00:54:24 Gary Herstein: Oh, I'm not sure I agree with that, Jude. 😉
00:55:16 Jude Jones: 😂
00:55:18 Matt Segall: I held back so someone else could make that joke. You’re welcome, Gary!
00:55:32 Gary Herstein: 👍
00:55:51 Matt Segall: (just trying to exemplify a more congenial approach😉)
00:58:32 Brian Thomas Swimme: Does anyone know where in Whitehead Rankdall is quoting?
01:00:19 Matt Segall: page 24 of Adventures of Ideas, I thnk
01:00:44 josh hogins: Thank you Matt
01:01:35 Carol Richardson - she/her - Miwok Territory: Confirming it is p 24 of Adventure of Ideas
01:02:56 Matt Segall: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Adventures_of_Ideas/UZeJuLvNq80C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Human%20life%20is%20driven%20forward%20by%20its%20dim%20apprehension%20of%20notions%20too%20general%20for%20its%20existing%20language.&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover&bsq=Human%20life%20is%20driven%20forward%20by%20its%20dim%20apprehension%20of%20notions%20too%20general%20for%20its%20existing%20language.
01:03:20 Matt Segall: Sorry, that was my attempt to share the Google books link, but it did not work
01:07:12 Jude Jones: My favorite label for infinitesimals was Berkeley’s calling them “ghosts of departed quantities”
01:07:38 Randall Auxier: 😀
01:10:38 Jude Jones: “And what are these Fluxions? The Velocities of evanescent Increments? And what are these same evanescent Increments? They are neither finite Quantities nor Quantities infinitely small, nor yet nothing. May we not call them the Ghosts of departed Quantities?
XXXVI. Men too often impose on themselves and others, as if they conceived and understood things expressed by Signs, when in truth they have no Idea, save only of the very Signs themselves. And there are some grounds to apprehend that this may be the present Case.” Berkeley’s Analyst
01:26:40 George Strawn: Wolfram seems to agree that complexity is (only) in our theories and that reality requires “a new kind of science.” Do I have that right?
01:30:21 jonmeyer: With some of the AI models coming along, the kinds of relational structures that networked digital systems produce may constitute a new class of complexity, not really equivalent to classic “brute force” algorithms.
01:34:52 jonmeyer: I sensed pragmatism in the backdrop of Gary and Randalls comments. I’d love to hear Randall describe how he squares his interest in Rorty with Whitehead.
01:37:15 Randall Auxier: You realize Rorty wrote his MA thesis on Whitehead —under Hartshorne?
01:38:27 Matt Segall: Richard I cant unmute myself
01:38:42 Jude Jones: Rorty’s paper on Whitehead, “Matter and Event” is very good, even if there is much in it to disagree with
01:39:50 Matt Segall: audio is working, I hope?
01:40:07 Weston McMillan: Yes
01:40:09 Jude Jones: Yes Matt!
01:47:13 Randall Auxier: I was asked to choose seven of the best papers on Whitehead for translation into Polish, and that was one I chose, Jude.
01:48:14 Randall Auxier: And I disagree with much in it as well.
01:56:15 Jude Jones: Excellent Randy!
01:58:24 Gary Herstein: Persons looking for texts on Category Theory might start at the link below. You'll likely want to get a working facility with basic abstract algebra prior to tackling it: https://www.sciencebooksonline.info/mathematics/category-theory.html
01:58:42 Gary Nelson: Robert Goldblatt in his book Topoi says that Category Theory is replacing Set Theory as foundation of mathematics
01:59:51 Gary Herstein: Some overlap here, but some new ones as well: https://www.freetechbooks.com/category-theory-f71.html
02:00:46 Gary Herstein: Goldblatt still stays pretty solidly in the set theoretic frame, but his book is one of the better ones out there.
02:11:30 Douglas Tooley: Thank you all for another great dialogue.
02:12:49 Gary Herstein: Robert Reid's book "Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment" is a very scientifically rigorous challenge to the idea of natural selection as the driver of evolution, as opposed to a conservator of existing species.
02:16:32 Gary Herstein: One way of entering mathematical ideas that I highly approve of is via history. Leo Corry's "Modern Algebra and the Rise of Mathematical Structures" starting in the early 19th C. takes us up to the emergence of Category Theory.
02:16:46 Matt Segall: Thanks for saying a few minutes longer, everyone. We started a few minutes late so I wanted to give Wolfgang a chance to raise this important point.
02:16:56 George Strawn: When I studied category theory decades ago, it was promoted as having its basic concept of morphism being closer to our concepts of interest. Set theory starts with sets and elements and has to build functions on top of them
02:17:15 Jude Jones: Wolfgang do you have a copy of your paper on “History and Experience” handy? I can get it through the library I hope but if you have it at hand that would be great!
02:18:29 Douglas Tooley: If you go faster than the speed of light time flows backwards?
02:18:50 Randall Auxier: Light doesn’t have a “speed.”
02:19:33 Gary Herstein: Well, if you go faster than the speed of light, the first thing you'll have is a sharply worded letter for Einstein.
02:19:55 Randall Auxier: You wrote that letter and published it in 2006.
02:20:21 Douglas Tooley: If it’s not in anti-matter I won’t be able to read it!
02:20:29 Jude Jones: 🤣
02:21:03 Weston McMillan: Thank you all - great session today (as always)!
