterial growth &c -- follow some version of the  
"logistics curve" (aka "Sigmoid" or "S-curve") which, in mathematical  
terms is known as "second-order growth."  The "limit" is always  
built-in from the beginning (as the exponential term in the equation's  
denominator will tell you) . . . !!

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Logistic-5Ffunction&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NThf2MYXFL1kvuj5rhYtXEQVOd8G3PrkPxGCBkufK1w&s=FQdoQpZWURbyVsVMLPN7NI2e3NiRTgurwIjlBlCNsZk&e=

Mark

P.S. The "Simgularity" folks following Ray Kurzweil &al have been told  
this so many times (including by me) that they have modified their  
chart to show a sequence of S-curves -- not a simple "exponential."   
When I discussed this with Kurzweil, mentioning the equation and  
telling him that a concatenation of "overlapping" sigmoids is still a  
sigmoid, he said, "Yes, I agree.  But everyone expects me to talk  
about exponentials, so I can't change now."  It is for this reason  
(i.e. he actually understands the math and violates it anyway) that I  
call him a "fraud" (all for the purpose of falsely leading a parade  
and, yes, for making money) . . . <g>

P.P.S.  I was first introduced to these *wishful* errors 40+ years ago  
by Lyndon LaRouche (the 1970s "Trotskyist" leader of what became the  
US Labor Party &c).  He was promoting all this long before Kurzweil  
&al and it would be interesting some day to make a list of those who  
have falsely/naively argued in favor of "infinity," along with those  
who have tried to straighten this out.  This, btw, is exactly the  
difference between Plato (exponential/transcendental/infinity) and  
Aristotle (sigmoid/natural/limits).

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__laroucheplanet.info_pmwiki_pmwiki.php-3Fn-3DLibrary.INNERELITES&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NThf2MYXFL1kvuj5rhYtXEQVOd8G3PrkPxGCBkufK1w&s=NEIu3BSYL01NoonIQHkMYO_6Bp3QwS6RAm394R91fEU&e=

I have attached a 1983 paper A. L. Loeb on some of this -- which was  
recently requested by one of Ray's good friends (also friends with me)  
who wanted to discuss it with him over dinner but then seems to have  
chickened out, reminding us that the "truth" often suffers in the face  
of friendship (and other expediencies.)

Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Mark,
>
>   What does a map of the United States look like? Depends on the  
> thing about the US you are mapping. The ToK maps the universe of  
> behavioral complexity...and its shape depends on exactly the key you  
> are using.
>
>   For the record, I don't think the Big History folks are "wrong,"  
> in a strong sense of the word. I don't share your harsh assessment  
> of that project. I rather agree with their central claim that much  
> insight and benefit and organization can come from seeing the  
> universe as existing on two axes, that of time and complexity.  
> Indeed, I don't have a problem with sometimes looking at complexity  
> as a single axis. For example, Eric Chaisson's Cosmic Evolution  
> model offers a quantification of complexity as a free energy rate  
> density.
>
> That corresponds very tightly with an angle on the ToK. See:
>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01D43DF7.2E4DE3E0]
>
> What the ToK gets right and other folks get wrong (meaning  
> incomplete and therefore misleading) is that is that they don't  
> differentiate complexity into its central two axes of levels and  
> dimensions as Periodic Table of Behavior does.
> [cid:image002.jpg@01D43DF7.2E4DE3E0]
>
> It is the dimensions of complexity that gives the primary ToK is  
> unique, four cone shape. So, I would argue that this point is made,  
> both in the full diagram and in the Periodic Table of Behavior to  
> the left of it. (It is also noted in the levels and dimensions  
> comment in the lower right.)
>
> [cid:image003.png@01D43DF7.2E4DE3E0]
>
> Which makes it different from others that have seen a single cone,  
> such as Reiser, picture here. (Although if you get into Reiser's  
> view, he comes damn close to this key insight...his view is about as  
> close to anyone else I have encountered.
> [cid:image004.jpg@01D43DF7.2E4DE3E0]
> So, the ToK upgrades the Big History view on this point and then  
> clarifies. It does not reject their view of complexity completely.
>
> G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion  
> <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 10:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Large ToK System Poster
>
> Gregg:
>
> As drawn, it misleads on an *essential* point -- complexity.
>
> Your foundational notion of "dimensions of complexity" is lost in  
> what appears to be "linear scale" that implies "degrees/amounts of  
> complexity" (complete with an "arrow-head" pointing towards Culture.)
>
> There is no reason for the "complexity" of Life, Mind and Culture to  
> be at all the *same* as the complexity of Matter or even each other  
> (apart from some people's wishful thinking) -- a fundamental problem  
> that the "Big History" and Santa Fe types have *not* resolved despite
> 30 years and $300M+ spent on the problem.
>
> If you wish to use the word "complexity," then you will have sort  
> out how to graphically distinguish among "dimensions" and this chart  
> doesn't do that . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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



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

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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2