Verification & Refutation

in article [email hidden], John Edser at
[email hidden] wrote on 12/18/03 7:50 PM:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> JE:- The only assumption you need to make about such a process is that a process caused the
> pattern, i.e. the pattern did not just cause itself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that this assumption is false in many circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- I do not agree. It is "abundantly clear" that this assumption is NOT VERIFIED in many
circumstances. We have travelled this route before. It appears you do not discriminate between a
non verification and a refutation.

Quoted message said:

GH:- If you agree that it would take only a single example of self-organization to refute your
position, then I assert that it has been refuted in spades.

Quoted message said:

JE:- I do not agree, because the assumption that a pattern can cause itself is just an empty
tautology that deletes the need for a causative process. Anybody can validly suppose anything as
science if the assumption that a process does not have to be assumed to cause any observed
pattern. This is because any WHY supposition is entirely contingent on a supposition of a
causative _process_.

JE:- Both verification and refutation are ALWAYS required. A process is verified or refuted via
the pattern it produces. We can only know processes via the patterns they produce because ALL of
the information we receive is just a sensory pattern. We know nothing and can know nothing "of the
thing in itself". All we can do is observe, theorise and test. If we can't test then we are not
doing any science. Do you agree?

I suppose, but I think we mean different things by those terms. Theorizing, for example, is a very
different thing than hypothesizing. Following Popper, the latter can be arbitrary and unconstrained;
while the former is neither. I would also allow that hypotheses and theories can be empirically
tested to a large extent with computational science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- This is what "self-organization" is all about. The pattern/process dichotomy is a false
distinction in the context of dissipative systems, and the process/pattern does indeed cause
itself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Any testable causal chain of logic requires a minimum of two linkages that are non
reversibly linked.

Quoted message said:

GH:- Great. The cascade of interactions in self-organizing systems are inherently non-reversible.

Quoted message said:

JE:- OK. Do you agree that a minimum of two such linkages must be supposed?

GH:- If you only allow yourself to draw one-way arrows, then yes.

JE:- I am not restricting myself to one way arrows. I am just suggesting that at least one has to
be present within any testable view. A two way arrow all on its own is just a tautology but a one
way arrow is not. Do you agree?

No. A two-way interaction arrow is about directions of effect, not about the structure of an
argument, so it has nothing to due with tautology.

If you allow yourself to use two-way arrows of interaction, then is only takes a minimum of one such
arrow of causation to yield an irreversible causal chain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The observation of magnetic lines of force are not assumed to cause a magnet, the magnet is
assumed to cause the observations of lines of force.

Quoted message said:

GH:- Sure, but a magnet and lines of force do not a system make.

Quoted message said:

JE:- This seems to me to be obviously untrue. Magnetism is a supposed process of the science of
physics, i.e. it is a testable supposition of a valid system within that science. One theory
suggests that aligned polar iron atoms can amplify the tiny lines of force that exist between the
atoms. Magnetic force lines are a valid part of one, supposed, magnetic process. This process can
produce a non random pattern when observed using iron filings that are _randomly_ distributed
over a sheet of paper, which is held over the magnet. Note that if the iron filings are not
_firstly_ randomly distributed i.e. they firstly form a non random pattern, then the only
observation would be: one non random pattern changing into another. This change would not provide
a valid verification of the supposed magnetic process. To be verified, the supposed process of
magnetism must produce an _independent_ non random pattern, i.e. it must be observed to turn just
a random pattern into a non random pattern, all by itself. This it can be observed to do.
However, if a random process can cause both random and non random patterns, as your redefinition
allowed, then nothing here remains testable or even, explicable.

JE:- I find it inexplicable that you did not make a comment. How can you claim that a magnet is
not a system? Any system is just a proposed process of causation existing in nature where at least
one non reversible arrow must exist.

That is not what I mean by system. I recently posted a couple of satisfactory definitions gleaned
from Webster's Dictionary (see copy below). If you are not familiar with the emerging field of
systems biology you can find out about the meaning of "system" in this context by looking into it.

Quoted message said:

Verification, like refutation is not easy. The principle that a process must be shown to
independently cause a pattern is of extreme importance. Dependent and independent fitnesses are
absolutely opposed processes within evolutionary theory and anywhere else.

