Yes, Nick, that. Sorry to hijack the thread. Carry on. Carl
On Nov 6, 2017 10:30, "Nick Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Or did he just REALLY LOVE Sabine's rant and was looking for a place to > shoe-horn it in. > > Speaking as someone who for 15 years of his career, put a reference to > Popper in the first paragraph of everything I wrote, followed by a > reference to Kuhn, I really liked Sabine's rant. High time. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of g??? ? > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 10:15 AM > To: FriAM <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Opportunity to join a discussion about Charles > Sanders Peirce > > Heh, I'm too dense to understand how Sabine's rant is relevant. Are you > suggesting that England, Smolin, and Marletto are tossing fiddled > falsifiable noodles at the wall? Or are you suggesting my hunt for > similarities in the 3 models is something like her Dawid fallacy (the > light's better by the lamp post)? Or, perhaps, are you suggesting that > entropy maximization is an example of trying to characterize an entire > space of possibilities and, hence, something Sabine would appreciate? > > > On 11/06/2017 08:54 AM, Carl Tollander wrote: > > Hey, don't hold back, Sabine. > > > > http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-ph > > ysics.html?m=1 > > > > > > On Nov 5, 2017 11:09, "┣glen┫" <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > OK. So, I hear you saying (please correct me!) that you do see a > similarity in all 3 (England, Smolin, and Marletto) up to their attempts to > find a non-teleological explanation for the structures to which we tend to > ascribe teleology (teleonomic). You're right that I agree up to that point. > > > > But what I was looking for was a deeper similarity: the core concept > of all 3 is that the answer should be found by examining the space of > possible states surrounding any given system. In 2 of them (England and > Smolin), the proposal is entropy maximization. In the 3rd (Marletto), the > proposal is less constructive, but still focused on the circumscribed set > of states or distributions of those states. In your prior post, you > posited that Marletto might be more closely aligned with England, but > England *contra* Smolin. My response was that Smolin seems to be saying > much the same thing as England. So, if Marletto is consistent with > England, then Marletto might also be consistent with Smolin. And my > stronger assertion is that England does not seem to contradict Smolin. > > > > If, in Marletto, we set the "recipe" to entropy maximization, then > all 3 seem quite consistent. What am I missing? > > > -- > ☣ gⅼеɳ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
