I think you might be. I don't think they've published a paper just to propose a tautology (though worse ideas have been published)

Well, it's not a tautology according to them since the new element is that they call certain phenomena "selection" because it would be similar to the "selection" in the evolution theory, which, to me, isn't similar at all. So all that's left is a tautology.

I assumed that the only way to know such an event would be to observe it in its occurrence, because no other information could necessitate the logical conclusion of the event's occurrence

Oh, I got that originally. My point was why look at the issue solely "logically" when the hallmark of the metaphysical is the "magical"? After all, that was the whole reason humans invented the metaphysical, namely to explain the (currently) unexplainable.

BTW, don't get me wrong, I agree your analysis makes "logical" sense.

Information here is a synonym for entropy. — Nils Loc

That is a common misinterpretation of Shannon's definition of Information, in terms of abstract mathematics, not of human vocabulary. As I attempted to describe in a post above, Shannon bracketed the meaningful realm of Information mathematically, within a broad range of possibilities from [100% to 0% (White or Black pixels) ] (typically expressed as "1/0" {all or nothing})*1. But the meaningful information is limited to the [something] range between {99% and 1%} : shades of gray.

Those extreme (all or nothing) cases are completely meaningless {entropic} except to denote statistical probabilities. Hence, digital computer "bits" are inherently open & undefined, allowing them to communicate almost infinite expressions of meaning, for interpretation by our imperfect analog minds. Hence, Information is a synonym for "Knowledge" & "Intelligence" & "Negentropy" (the opposite of Entropy).

Secret "codes" are unintelligible, until interpreted by the receiver. So, Shannon developed an automatic method for "breaking" the code, via standardized rules*3. :nerd:


*1. What is the Shannon theory of information entropy?
Shannon considered various ways to encode, compress, and transmit messages from a data source, and proved in his famous source coding theorem that the entropy represents an absolute mathematical limit on how well data from the source can be losslessly compressed onto a perfectly noiseless channel.
___ Wikipedia

*2. Negentropy :
In information theory and statistics, negentropy is used as a measure of distance to normality. Out of all distributions with a given mean and variance, the normal or Gaussian distribution is the one with the highest entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy
Note --- Normal distribution (average) lacks the "Difference that makes a Difference" that we know as "Meaning" for the human Receiver of data. For a computer, the meaning does not matter.

*3. Encoded Information :
In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another form, sometimes shortened or secret, for communication through a communication channel or storage in a storage medium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code

Binary Code :
Does this series if 1s & 0s (computer language) mean anything to you?
If not, then it's Entropic (zero information) compared to natural language text.

A missing law to be added to Darwin's theory? Darwin's theory was made in 1859 and is outdated... Darwin didn't even know about genes, we've unraveled so many other mechanisms for evolution since then, such as genetic drift, gene flow, mutations,... — Skalidris

Yes. Darwin's theory was limited to Biological systems, and he could only guess about some unknown means for communicating information from one generation to another, and one species to another : what we now know as "Genes". So, his theory of how animals & plants evolve was long overdue for a scientific update.

Ironically, this new "law" is an addition to Physical systems ("classical laws of motion, gravity, electromagnetism, and energy") and also to Meta-physical systems ("We identify universal concepts of selection—static persistence, dynamic persistence, and novelty generation—that underpin function and drive systems to evolve through the exchange of information between the environment and the system.") The latter are not physical/material things, but merely "Patterns" & "Configurations" and Memes that are not Perceived, but Conceived.

Note --- Quotes above are from the PNAS paper, proposing a "New Law" or Principle of progressive change in natural systems.

...As I attempted to describe in a post above, Shannon bracketed the meaningful realm of Information mathematically, within a broad range of possibilities from [100% to 0% (White or Black pixels) ] (typically expressed as "1/0" {all or nothing})*1. But the meaningful information is limited to the [something] range between {99% and 1%} : shades of gray.

Those extreme (all or nothing) cases are completely meaningless {entropic} except to denote statistical probabilities. Hence, digital computer "bits" are inherently open & undefined, allowing them to communicate almost infinite expressions of meaning... — Gnomon

Gnonsense.