I disagree, and assert that this is a false dichotomy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- In this case, one logical link is the black box: the magnetic process. The other is what
has come out of it: an observed magnetic pattern. The causative assumption is that the process
causes the pattern excluding the reverse: the pattern causes the process i.e. it is _not_ just a
non testable tautological causative loop, it is a specific non reversible, supposition of cause
and affect within nature which has a causative _antithesis_: the pattern causes the process. The
antithesis refutes the thesis and vice versa. No antithesis, no thesis.

Quoted message said:

GH:- Your point is not in any way inconsistent with systems thinking. You are just not thinking
about systems.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Please define a system.

GH:- Here are two relevant definitions from Webster's dictionary:
- a group of things or parts connected in some way to form a whole (the solar system or a school
system_
- the body, or a number of bodily organs, functioning as a unit

JE:- So how does this help?

You seem to think of systems differently.

Quoted message said:

How is a system different to a process?

Now that is a good question. When it comes to dissipative systems, at least, the system, the process
and the structure are not physically distinct phenomena. When dissipative systems cease to function
and enter a phase of break-down, the generative process has been extinguished leaving a structural
ghost. To the extent that the structure breaks down slowly I suppose you could say that a system is
resisting degradation, but that is I mean by system. I am referring to generative, functional
systems that cannot be separated from process.

Quoted message said:

Are you arguing a system does not have to be a testable process? Do you mean a system only has to
be verified so it can be non refutable?

I don't know how to adequately answer this question, which assumes such a different understanding of
nature and science. As I have often posted to you, the theoretical paradigm I am promoting does
guide the development of models that make predictions about nature that can be tested.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- If you do not deny that where no antithesis exists, no testable thesis can exist then where
are both within your explanation?

GH:- I presume you are referring to my claim that self-organization can happen in nature. The
antithesis is that it cannot.

JE:- Suggesting that a self organising system does not exist is a valid antithesis of the
proposition that a self organising system exists but that is the question on the table and not any
HOW proposition to that question. "How" has to be established as both a thesis and an anti-thesis.

This is a major point of disagreement. The foundation for my general point of view in this context
is thermodynamics, which asserts that nature determines limits to outcomes, not how those outcomes
are to be achieved. I think that the reductionistic focus on mechanism has begun to hinder science,
which should ultimately aim to achieve a balanced understanding of systems that includes both top-
down (self-organization) and bottom-up (mechanism) views.

Quoted message said:

I was referring to your apparent claim that self-organization is not required to be a fully
testable process. All you seem to claim you need is verification. A verification does not provide
an antithesis of self organization as a _process_; hence my question.

Verification does refute the antithesis.

Quoted message said:

If your self organising system is A-->B then its anti-thesis is B-->A.

You cannot indicate the structure of a self-organizing system in this way. You could write A-->A, or
multiple agents interact so as to cause A in its initial formation. It is the top-down effects
within A that self-organize. The self-organization of the interaction structure among the elements
of system A (e.g., caused by entrainment), is the same thing as the self-organization of the system
A. This can be observed, simulated, and studied. If all phenomena in nature are of this sort, then
how do you propose science can find this out?

Quoted message said:

You must identify what you are arguing A and B are within your proposed self organising system
otherwise you have not provided a testable argument of science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- In my view "self-organization" just means we have no testable view of causation at the
moment and NOT that it is now valid to claim that something can be validly be supposed to just
cause itself. If you allow a tautology of causation into the sciences then anything and
everything becomes "science", so science is destroyed.

Quoted message said:

GH:- You continue to miss the point of systems thinking. To put things into the context that you
defend so strongly, one could predict that a particular set of conditions will cause a system to
self-organize, and that a different particular set of conditions will not.

Quoted message said:

JE:- As I understood it, you are supposed to be attempting to defend the (untenable) tautological
view that a pattern can create itself without any process being supposed to cause it.

No - I give up.

Quoted message said:

GH:- You continue to miss my point. I will focus on what Prigogine called dissipative structures,
because they are the most relevant to this discussion and this focus should help me to answer some
of your questions. In such systems, pattern and process cannot be disentangled. It is not that
pattern came about without a process. It is that the process and pattern are not really different
things, and the process is inherent to the structure under study; not outside of it.

