At 10:46 AM 7/21/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Further discussion on ecological complexity and semantic closure.
>
..... But may be you try to define "awareness" and "experience" in
>a very broad sense, including entirely passive existence (e.g., of a
>hydrogen atom)?
>
No, your distinction makes the most sense, except that I think the question
is open whether or not a quantum event has these properties. Quantum events
seem to define time and space as you described, actively. However, once
stable states come into a large quantum number interaction, their residence
time increases exponentially. The large interaction is in a sense
self-observing and the spread times are long. So the hydrogen atom may be
the result of a number of quantum "experiences" that would qualify in my
view as a primative level of proto-awareness, but the hydrogen atom is just
the remaining echo of those events, which though repeating to continue
their "existence" as a hydrogen atom are doing so in response to the
limitations imposed by the established interactions - there is no longer
any freedom in the outcome, hence no "awareness" above the quantum level.
>I am very suspicious to any attempts to explain life or free will
>(Penrose) on the basis of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is just
>one of possible models of the world that seems satisfactory.
Its good to be suspicious, especially of "creative" theories! However,
while I agree that other theories offer explanations, certain aspects of QM
are well established. In the end, the well-confirmed parts of all the
theories should be compatible. By USING the more established parts of QM
I'm simply showing consistency. If in doing so, the theory works, great,
if/when it breaks down we may have learned more about QM as well as life.
I'm far more suspicious of theories that begin from scratch to establish an
entirely new formalism that hasn't been demonstrated anywhere else. That
leaves the question of the interrelatedness of phenenomena to last, whereas
I think it should be first.
>Quantum mechanics is interpreted using probabilities, but do
>probabilities exist in nature?
This requires epistemological separation. Probabilities are part of our
knowledge of events. The question is if nature is fundamentally uncertain,
or Einstein's famous complaint that God doesn't play dice. My view is that
we will never know. It is a matter of faith and which faith works best
psychologically. The scientific point is that there is a knowability
(epistemological) limit that leaves us only with probability as a tool for
explanation. What lies beyond is unknowable to us by worldly means (i.e.,
science). But metaphysics can speculate on different sources that might be
congruent with everything we experience. These are synthetic views of
reality and are the realm of philosophy and the underpinnings of science,
but not strictly part of the practice of science. That's why I say they are
matters of faith. Faith is required in science as well as religion. Faith
in Newton's view of reality has been smashed, for example. Although
Newtonian mechanics is still as valid as ever as a tool, we no longer
believe in it as a picture of the ultimate reality. Do we now believe in
uncertainty as the ultimate reality? Most try to invent metaphysics behind
the apparent uncertainty. I invent creativity to replace uncertainty in my
metaphysics. But its a personal choice. Its a matter of which leads to new
experiences, not which is right.
>If we deny probabilities, the whole
>building of quantum mechanics would crash. Quantum mechanics is simply
>a way to describe contingency, but it is not the only possible model
>for contingency.
Sure, but you're discussing the structure of a theory now and how far it
will go, not what it has so far discovered about nature. If quantum theory
collapsed, it would not undo Hiroshima. The theory is correct, as far as it
has gone and its successor will have to be consistent with what validated
QM explanations. The uncertainty problem is solidly established from the
classical Newtonian perspective. Given that perspective, the uncertainty
will never disappear. Your question is if there is another perspective in
which uncertainty disappears. I think there is, but it is not science.
>Ecologists often use "environmental noise" in their
>models, which is a legetimate way to account for contigency. There is
>no need to reduce it to quantum mechanics or to deterministic chaos.
>People seem to be scared of the onthological status of contigency and
>try to use some magic word (I mean "quantum mechanics") to tame it.
I must differ on this point because the "environmental noise" explanantion
has allowed biology and ecology to be blind to creative processes and to
adopt the equivalent of a Newtonian view of life. There is a great need to
show the linkage between advanced biological phenomena (including human
psychology) and fundamental properties of nature. The reason is that not
doing so allows us to preserve the idea that humans are separate from
nature. It keeps us in ignorance about our own origins and connection to
the universe. This is extremely self destructive, and I believe it is also
bad science. Considering uncertainty in evolution and ecology will not
"tame" it, just the opposite, it will unlease all kinds of problems which
is why most biologists resist it. If my theory/view is valid, it means we
must recognize the experiential aspect of all living organisms. How would
that sit with most people the next time they run over a rabbit on the road?