My point was why look at the issue solely "logically" when the hallmark of the metaphysical is the "magical"? After all, that was the whole reason humans invented the metaphysical, namely to explain the (currently) unexplainable. — LuckyR

You seem confused. I agree that metaphysics looks to explain what hasn't yet been explained, but magic is not the hallmark of metaphysics. Magic doesn't explain anything, so metaphysicians cannot turn to magic, in their efforts to explain. In fact, that is what metaphysicians try to avoid, by showing that what is currently unexplainable, inclining people toward "magic", can actually be explained in ways other than magic.

No, metaphysics ain’t magic, nor is it simply ignorant conjecture. I don’t have expertise in the subject, but I know enough to understand that it is a real subject. The focus of metaphysics and its explanatory metaphors shift over time but it’s still very much a live subject.

Those extreme (all or nothing) cases are completely meaningless {entropic} except to denote statistical probabilities. Hence, digital computer "bits" are inherently open & undefined, allowing them to communicate almost infinite expressions of meaning... — Gnomon
Gnonsense. — wonderer1

Sorry for the confusion. I was groping for a polite way to make "sense" of an erroneous assertion by ↪unenlightened : that "Information is Entropy". I noted that it's a common misunderstanding, but one that might reveal a novel way to look at the antithetical relationship between Information and Entropy*1. Those terms are not equal, but opposite in meaning. Instead, Information is equal to Negentropy*2.

So, I re-interpreted Shannon's definition of Information in terms of 1s & 0s, as a reference to Bookends, not the Books ; Carrier of meaning, not the Content. Unfortunately, my groping attempt to describe that unfamiliar & unconventional perspective may sound like "Gnonsense", because it is literally Unorthodox, Atypical, and Eccentric. Maybe, over time, I will be able to find a more Gnomeaningful way to express that contradiction. :joke:


*1. In information theory, the entropy of a random variable is the average level of "information", "surprise", or "uncertainty" inherent to the variable's possible outcomes. ___Wikipedia
Note --- 100% and 0% quantities of Information are not "averages", but Extremes. Which I referred to metaphorically as "Brackets" or "Bookends".

*2. Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negentropy

*3. Quote from a previous post to trying to untangle the babble :

Thermodynamics doesn't deal with Uncertainty, but merely the normal range of temperatures between Planck Heat & Absolute Zero. Yet, Information was defined in terms of a relative position between absolute Certainty and absolute Ignorance. Both mathematically idealized thermal states are devoid of "Difference", being All or Nothing. Anything outside that natural range would be super-naturally Certain. — Gnomon

INFORMATION IS IN THE MIDRANGE, NOT THE EXTREMES

Several things:

First, unless you want to redefine metaphysics in the current era from what it has meant historically, the role of "magic" cannot be excluded from it's repertoire.

To be clear I am NOT using the term "magical" perjoratively or dismissively. Rather I mean it as a explanation that defies observation, experience and knowledge.

If one is intellectually honest one cannot reasonably evaluate the role of metaphysics using it's current application, because in the current era we can only know the question, never the (true) answer. No, in order to fully evaluate what metaphysics is (and more importantly for this conversation, what it is not) we must use historical examples and put ourselves in the mindset of those in that era.

For example explaining lightning in the absence of an understanding of electricity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism all ascribed lightning to the workings of gods (surprising no one) when those religions were invented in the Bronze and Iron ages, clearly not science, that's metaphysics. However, in Medieval times lightning (which commonly struck the tallest structures ie churches) was either thought to be prevented by the piety of the ringing of church bells warding off evil spirits (a metaphysical proposal) or that the sound of the ringing of the bells disrupted the air and thus prevented the lightning from striking the tower (a physical or a scientific theory).

