Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Cohen Geoffrey: on 7/21/17 at 15:22pm UTC, wrote The origin of life on planet Earth A "cosmic cloud" falls from infinite...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/18/16 at 12:26pm UTC, wrote Hi Mr Lamuth ,happy to see that you shall participate at this constest. ...

John LaMuth: on 12/18/16 at 0:50am UTC, wrote I have just submitted to the essay contest re; my forebrain dual parameter...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/16/16 at 12:52pm UTC, wrote :) Regards

Anonymous: on 12/16/16 at 4:47am UTC, wrote Hi Steve Forebrain expansion conforms to the roundness of the cranium.Not...

Steve Dufourny: on 12/14/16 at 9:07am UTC, wrote Hello Mr Lamuth, Thanks for sharing your ideas about our brains and this...

John LaMuth: on 12/14/16 at 8:31am UTC, wrote Announcing the introduction of the first Periodic Table for the Human...

Steve Dufourny: on 9/12/15 at 9:41am UTC, wrote Here is a simple resume of general evolution Quantum...



FQXi FORUM
April 5, 2020

CATEGORY: Complexity [back]
TOPIC: Biological Creativity [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Member Gregory Chaitin wrote on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 10:09 GMT
Where does all the complexity in the biosphere come from?

For a mathematical theory of evolution and biological creativity,

please see my 2012 book "Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical."

--- Gregory Chaitin, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 10:14 GMT
Gregory,

How delightful to see you drop in! I cited your new book in my FQXi essay ("The Perfect First Question"). A great read, and as I've found with all your books, chock full of bold, challenging and and stimulating ideas!

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Gregory Chaitin replied on Jul. 5, 2012 @ 10:33 GMT
Thanks Tom!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 1, 2014 @ 03:57 GMT
"If K is a set such that:

* 0 is in K, and

* for every natural number n, if n is in K, then S(n) is in K,

then K contains every natural number." What does EVERY mean?

Isn't this ambiguous use of EVERY at odds with Galileo Galilei's ignored insight that being infinite is an absolute property, not a set. IIrc, Galileo wrote: "The properties smaller than, equal to, and larger than don't apply to infinite, just to finite quantities."

Gregory, I don't blame you. I rather would like to accept any sound foundation of Hilbert's first and second problem. See my essays.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


larens imanyuel wrote on Dec. 1, 2014 @ 02:14 GMT
Gregory,

The title "Proving Darwin" may be a little strong. After all, macroevolution was never proven to be simply the smooth result of microevolution that Darwin envisioned. Even today there is plenty of room for another process existing in concert with Darwinian microevolution. Reverse causality, i.e., causality running backwards in time, is the logical candidate. Physics, both classical and quantum may be written with causality running both ways. Celtic philosophy had it running both ways before being suppressed by the Roman Empire and David Hume's empiricism.

The development of the ribosome and the development of animals at the base of the Cambrian Explosion are the best candidates for retrocausal explanation. This would undermine the arguments for Intelligent Design and a return to traditional scripture as an explanation. The timing of these evolutionary events and the current size of ribosomes have some interesting connections with elementary number theory, so there is already a known starting point for building the retrocausal explanations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 11, 2015 @ 08:33 GMT
Hello,

The evolution is a priciple of adaption and encodings.There is 2 principal concept, the darwinism and the lammarckism.In a very simple resume Darmin is about the naturalselection and Lamarck about the will. I prefer personnally Lamarck.But in fact these 2 theories are not sufficient for the encodings in dna.The cosmological informations,bosonic and even gravitonic)are essential.Fermions so encode informations with a lot of parameters,with sortings and superimposings.

Lamarck for example thought that if the giraffe had a long neck, it is because its will has encoded it,Darwin on the other side thought that it is just an adaptation due to a selective environmental adatation.But in fact the main important is to see theevolution since the first cells .

Hope that helps

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 12, 2015 @ 09:41 GMT
Here is a simple resume of general evolution

Quantum sphères........H...CNO.....H2O NH4 CO2 H2C2 ......proteins hormons vitamins glucids lipids protids amino acids.....UNICELLS.PROTISTS.....PLURICELLS.....in millions of years they build

algonkian eozoic 550 millions cambrian 500 silurian //500 and 400 devonian 350 carboniferian(very incredible) permian 250 Trias Jurassic cretacea /135 AND 65 after tert and quat .....The evolution is pure road of adaptation and complexification.