Or eat a steak? There are tremendous social issues involved in this
recognition. If it can be tied to a very solidly established phenomena at
the foundation of all we know, it cannot be ignored or relegated to the
corner of biological disciplines where it can be simply categorized out of
consideration. Furthermore, I am firmly convinced that this synthesis is
NOT reductionistic. But the arguements are made elsewhere, so I'll stop.
>My major point here is that physics does not replace philosophy, it
>can only help to understand philosophy.
Perhaps it is the other way around. Philosophy is always at the foundation
of science. Philosophy helps understand physics. When they are in conflict,
we get new philosophy, then new physics.
>
>>The paper began by considering where a more organismic concept of
>>Gaia MIGHT be legetimately found (trying to rescue it from pure metaphore)
>>and decided on quantum phenomena as the obvious candidate (because it is a
>>valid existing theory structure). But it did not conclude that Gaia (or the
>>ecosystem) was in fact an organism. Rather my conclusion was that "life
>>itself" as Rosen puts it (I had not read Rosen) may indeed be responsible
>>for those spiritual qualities some people attribute to Gaia, but that they
>>REQUIRE a biologial structure capable of the magnification process
>>(otherwise those qualities are as interesting as quantum popcorn).
>
>>From the phenomenological point of view all models are metaphoric. But
>some metaphors are more deep and more useful than others. I agree that
>"magnification" is very important. It is important for integrating
>multi-level hierarchical organizations (Pattee). But I don't see any
>need for quantum mechanics. It is much easier to use "environmental
>noise".
>
>>Ecosystems have no such known structure, but organisms perhaps do. I left
>>the question of Gaia with the thought that perhaps there are some
>>intelligent system-level phenomena that result through complex interactions
>>of organisms (a possible "general theory," which was left unexplored). The
>>result is pretty much what we've written in the past several messages --
>>that semantic closure seems most probable at the organismic level and not
>>at the ecosystem level, but that ecosystems derive their self-organizing
>>properties from the properties of organisms. Gaia, then, would do likewise,
>>but would then only metaphorically fit Lovelock's original idea of a global
>>organism.
>
>Ok, I agree with this.
>
>>In simpler words, free will can alter
>>selective forces and thus decisions can reproduce themselves through this
>>means and become "registered" in future forms, altering evolutionary
>>pathways.
>
>I like what you say here! Many biologists erroneously view selection
>as a passive seive (Gould, Dawkins). They talk about fitness landscapes
>as if an organism has no control of it. I like saying that death is
>optional because there are numerous ways to live.
>
>>We've mostly been discussing semantic
>>closure in current time, which is ecological time. Semantic feedback
>>(between form and function) through time (via generations) seems likely in
>>evolution. That would produce semantic pathways which would affect
>>phylogeny, getting very close to a causally effective end-directed process,
>>or teleology. This is a very different conclusion than many evolutionary
>>biologists believe (e.g., SJ Gould's "Full House").
>
>I agree!
>
>>At the other extreme, quantum phenomena, as you say, do not necessarily
>>"communicate" to future generations without some other macroscopic process.
>>But we also cannot get rid of it when we have mechanical evolution> So once
>>quantum phenenomena are carried along with biological reproductive
>>evolution, it seems that a means for communication of quantum phenomena to
>>future generations exists. Without this form of communication, however, is
>>seems reasonable to say that states are "communicated" only by their
>>non-local effects, which I assume is thermodynamically limited as you say.
>>But it is this non-local phenomena (communication in space) that I suggest
>>is being magnified by biological evolution (communication in time). Is this
>>consistent with what you are saying, or do I not understand what you mean
>>by communication?
>
>I am not sure I understand everything in this paragraph. What do you mean
>by "mechanical evolution"?
I mean the "passive sieve" that you mentioned above!
>I agree that communication in space should be
>accompanied by communication in time.
> Communication in space is like
>transition of a seed of a form to new matter. But then there should be
>a life-cycle by which the form becomes fully developed in new matter
>(magnification or interpretation).
>
I'm suggesting that the "non-locality" phenomena we observe at the quantum
level is communication in space but not time (that much is definitional of
non-locality). When non-local phenomena are correlated in something that is
like Bose-Einstein matter, and thus becomes "macroscopic" it can have
macroscopic effects that are recorded in the environment. That preserves it
in time though biological structure and behavior. So, the reproductive
process, combined with the passive sieve of evolution, is a macroscopic
phenomena that magnifies quantum effects. This introduces the possibility
of non-passive effects in evolution.
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)