So, I re-interpreted Shannon's definition of Information in terms of 1s & 0s, as a reference to Bookends, not the Books ; Carrier of meaning, not the Content. Unfortunately, my groping attempt to describe that unfamiliar & unconventional perspective may sound like "Gnonsense", because it is literally Unorthodox, Atypical, and Eccentric. Maybe, over time, I will be able to find a more Gnomeaningful way to express that contradiction. — Gnomon

I don't see how it means anything to say you have "re-interpreted" Shannon's definition of information, when you show no indication of having ever understood Shannon's definition of information in the first place. You've demonstrated over and over that you have no meaningful understanding of what is meant by "a bit". It is ludicrous to think that you have any meaningful degree of understanding of Shannon's theory, when you don't understand such a basic element of it.

And yet you won't stop pretending that you understand information theory...

It's not eccentric or unorthodox. What it is, is silly pretension to having expertise that you don't have.

For better or worse, I've had enough experience with people who think like you, to know the pattern pretty well.

Gnonsense — wonderer1

:smirk: Gnice...like a gnife to the gnuts...

Gnice...like a gnife to the gnuts... — Janus

:naughty:

Your critique is apt and well-appreciated...some claims deserve castration lest they reproduce and add to the general confusion...

As has been noted already in this thread by myself and several others, the concept of entropy, and indeed of information, in Shannon’s theory, is really specific to the transmission of information via a medium. It ought not to be made into an all-purpose metaphor and then extended to encompass vague ‘theories of everything’.

I’ve often made the point that there is a well-known meme from Norbert Weiner, founder of cybernetics, often quoted on the internet, to wit ‘information is information, not matter or energy.’ This has been seized on in such a way that information is regarded as a kind of updated or more sophisticated form of matter-energy, or that by substituting the concept of information for that of matter, a more adequate metaphysics can be developed. The problem is that information is not a metaphysical primitive in the sense that matter or energy were thought to be. There is no such thing as information per se, it something that is always output or derived. Hence treating information as a metaphysical ground of being, akin to how materialism regards matter, is complex and controversial.

The complexity arises because information, unlike matter or energy, doesn’t exist independently of interpretation and context. Information requires a sender, a message, and a receiver, and its meaning is shaped by the context in which it is created and received. This relational and contextual nature of information makes it a concept that’s not easily pinned down as a fundamental substance in the same way as matter or energy.

The idea of information as a metaphysical foundation also runs into challenges when we consider the diversity of what can be classified as information. For instance, the genetic information in DNA, the information contained in a book, and the information in a computer program all have different qualities and roles. This diversity suggests that information might be better understood as a property or behavior of systems, rather than a fundamental entity in its own right.

The fact that information is always derived or output and always contextual is crucial. It indicates that information is deeply intertwined with the physical and social worlds, suggesting that any metaphysical consideration of information must account for these ties and cannot treat information as an isolated or simple concept. This perspective aligns more with a holistic or systems-oriented view, where information is one aspect of a larger, interconnected reality.

:up: Information informs only by virtue of being interpreted.

Don't you think, in a way, that qualia is just what it is like to be information?

Um, no. I interpret qualia to refer to experiential qualities, which are exclusively the attributes of subjects. Although that said I also regard ‘qualia’ as an unfortunate piece of jargon, which is only ever encountered in discourses pertaining to a clique of American academic philosophers, mainly materialist in orientation.

First, unless you want to redefine metaphysics in the current era from what it has meant historically, the role of "magic" cannot be excluded from it's repertoire. — LuckyR

I've read a lot of metaphysics, and I've never seen magic in the repertoire. Maybe an example would help.

Rather I mean it as a explanation that defies observation, experience and knowledge. — LuckyR

Such a "magical" explanation would not be metaphysics. Metaphysicians work toward explanations which are consistent with observation experience and knowledge. An explanation which defies these would be illogical, and not acceptable to anyone, so a metaphysician would know to stay away from that.