Hope that helps

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 3, 2014 @ 12:52 GMT
EMERGENCE: BY COSMOS OR BY LIFE?

There are many emergent properties we associate with the emergence of life, and often intelligent life, like thought or even abstract thinking; decision making, affection, etc. Yet upon closer examination many of these kinds of emergent attributes can also be attributed as properties of the Universe at large, maybe not all, but still a goodly number, leading...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 7, 2014 @ 12:41 GMT
FREE WILL: YOUR REALITY OR YOUR ILLUSION?

“You have to believe in free will. You have no choice”. Seriously, if our Universe is a clockwork Universe, where causality rules absolutely (as both Newton and Einstein believed), then you do not have free will, only the illusion of having free will.

I will argue that if causality means anything, then everything is predetermined and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 8, 2014 @ 13:28 GMT
MORE ABOUT FREE WILL: JUST ILLUSION OR ABSOLUTE DELUSION?

Just about every human on Planet Earth holds near and dear to their worldview that they have control over their own lives, or at the very least control over their own mind. Even if you live in a dictatorship or you are a slave or a prisoner you have free will of the mind. You can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking. But...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Prytz wrote on Dec. 10, 2014 @ 13:17 GMT
TELL ME ALL ABOUT YOUR FREE WILL

Quite apart from a Universe which might well be deterministic and clockwork-like in its make-up, or even a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe where you are software, and software rules, (OK?) your free will is limited at best or perhaps lacking in substance entirely. The Universe is the way it is and no amount of wishful (free will) thinking is going to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 07:21 GMT
More likely to cheat if told there is no free will:Association for psychological science

Of course there are many things we can not change -

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference."

Reinhold Niebuhr

Adopted by Alcoholics anonymous and other groups.

What if we were to test your hypothesis: telling one group of alcoholics they have no free will and giving the other group the Serenity Prayer- and see which group succeed in having the most abstainers.

Re. my freewill. I can wake myself from sleep deliberately. When a dream becomes too unpleasant I tell myself to scream as loudly as possible in order to wake up, and knowing that will be the outcome.

Daniel Kahneman has written about thinking fast and slow.Public Lecture by Prof. Daniel Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow Thinking fast just gives us time to devote to important decisions that require deliberation. We would be overburdened if we had to deliberate every tiny decision the body makes. That does not mean we have no free will but that we have the opportunity to exercise it, if we choose, when it is important or useful to use it.

I chose to reply to your post, because of the subject and its importance to me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tim J. Rappl replied on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 09:41 GMT
groups.google.com/d/msg/rp-discuss/nQYLO4BbK6o/3xgwYLqdyhgJ

:
Happy Easter Dressings#topic/617

~w~

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 15:50 GMT
It certainly is true that there are things that we cannot change in the world and therefore must accept. Then there are things that we can change and do change as well as things we can change and choose not to change. Okay.

Free will then simply comes down to determinism. Do we live in a deterministic universe or a probablistic universe? If the universe is deterministic, then initial conditions determine all fate and karma. If the universe is probablistic, then initial conditions result in a universe that is mostly but not absolutely predictable. There is karma, but also free choice.

Our neural computer generates an aware matter packet for each choice that is a superposition of both action and inaction and therefore represents two possible futures. That is a free choice because given the exact same initial conditions, the second trial will only be probablistically related to the first trial because that is how our quantum universe works.

Although many choices that we make in life are fairly predictable, there are many choices that we make that surprise even ourselves when we make them. We are responsible for our choices even when we do not completely understand why we chose what we chose and there is nothing else to call this but free choice. We are of course responsible for our bad choices even though we know when they are bad.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 20:39 GMT
Ah, but now you have changed the rules...now you want intelligent choice, not just free choice. Intelligent choice is all about reason and is a much different apple, but there are intelligent free choices...

If you make a bet based on 50:50 odds as an intelligent choice, where is your bet? This is free choice because given the exact same initial conditions, a probablistic universe will result in a probablistic future no matter what the intelligence. Otherwise, intelligent choices are usually pretty easy to predict...given the same intelligence at work...of course, there are always outlyers, right?

You see, it is not mysterious when people act rationally in their own interests and these choices are usually predictable. But when people act in ways that are difficult to rationalize, which includes zealotry and mental illness, but also creativity and imagining about impossible things and then making them possible. To me, that is the magic elixar of free choice and free will.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 21:58 GMT
Steve Agnew,

"Ah, but now you have changed the rules...now you want intelligent choice, not just free choice."