JE:- I find the above explanation unacceptable for the following, basic, reasons:

I guess the Nobel committee really blew it when the awarded Prigogine.

Quoted message said:

1) A process is an _inductive_ inference from a set of perceptual patterns, i.e. it is simply a
guess of a system of causation to the patterns.

Wrong - As I posted before.

Quoted message said:

2) A pattern is a _deduction_ from a (supposed) process, i.e. it is assumed to be a product of the
supposed system of causation under consideration.

Wrong again. A pattern is either observed in nature or demonstrated (deduced) to result from a
process model.

Quoted message said:

A pattern can induce more than one process to cause it, including a random pattern.

Patterns cannot induce processes. Induction is a logical extrapolation done by humans. Complexity
theory is on the road to discovering the limits of universal induction (IMHO) and renormalization
group analysis proves the validity of universal induction for particular cases.

Quoted message said:

Nobody has the absolute information to know which process was causative, i.e. we have no other
choice but to just make a guess.

We can't know that convection cells are caused by convection?

Quoted message said:

If the process causes the pattern but the pattern does not cause the process (a necessary first
step one way arrow) then "pattern and process" MUST be able "to be disentangled" or the proposed
inductive process is simply not a testable proposition.

All processes depend on environmental structure as well as causing them (patterns). When a
process causes a pattern that facilitates the process, you have a positive feedback loop for a
self-organizing system. I see no logical flaws in that, or anything that prevents the scientific
study of them.

Quoted message said:

When you say that "the pattern and process cannot be disentangled", you are just submitting that
your proposed process is not a testable view. Why don't you simply admit that this is the case
instead of trying to reverse basic epistemology just to allow your view?

Why don't you just admit ...

Sorry. I almost asked an insulting rhetorical question.

Quoted message said:

GH:- A convection cell is a non-random pattern of fluid movement, the pattern/process is self-
generating and consumes (dissipates) externally derived energy to pay for its construction along
the way.

JE:- A convection cell is a verified non-random pattern of fluid movement, i.e. you can claim you
actually perceive something via a pattern
i.e. you did not simply perceive nothing at all (just a random pattern). Your proposed cause is
that the process, and the pattern that emanated from it, was caused by a "self-generating"
process which forms as energy is being _released_. Is this correct?

I am fine with this sentence up until " which forms as energy is being _released_." I don't know
what this last bit means.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- When you argue that "external conditions" can "cause a system to self-organize" you are only
using "external conditions" as a defacto process to cause the observed pattern.

GH:- No. Did your last meal cause you to have a nose (a non-random pattern)?

JE:- But a nose is not a dissipative system. We are discussing a system that forms as energy is
_released_.

You are right. A nose is not a dissipative system.

The external conditions I referred to are not a process. They are a pattern. Patterns must include
boundaries, and are by definition negentropic. Self-organizing systems break down boundaries
(gradients) and destroy patterns even as they construct themselves (more patterns). The second law
of thermodynamics asserts that every instance of pattern construction must be matched by a greater
extent of pattern destruction as a systems self-organizes. Environmental gradients present
potentials (fuel) for something to self-organize and destroy them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The conditions must be causative to the assumed pattern and not the pattern itself

Yes.

Quoted message said:

so are you just contradicting your position?

No.

Quoted message said:

GH:- No. The conditions are NOT causative to the observed pattern, which need not be assumed. The
structure of the internal dynamics causes the pattern.

JE:- "The structure of the internal dynamics causes the pattern"? How and why?

How is about mechanism, which can be idiosyncratic. Why is to serve thermodynamic imperatives.

Quoted message said:

How is your view of both, testable? You have named something but you have not provided any
testable process. Just giving an unknown system a name solves nothing.

???

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- This would be the same kind of one-way causation and irreversible logic you described for
magnets and lines of force. You could then do experiments to test the predictions. Unfortunately,
all of this leaves the critical causal aspects of internal dynamics that actually cause self-
organization in a black box.