For example explaining lightning in the absence of an understanding of electricity. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism all ascribed lightning to the workings of gods (surprising no one) when those religions were invented in the Bronze and Iron ages, clearly not science, that's metaphysics. However, in Medieval times lightning (which commonly struck the tallest structures ie churches) was either thought to be prevented by the piety of the ringing of church bells warding off evil spirits (a metaphysical proposal) or that the sound of the ringing of the bells disrupted the air and thus prevented the lightning from striking the tower (a physical or a scientific theory). — LuckyR

I haven't seen lightening ascribed to gods in any metaphysics. Nor have I seen any metaphysical proposals about church bells. It's become quite evident that you don't know what you're talking about.

I've read a lot of metaphysics, and I've never seen magic in the repertoire. — Metaphysician Undercover

I’ve noticed a classic sociological text on the Routledge book stands, A General History of Magic, by Marcel Mauss, apparently a very good book. I was amused to see a reader comment on the Amazon edition, ‘this book is crap. I bought it and it doesn’t contain a single trick’.

I agree that Darwin's word-choice of "selection"*1, to describe how Evolution works, inadvertently implied some "agency"*2 doing the choosing from among the options, both fit & unfit, generated by random mutations. His model for "selection" was the artificial evolution of domesticated animals suitable for human purposes. But the notion of natural selection suggests some kind of universal teleological agency programming the mechanisms of Evolution to work toward an inscrutable Final Cause : the output of evolution. — Gnomon

The use of "natural selection" should not be problematic. It means adaptation and change. Phenotype can change. We're in the philosophy forum, that's why you think we should apply the scrutiny in word usage and meaning.

@@Apustimelogist - I moved your last comment to a thread on the hard problem (as that is the topic it belongs under) and replied there

Your post makes sense if the definition of metaphysics is the musings of ivory tower metaphysicians. Whereas, to me the purported beyond physical actions of metaphysical entities also qualifies.

As usual, perspective is key.

Perhaps one is "Metaphysics" and the other is an example of the metaphysical.

If magic is aprioristically understood as nonsensical, then metaphysics—such as the study of causality - has nothing to do with magic: for metaphysics attempts to make sense of what is, i.e. of the ontic, thereby being the ideally both coherent and consistent understanding of ontology and its various aspects (e.g., causality, time, identity, reality, etc.). These musings are what all science is founded upon, without which no science could be possible.

If however magic is understood in a more sensible manner - such as along the lines of “the process of aligning one’s environments(s) to one’s will” * - then certain types of metaphysics will indeed address magic: predominantly those which do not deny the possibility of us having some capacity of free will (there can be no conformity of environments to one’s will in ontologies such as that of eternalism (aka the Block Time model of reality), for one example). But then, the mere act of blowing one’s nose will be, of itself, an act of magic ** - making magic a very trite reality that can be deemed to apply to all sentient beings that in any way conform their environment to suit their own will/volition, this all the time and without exception.

In support of the latter affirmation, as is maintained by many modern pagans:

*

Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), an influential British occultist, defined "magick" as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will",[9] adding a 'k' to distinguish ceremonial or ritual magic from stage magic.[10] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(supernatural)

**

What is a Magical Operation? It may be defined as any event in nature which is brought to pass by Will. We must not exclude potato-growing or banking from our definition. Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose.[1] — https://pagan.fandom.com/wiki/Magick

-----------

The non-pagan communities which don't in any way practice magic thinking it nonsensical will of course want to define magic differently - but then you have the aprioristic understandings of magic being nonsensical, which is not sponsored by those who do uphold that magic is real. All this overlooking the Abrahamic admonition against it as evil ... although Mr. JC sure seems to fit the description of someone who practiced magic, for one example. :grin:

JC sure seems to fit the description of someone who practiced magic, for one example

Exactly. As an aside, I thought it was interesting the you distinguished stage magic from purported Magick, since stage magic is, of course completely logical and scientific ie in no sense metaphysical.

Anyway, your example of religious miracles as an example is right on. How do the academic Metaphysicians describe the parting of the sea, or the multiplication of the fishes and loaves? Myth? Magic? Some rationalization using vague pseudoscientific terminology?

