Søren, sorry for weighing in so late. You wrote -very- cogent
questions here ...
Søren Brier wrote:
>
> Dear Victoras and Stan
>
> I do not think it is consistent to discuss meaning of operations in a
> universe within a physicalistic paradigm. I admit that a thermodynamic
> paradigm is more advanced that a mechanistic one encompassing the basic
> evolutionary mechanisms and if you add a Wienerian cybernetic information
> theory and the inspiration from Schr�dinger, then you now have scientific
> concepts that can say something about systems building up structures and
> evaluate if they become more complex.
.
.
.
> Even on the semiotic it is very difficult. Is the goal of the universe or
> rather the Semios to evolve as much semiotic freedom as possible? Is it
the
> goal of living systems? Is free will the highest gift in the universe?
>
My own research - into the nature of systems forming and emergence -
posits from observations that a fundamental property of each and all
tier(s) of existence includes a present and continuous relationship
between potential and enactable performances. This relationship is
primordial in the structure/function capacities of spacetime, and
instantiate throughout all subsequent formats, forms and qualia
that follow from them. And indeed the dynamic performances of
inter -and- intra tier activities engage with these considerations
included ... so there is a significant plural compounding of
semiotic relevancies - at all times.
"Degrees of freedom" are not static computational factors to help
us understand - in snap-shot fashion - the 'state or states' of
given systems under observation or evaluation. Rather, they are
intrinsic utile resources - endemic and active in all ongoing
processes. They are the 'opportunity spaces' that systems
draw from -and- can alternatively cross-access and shift
performances through, since the semiotic values of all tiers
and relations come into play, with accessibility allowing changes
in actions, policies, coordinations and goals.
Absolute 'free will' is - in its extreme - .. chaos. But dynamically
coordinated - and ever improving - free will, IS the operational
hunger of existence and existential forms.
Surviving, enduring, prevailing .. are intrinsically improved when
the actionable performance space is larger for one system over another
(all other factors being equal) .. when the opportunity for 'actions
enhancing continuation of "being able to act"' are larger for any
given condition/situation set. WITH THE CAVEAT, that step-wise
evaluations must be seen in larger contexts and alternative options.
In other words, there is a non-commutative bias at play .. not just
the number of options available or semiotic choices .. but the
sequence of choices as well. Which fits well with the Bateson criteria:
any includable difference is an important and viable and potentially
crucial point of information-worth-choosing (datum making a difference).
The meaning and choice space of economic (and thereafter: cultural)
decisions is enhanced when interdependency improves - and when
conditionally balanced against regional viabilities.
The health and vitality of the parts is as crucial as the whole.
Even - and especially - when the resources are limited. :-)
Healthy systems function best when they can draw from or create
'wealth centers' .. but over-accretion and over centralization of
wealth can jeopardize broader systemic health, because the option
actions of the extremities are diminished if not continually
bathed in a wash of local options ('cash money', for example),
and the semiotic valuable viable local application possibilities
that succor and support local survival.
Jamie Rose
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 12 16:16:41 2005