Quoted message said:

JE:- But, all suppositions of causation are "black box" processes, i.e. you always have to use
your imagination to dream up a causative theory; this is what science is all about. It is an
illusion to suggest that you can simply perceive a process. Always, the process is just a
subjective, inductive guess derived form the observation of a pattern. However, science requires
all such guesses to be testable. When you throw out refutability you throw out testability so
that no science remains. In the sciences the causative black box is firstly, _either_ a random or
a non random process. Because all random processes are restricted by definition to only produce a
random pattern, it is possible to refute the black box as just a random process but it is never
possible to verify it as such. However, contesting propositions of non random processes that
constitute all the testable black boxes on the table, now become empirically possible because
excluded events in one can become verified events using another allowing one process to refute in
favour of another. However, if a proposed random black box was allowed to form non random
patterns, it would become impossible to empirically test between:
1) A random and a non random black box process.
2) Between non random black box processes. Everything is destroyed by your supposition that a
random process can validly be redefined to cause both a random and a non random patterns, or
that a pattern can be validly supposed to just cause itself without any process being needed
to be firstly supposed to cause the observed pattern.

GH:- I am sorry if nature doesn't fit your desires as a theoretician.

JE:- No it is you who are making nature "fit your desires" and not me.

Are you are a god who somehow, knows absolute truths of nature?

Would you open your mind if I said Yes?

[snip]

Quoted message said:

JE:- Once again I find your absence of comment inexplicable.

Do you discriminate between a model and a theory?

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- A better assumption is that no systems can self organise as a causative tautology so that
the burden of proof is shifted to those who think it can.

Quoted message said:

GH:- That is like saying the burden of proof is on every biologist to show that organisms
actually exist.

Quoted message said:

JE:- The burden of proof is on very biologist to show that the organism supposition is both a
verifiable and refutable proposition of the science of biology. Only Darwin allowed the organism
proposition to be both refutable and verifiable.

GH:- No biologist, including Darwin, ever tested or considered testing the null hypothesis that
organisms don't exist.

JE:- "the null hypothesis that organisms don't exist" ?!? The above is just a mind numbing double
negative which means:

The hypothesis that organisms exist.

And you claim to have read Popper? Null hypotheses are always stated as negatives (something does
not exist). That forces you to prove the existence of something as the alternative.

Quoted message said:

The organism supposition is an absolute supposition of the science of biology. If you delete this
supposition a science of biology cannot exist. Do you agree?

That is my point, which was a response to your statement that "The burden of proof is on very
biologist to show that the organism supposition is both a verifiable and refutable proposition of
the science of biology. Only Darwin allowed the organism proposition to be both refutable and
verifiable." You seem to be contradicting yourself to be contrary with me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- Biology came about because we observed the existence of organisms and so on, which demanded
an explanation.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Biology came about because it was argued that a fundamental difference existed between
living and non living forms.

Quoted message said:

GH:- Similarly the study of self-organizing systems came about because we observed so many of
them. In essence, the proof you are calling for existed before the models you eschew came into
existence.

JE:- Models, on their own, prove nothing.

AGAIN: Do you discriminate between models and theories, e.g. the model that E=Mc^2 is not the same
as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity? Is this true?

The equation is not the same as the theory. Interestingly, the same can be said of b-c>r and kin
selection theory.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE: I respect any _attempt_ to remove the barrier between living and non living things but I have
no respect for any view that also requires Popperian refutation to be thrown out to save the
attempt.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Well, are you throwing out refutation to save your attempt?

Maybe. I am not sure how to answer this. As I have indicated explicitly before I think the concept
of refutation is flawed as a foundation for science. There is plenty I like about Popper, but he
was a man of his times. Not all of his ideas hold up so well for the current, more advanced stage
of science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The reason it is right and proper to do so is because epistemologically, no tautology can
be tested. As an example, we cannot rationally invest our limited resources to test all the
processes of the universe to find out if any could provide energy at a zero cost, i.e. a
tautological supposition of energy. We make the law that no more energy can be extracted from a
system than exists within it. The burden of proof is rightfully shifted on to those who argue
otherwise.

Quoted message said:

JE:- The above is one of the best examples of how silly any causative tautology is within the
sciences. You have to prove that your assumption of a pattern being allowed to just form itself
is not equally silly.