How do the academic Metaphysicians describe the parting of the sea, or the multiplication of the fishes and loaves? Myth? — LuckyR

Hope you don't mind if I but in but I think you have the wrong idea about metaphysics. It's not really 'primitive science' although it is of course true that its origins lie in ancient culture which was not at all scientifically developed in our sense. But the term 'metaphysics' itself comes from Aristotle's works. It was devised by an editor of Aristotle's works, well after Aristotle had died, to distinguish the writings on a set of subjects that come 'after the physics'. Here's a crib:

the different treatises of the collection pursue a general philosophical project or discipline, which Aristotle variously refers to as “wisdom,” “first philosophy” or even “theology.” Such a discipline is described in the Metaphysics as a theoretical science, as opposed to practical and productive sciences, and is sharply distinguished from the other two theoretical sciences, physics and mathematics. Typical of the issues Aristotle deals with are the nature of existence (or more narrowly, 'being'), essence, individuation, identity, Universals, the nature of material and abstract objects, just to mention a few.

Your examples above of how to account for lightning would not, I expect, find their way into these volumes, but more likely in his Physics (although that's only a hunch.) But Aristotle did distinguish metaphysics from the other sciences such as biology and physics.

And metaphysics is not dead! Current issues include:

Nature of Consciousness: exploration of how consciousness arises, whether it can be fully explained by physical processes, and the implications of phenomena like qualia (subjective, individual experiences).

Free Will and Determinism: Modern discussions often intersect with findings from neuroscience and psychology, examining whether human actions are predetermined by neural processes or if there is room for free agency.

Metaphysics of Time: Questions include whether time is fundamental or emergent, the reality of the past and future, the nature of temporal experience, and whether time is really objective or relies on subjective apprehension.

Emergent Properties: debates how complex systems give rise to properties that their individual components do not possess, like how consciousness emerges from brain activity. The discussion also ties into questions about the relationship between mind and matter, and how to account for the subjective unity of experience.

Interpretations of Quantum Physics and the Nature of the Wave Function: includes discussions about the nature of the wave function, which describes the quantum state of a particle or system. Key questions include whether the wave function represents a real physical entity or is merely a statistical tool, the implications of wave function collapse, and the reality of quantum superposition. These debates often touch upon the foundational nature of reality and challenge our classical understanding of the physical world. Different interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Many-Worlds interpretation, and pilot-wave theories, offer varied metaphysical perspectives on these quantum phenomena.

Multiverse Theories: The concept of multiple or parallel universes, arising from cosmology and quantum mechanics, presents metaphysical questions about the nature of reality and existence beyond our observable universe.

Identity and Personal Identity: Questions about what it means for something to be the same over time, and the nature of personal identity, especially in the face of change, continue to be major topics.

Meta-Ontology: This concerns the methodology of metaphysics itself, questioning how we should go about understanding what exists, and the criteria for something to be considered real.

Quite a bit of it cutting-edge! I'm personally interested in the subjects of platonic realism (i.e. the sense in which number is real) and the observer problem in quantum physics. I've noticed an external course in metaphysics run by Oxford, Reality Being and Existence. So - metaphysics lives on.

:up:

As an aside, I thought it was interesting the you distinguished stage magic from purported Magick, since stage magic is, of course completely logical and scientific ie in no sense metaphysical. — LuckyR

Yet, as per my intended point in my previous post, the logical and scientific is itself fully grounded in pre-established metaphysical concepts and, thus, is itself metaphysical. Here’s where I find the colloquial use of “metaphysical” as that which is illogical and contrary to science fits in: the logical and scientific as we currently know it today is grounded in a set of metaphysical understandings which those who want to preserve the status quo don’t want to be interfered with. To such, metaphysics—such as everything which @Wayfarer addressed as examples—is a done deal that shouldn’t be meddled with. As such it ought to no longer be in any way addressed. So when such people hear that there is metaphysical debates and enquiries going on, they reflexively view it as an assault upon the status quo on which current logic and science is grounded. Thereby resulting in the purely colloquial understanding that enquiry into metaphysical issues entails that which is not supported by modern-day logic and science.