I haven't changed any rules. Your complete message:

Free will then simply comes down to determinism. Do we live in a deterministic universe or a probablistic universe? If the universe is deterministic, then initial conditions determine all fate and karma. If the universe is probablistic, then initial conditions result in a universe that is mostly but not absolutely predictable. There is karma, but also free choice.

Our neural computer generates an aware matter packet for each choice that is a superposition of both action and inaction and therefore represents two possible futures. That is a free choice because given the exact same initial conditions, the second trial will only be probablistically related to the first trial because that is how our quantum universe works.

Although many choices that we make in life are fairly predictable, there are many choices that we make that surprise even ourselves when we make them. We are responsible for our choices even when we do not completely understand why we chose what we chose and there is nothing else to call this but free choice. We are of course responsible for our bad choices even though we know when they are bad.

What is your paragraph saying about free will? Are you explaining the origin of free will? If so, how does what you call free choice become free will?

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 01:03 GMT
Steve Agnew,

I did read your followup message. I didn't respond to it because the meanings of your words needed clarification for me. If you wish to cut this short, please let me know if human free will is an intelligent act? If it is, what does mechanics have to do with explaining an intelligent act. If it is, for you, not an intelligent act and results from unintelligent mechanical activity, then I am requesting the steps that lead from an unintelligent cause to an intelligent result? That cause you may identify. The result in question being human free will.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 01:09 GMT
Steve Agnew,

That wasn't as clear as I intended it to be. I am declaring human free will to be an intelligent act. Are you declaring it to be a mechanical effect and not an intelligent act. Thank you.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 04:17 GMT
Now we are engaged...is free will an intelligent act or is free will a mechanical act? I am surprised that you are still engaged since usually I am thrown out of the bar by now...

Notice that we have moved the free will/free choice argument down the field a little bit further than is typical. Now we are differentiating between an intelligent act, which certainly does not include creativity,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 19:37 GMT
Dear Steve Agnew,

Thank you for sharing your view. Your meanings for 'free' and 'choice' were important for me to understand. I don't see either of those words being applicable to mechanics. But, your words and your meanings make up your view which is what I wanted to understand. I have another question:

"While our rational mind and reason has much to do with choice, it is really by the feelings of our primitive mind that we make choices. The feelings of our primitive minds are what give us free choice and free will, not rational logic."

Does your previous message explain what you mean by 'primitive' mind?

"Our neural computer generates an aware matter packet for each choice that is a superposition of both action and inaction and therefore represents two possible futures. That is a free choice because given the exact same initial conditions, the second trial will only be probablistically related to the first trial because that is how our quantum universe works."

If so, can you please explain an "aware matter packet"? Does your meaning of the word 'aware' refer to an intelligent understanding? I am looking for steps you credit with converting dumbness into intelligence. By dumbness I refer to the mechanical properties put forward by theoretical physics. By intelligence I refer to our ability to discern meaning from the information. By information, I refer to that which photons deliver. If you are interested in my previously stated view, it is expressed in my essay "Lead With Innate Knowledge"

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Apr. 9, 2015 @ 13:45 GMT
Thanks for the link to your essay. You are very close to my understanding, but of course with different words and terms. Your innate is my primitive mind and your intelligent mind is my aware matter.

I agree that photons do carry a lot of information, but sound, touch, taste and smell also carry information as various forms of matter exchange. Furthermore, photons are what we share with objects along with other matter and are what binds objects and the universe together.

The synapses of neural communication pair up as particles of information that I call aware matter. Aware matter assembles into neural packets that we call thoughts, but intelligence is always a combination of both conscious and unconscious thought.