02:21:08 Mario-Seth Morales: Thank you Tim and everyone.
02:21:23 Carol Richardson - she/her - Miwok Territory: Thank you all!
* * * * * * * * *
Tim Eastman's chapter summary notes: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d6yN...
Untying the Gordian Knot (UGK)
Summary of chapter 6 on the "Complex Whole"
by Tim Eastman
Nov 13, 2021
(UGK 183-4) Here I build on central elements of the Logoi framework (process, logic, relations), combined with local-global relations and the actuality-potentiae distinction (corresponding to Boolean and non-Boolean logics, respectively). I have built on this framework (ch 1–3) to address various aspects of causation, emergence, and complex systems (ch 4) and information and semiotics (ch 5). Further, I apply the Logoi framework to a set of topics and concepts that are pointers to a fully integrative scheme.
Beginning in a rather human-centric manner, I set up story lines that are both personal, broadly human, and cosmic. I briefly survey the current geologic transition from the Holocene era to the anthropocene era, of which the latter is partly driven by global impacts of Homo sapiens. By some accounts, such as standard materialism and epiphenomenalism, humans have no responsibility because the very concepts of meaning and ethics lack a substantive basis. In contrast, I argue in a section on transformative thinking and ethics that the Logoi framework can provide the needed substantive basis. However, the underlying context for such discourse requires a grounding; for this, I address the need for a systematic philosophical framework (whether the Logoi framework or some other equivalent framework), and an unrestricted universe of discourse. Key elements (both ontological and epistemological factors) of such a systematic framework are summarized. Scales and hierarchies of the natural world are then surveyed, both synchronic and diachronic. Standard “big histories” (or equivalent) typically presume some form of particularism (or substance philosophy). Here I focus on how process-oriented ontologies can provide realistic interpretations without particularism. This is followed by a section on a theory of relations based on category theory, which is an algebra of relations.
The Logoi framework is based on recent scientific and philosophic developments, primarily since the turn of the millennium; in turn, these have exceptional resonances with key insights articulated by Alfred North Whitehead almost a century ago. Many books that attempt to cover the “whole shebang” often focus on physical cosmology and/or “particle” physics. After summarizing the measurement problem at extremes of scale, I conclude that available scientific knowledge of the universe as a whole is not sufficiently mature for philosophical work. Fortunately, all of my philosophical objectives can be achieved without resolving unsettled questions of physical cosmology. After that, I note some open questions in contemporary biology and evolutionary theory, and call attention to recent progress toward a new semiotic biology, followed by a brief review of complex systems and anticipatory systems. I end the chapter by reviewing multiple perspectives on the whole and call attention to how the Logoi framework responds to a call for a new dialogic (multivoice, inclusive) grand narrative.
(UGK 189) Clearly any object can be part of some value proposition (e.g., the value of trees in the forest as part of my affirmation of a park’s value); however, only high-level biological creatures, having passed the semiotic threshold, can participate in meaningful semiotic choices (sign-meaning-code). For example, dogs and many other animals share information, through signed behaviors, about impending danger. In most cases, what we mean by human choice goes beyond the epistemic threshold, which includes interpretive semiosis. Reference to psyche (mind) typically indicates a capability that goes beyond the semiotic threshold if not also the epistemic threshold. For this reason, the Logoi framework is not a pan-psychism in that it does not require
pg 2
reference to lower-level mind-like capabilities although the Logoi framework is arguably pan experiential in that it affirms some elemental selective processes as pervasive.
(UGK, 191-2) As humankind embarks on this new anthropocene era, with something like the Logoi framework in mind, we need to evaluate the full range of history and context, both local and global, and then decide collaboratively on the best possibilities (given the full range of given facts and constraints) for responsible action toward the common good. Because such choices and action are imbedded in reality, both the actual and the possible, they are not just epiphenomena, but have a certain reality. Insofar as such choices and action reflect ethical considerations and options, then ethics itself is “real,” not just some disembodied universal, but as a framework of specific potentia—relations concerning real alternatives in ethical choice and action.
(UGK, 191) By envisioning various levels of the complex whole, in no way do I claim to achieve some God’s eye view from outside that complex whole; after all, in that case the whole would fail to be inclusive because it would not include the hypothetical observer. In a very fundamental way, this problem cannot be addressed by science alone (being the way of numbers, context independent models, and actualized (Boolean) measurement results) and is, at least in significant measure, a philosophical problem, or even a metaphysics problem involving ultimate context. (192) In addition to problems with substance frameworks, so-called Theories of Everything, promoted by certain scientists based on scientific tools alone, are doomed to failure because they are working with a restricted universe of discourse (sometimes limited further to that subset of discourse called scientism)—indeed, besides often presuming a substance framework, these more limited frameworks are often working with only the actualist hypothesis, which fails to acknowledge the non-Boolean order and landscapes of potentiae, and thus are incomplete even as science.
In summary, there are both fundamental ontological and epistemological factors within an unrestricted universe of discourse, as follows:
Fundamental ontological factors
• Mode of being/becoming - contingent and non-contingent;
• Logical orders - non-Boolean and Boolean; potentiae and actualizations;
• Extensive connection (prior to metrical relations) - local-global, category theory;
• Quantum process - diachronic focus - prehension, succession, symmetry breaking, causation/actualization;
• Emergence - synchronic focus - multiple levels with grounding, semiosis/triadicity;