If this appraisal happens to at least partly describe your own view on the matter, then—as @Wayfarer points out—metaphysical issues as a grouping are in no way satisfactory resolved. Logic without identity is not logical. Science without temporality is not empirical science (at root: knowledge gained via experience), for experience of anything other necessitates duration. And yet what identity and time are—to readdress just two examples of metaphysics—is in no way satisfactorily resolved. Moreover, any new metaphysical understandings regarding, for example, identity and time would not destroy the logic and science of today. It would only better account for what is currently known, this in more coherent and consistent manners. Via analogy, the Theory of Relativity does not destroy the knowns addressed via Newtonian physics, but only better accounts for the knowns which Newtonian physics sought to explain (and yes, the ToR introduces new metaphysical notions, such as the nature of time; without these, the mathematics required for ToR would not be possible, or, at least, in any way intelligible ... to the best of my knowledge on the matter).

In short, current day logic and science is in every way metaphysical (invariably comprised of metaphysics of a certain type).

And, as it currently stands, these currently established metaphysics have been unable to resolve some of the core issues humanity at large is concerned with; for one example, the nature of consciousness and its volitions. Nor, for that matter, have they facilitated anything close to a physical Theory of Everything.

Anyway, your example of religious miracles as an example is right on. How do the academic Metaphysicians describe the parting of the sea, or the multiplication of the fishes and loaves? Myth? Magic? Some rationalization using vague pseudoscientific terminology? — LuckyR

Well, in my own opinion, the "academic metaphysician" wouldn't touch such an issue with a ten foot pole. It would be fully out of scope of what academic metaphysics entails (unless one happens to be a metaphysician upholding metaphysical notions of causality, time, etc., which ground some system of atheism; in which case their explanation would consist of all it being bogus, with the case closed).

The closest that academics would get to it is via comparative religion studies; such as those done by Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade, and I suppose one could add Carl Jung to the list. But such studies wouldn't be metaphysical studies, not by a very long shot.

All of the latter, to hold any water, need to be coherent and consistent in what they explain. So—unless someone somehow develops a coherent and consistent metaphysical account of (not just one, but) all spiritualities the world over which can thereby stand up to logical scrutiny and is not in conflict with empirical data—one has no business in metaphysically explaining JC's reported miracles (if, that is, any aspect of them happened to ever occur).

@Gnomon - By strange co-incidence, there's another journal article about a very similar idea to the one that this OP was about, which was also published in October.

Comment on this second article appeared in The Conversation, A new theory linking evolution and physics has scientists baffled.... That article refers to (and criticizes) a Nature article, Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution. It starts:

Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution1,2 with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open-ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary3,4,5. We present assembly theory (AT) as a framework that does not alter the laws of physics, but redefines the concept of an ‘object’ on which these laws act.

Compare that with the opening paragraph of the article linked from the OP:

The universe is replete with complex evolving systems, but the existing macroscopic physical laws do not seem to adequately describe these systems. Recognizing that the identification of conceptual equivalencies among disparate phenomena were foundational to developing previous laws of nature, we approach a potential “missing law” by looking for equivalencies among evolving systems. We suggest that all evolving systems—including but not limited to life—are composed of diverse components that can combine into configurational states that are then selected for or against based on function. We then identify the fundamental sources of selection—static persistence, dynamic persistence, and novelty generation—and propose a time-asymmetric law that states that the functional information of a system will increase over time when subjected to selection for function(s).

When the second of these two articles appeared in my news feed, I naturally assumed it was about the article that was subject of this OP. But no! It's a completely different article, and with a very different explanatory framework, but they're both addressing the same general issue. The second article - the one I've just encountered - is under pretty heavy criticism from the scientific community for smuggling in 'intelligent design tropes'. The author in The Conversation discussion (a scientist) fails to see the problem the paper is attempting to resolve.

Somehow, I feel the publication of these two articles, from different teams, using different theories, about the same general issue, is more than coincidence (queue X Files theme).