My understanding of dumbness is that it is an essential part of intelligence. Our intelligence as humans is to me just a more complex form of the same intelligence of other life. So I do not find intelligence that useful of a differentiator. The biggest differentiator for humans seems to be our ability to imagine clearly impossible futures...and yet still survive. We also somehow keep from spending our lives in futile quests and manage to procreate and thrive.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


RJ Tang wrote on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 16:15 GMT
Simplicity is a result of equilibrium, and seeking simplicity is a human specific preference

Simplicity is that a relative few theories and mathematical models can explain a number of phenomena. While complexity is the opposite where there seems to be an unending need to invent new theories. By this definition, physics and astronomy are in the former camp and social science and biology...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


RJ Tang wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 15:59 GMT
However, the simplicity on the surface for the natural world might be just a disguise of a chaotic and unpredictable reality. The equilibrium masks over much of the chaos and most noises or complex nuisances cancel each other out. What’s left is the poetic simplicity skin. Underneath the skin, things might not be that smooth, or elegant or simple after all. It is a possibility. We probably are able to see some hints as we get more refined data, better models and more powerful observation tools.



rujing_tang at yahoo com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


RJ Tang wrote on Apr. 14, 2015 @ 14:20 GMT
Another aspect of the simplicity is that it indicates the death process of the universe toward infinite entropy. Based on the second law of thermal dynamics, our universe is slipping into this final death of maximum entropy. An accompanying result of this process is that the universe becomes simpler and simpler. Imagine a universe where homogeneity rules and any imaginable infinitesimal particles and forces are distributed absolutely uniformly and cannot be changed a bit. This would be the simplest state and requires the simplest mathematics or physics. If we are slipping in that direction, which I think we are, then we should not be surprised that the physics laws in describing the universe is becoming simpler. Our current simplistic physical forces and laws are hinting that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Edward LaMuth wrote on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 08:31 GMT
Announcing the introduction of the first Periodic Table for the Human Forebrain; which enjoys similar advantages to the dramatic influence the Periodic Table of the Elements has enjoyed with respect to Chemistry/Physics. The cerebral cortex represents the most logical initiation point for such an innovation, celebrated as the crowning culmination of human forebrain evolution. This radical expansion of the neocortex is observed to occur in a discrete pattern suggestively termed cortical growth rings. The stepwise repetition of these processes over the course of mammalian evolution ultimately accounts for the six sequential age levels of cortical evolution.

The two fundamental variables defining forebrain evolution are the parameters of phylogenetic age and input specificity. Sanides (1972) proposed that the human cortex evolved as a sequence of five concentric growth rings comprising a medio-lateral hemisphere gradient. Furthermore, the interoceptive, exteroceptive and proprioceptive input categories each project to their own four-part complex of cortical bands that (when taken collectively) define an antero-posterior hemisphere gradient. The para-coronal variable of phylogenetic age is plotted as the ordinate and the para-sagittal parameter of input specificity charted as the abscissa in a Cartesian coordinate system. Each cortical area described by Brodmann and von Economo corresponds to schematically unique age/input parameter coordinates. Furthermore, each affiliated thalamic nucleus of specific age and input coordinates projects principally to that cortical area comprising identical pair-coordinate values, implying that the evolution of both the dorsal thalamus and the cortex are similarly defined in terms of the specifics for the dual parameter grid.

More at forebrain.org

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 14, 2016 @ 09:07 GMT
Hello Mr Lamuth,

Thanks for sharing your ideas about our brains and this evolutionI am fascinated also by evolution and complexification of mass.Our brains are fascinating resulsts of evolution, a big puzzle of encodings.You knw it is in classing the brains that I found this universal link of spherisation.I have seen since the selacians that our telencephal, our terminal brain are in spherisation, see afterr the fishs after the reptilains,the inferior mammalians and the Superior mammalians ....after the hominids.See the metencephals also.It is fascinating in fact our evolution.I have sent you an invitation on LinkedIn, I am facinated by evolution and biology.I am going to learn more about your works about brains, it is very relevant.Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Dec. 16, 2016 @ 04:47 GMT
Hi Steve

Forebrain expansion conforms to the roundness of the cranium.Not sure of an overlap of our approaches but sounds interesting ! ^_^

Best John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 16, 2016 @ 12:52 GMT
:) Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cohen Geoffrey wrote on Jul. 21, 2017 @ 15:22 GMT
The origin of life on planet Earth

A "cosmic cloud" falls from infinite space. Then, in the crust of the planet, as in the depths of the primitive oceans, could be observed the existence of a viscous element that covered the whole Earth. With this gelatinous mass, protoplasm was born. This matter, amorphous and viscous, with its condensation gave origin to the birth of the nucleus. The earliest inhabitants of Earth are albuminoid cells, amoebae, and all unicellular organisms that have multiplied in the warm waters of the oceans. These beings only reveal a sense: of touch, which gave rise to all others.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.