By strange co-incidence, there's another journal article about a very similar idea to the one that this OP was about, which was also published in October. . . .
Somehow, I feel the publication of these two articles, from different teams, using different theories, about the same general issue, is more than coincidence (queue X Files theme). — Wayfarer

I have saved a PDF of the Assembly Theory article*1, but haven't read it in detail yet. Coincidentally, I noticed that one of the authors is Sara Walker*2, of the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) for the Study of Complexity*3. She is a physicist and an astrobiologist, and that combination of abstract Math & ambitious Life may require looking at the world from a different perspective. Ironically, this "theory was developed as a means to detect evidence of extraterrestrial life from data gathered by astronomical observations or probes" ___Wiki.

The alternative perspective of the SFI is Holism, the key to emergence of complex physical & meta-physical systems. Yet, as you well know, the notion of Integrated Whole Systems is often met with knee-jerk negativity by those who are prejudiced against, what they label as, a "New Age" worldview. FWIW, I am, in no meaningful sense, a disciple of New Age gurus. And my philosophical thesis is intended to be a post-quantum-science update of the worldwide Spiritualism of pre-scientific ancient cultures. But, I am sympathetic to it's generalizing, inclusive, and comprehensive philosophical perspective*3, which is literally non-scientific (non-reductive), but not anti-science (opposed to scientific methods)*4.

A related article is entitled : How Purposeless Physics underlies Purposeful Life*5. How did inert Matter (momentum) manage to become self-motivated (purposeful)? Such "how" or "why" questions shine a spotlight into the gap to be filled by a Missing Law of Complexification in Evolutionary Theory. Darwin proposed two requirements for the emergence of biological novelty : Variation & Selection. But, the latter is a negative, weeding-out, action*6. And, the positive production of novel forms is unexplained by the laws of physics. So, the source of variation & complexification may await a 21st century law of evolution. Hence, the need for something like Assembly Theory.

Is this confluence of science & philosophy a coincidence, or a conspiracy? :cool:


*1. Assembly Theory :
Scientists have grappled with reconciling biological evolution with the immutable laws of the Universe defined by physics. These laws underpin life’s origin, evolution and the development of human culture and technology, yet they do not predict the emergence of these phenomena. Evolutionary theory explains why some things exist and others do not through the lens of selection. To comprehend how diverse, open-ended forms can emerge from physics without an inherent design blueprint, a new approach to understanding and quantifying selection is necessary
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9
Note --- The term "design blueprint" in connection with Evolution, is a trigger-word to those for whom "design"*5 is a taboo notion, associated with monotheistic religions. Unfortunately, my information-based term EnFormAction is also booed & tabooed by those who believe in the creativity of random accident.

*2. Sara Imari Walker is an American theoretical physicist and astrobiologist with research interests in the origins of life, astrobiology, physics of life, emergence, complex and dynamical systems, and artificial life. ___Wikipedia

*3. What is complexity science theory? :
Complexity science suggests that the whole is not the sum of the parts. Emergent properties of the whole are inexplicable by the parts. In complexity, studies of natural and human systems are explained by both kinds of analysis - micro (or analysis of the parts) and macro (or holistic analysis).
https://www.napcrg.org/media/1278/beginner-complexity-science-module.pdf

*4. Complexity Science :
Our traditional views of cause-and-effect assume a linear worldview in which the output of a system is proportional to its input. This predictable perspective derives from an additive model in which the system is the sum of its parts.
https://www.napcrg.org/media/1278/beginner-complexity-science-module.pdf

*5. Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design Without Designer :
" Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized." ___Francisco Ayala, evolutionary biologist
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK254313/

*6. Natural selection works by weeding less fit variants out of a population.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/misconceptions-about-natural-selection-and-adaptation/the-bad-gene/

Is this confluence of science & philosophy a coincidence, or a conspiracy? — Gnomon

I don't think so, but the question is obviously pressing. And why is it pressing? It wouldn't be because those despised 'Intelligent Design' advocates, Michael Behe and others, have actually hit a nerve? Heaven forbid!

How Purposeless Physics underlies Purposeful Life* — Gnomon

I refer again to From Physical Causes to Organisms of Meaning.