JE:- Why isn't your view that a pattern can form itself not just an empty tautology like energy
can cause itself?

Because it is not they can't cause themselves under any conditions. They can only do this in a time,
place, and form that dissipates gradients.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

GH:- I readily admit that patterns exist that did not self-organize, but are generated by self-
organizing systems (e.g. human artwork or rocks); such structures, however, are not generative
systems. They are always degenerative systems.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Why is it true that: "such structures, however, are not generative systems. They are always
degenerative systems".

Quoted message said:

GH:- Let me start by admitting that I am being somewhat speculative on this point. I should have
indicated that initially. Nevertheless, I will try to offer an answer. Thinking about your
question leads me to fall back a bit on my claim. Humans, for example, build generative machines
that do not self-organize
(e.g., cars), so it is clearly physically possible for such things to exist. However, such
machines are also constantly degenerating, requiring maintenance and repairs from their
external environment (e.g., humans) too slow or temporarily reverse the inevitable path to
degeneracy. Self-organizing systems, like organisms for example, have mechanisms to develop
and heal themselves. This requires obtaining energy from the outside environment, but not
information about the pattern it will generate or cause of such pattern. This information
can emerge entirely from the internal dynamics of the system. This is not to say that
pattern cannot be imposed (caused) from the outside, and I am particularly interested in
exploring how internally derived pattern causing mechanisms might interact with the
heterogeneity of the environment.

Quoted message said:

JE:- It seems obvious to me that non living systems always form an internal pattern, that for a
while, just represent the _least_ line of resistance to energy dissipation. Systems that form
because energy is being dissipated more efficiently and not imported more efficiently, as
measured by a net value over the systems life span, have no logical similarity to each other,
IMHO. What logical similarity does the degenerative system that takes over my dead body have to
the massively more complex system that attempted to maintain it when I was alive?

GH:- The degenerative SYSTEMS, like decomposing bacteria, are logically identical to the complex
systems that maintained it while you were alive.

JE:- Oh come on, obviously I am not referring to living systems that prey on dead systems I refer
to unaided dissipative systems within a dead body.

Name one.

Quoted message said:

GH:- Stochastic (non-systematic) factors that cause your body to decompose are logically rather
different in that they are not self-organizing. They are only logically similar in that they also
contribute to the universal tendency toward degradation demanded by the second law of
thermodynamics.

JE:- Yes, so I do not refer to these systems.

What logical similarity does the dissipative system that takes over my dead body have to the
massively more complex system that attempted to maintain it when I was alive?

If you are not referring to things like decomposing microbes, then I don't know what kinds of
dissipating systems you might be referring to.

Cheers,

Guy

Quoted message said:

JE:- Both verification and refutation are ALWAYS required. A process is verified or refuted via
the pattern it produces. We can only know processes via the patterns they produce because ALL of
the information we receive is just a sensory pattern. We know nothing and can know nothing "of the
thing in itself". All we can do is observe, theorise and test. If we can't test then we are not
doing any science. Do you agree?

GH:- I suppose, but I think we mean different things by those terms. Theorizing, for example, is a
very different thing than hypothesizing.

JE:- OK. An hypothesis is just an extension of a theory, e.g. the contesting hypothesis that
evolution is slow and gradual Vs fast and happens in leaps. Neither view is contesting evolution by
natural selection, i.e. both views depends entirely on that theory. Thus the refutation of evolution
does not have any connection to the refutation of one of these hypothesis over the another.

GH:- Following Popper, the latter can be arbitrary and unconstrained; while the former is neither.

JE:- Variation can be hypothesised to be random or non random. When meiotic drive genes refuted the
hypothesis that meiosis was just a random process this event had nothing to do with the refutation
of the theory of evolution. This is why Popper suggested that a hypothesis can be more arbitrary but
a theory cannot be, ever. A hypothesis has no bearing on the refutation of the theory of which it is
just a _part_ . Any hypothesis depends entirely on the verification and non refutation of the theory
it is just a part, of. Models, as artificial simplifications of a theory, constructed to help test
the theory (not the model), are equivalent to a hypothesis because they only represent a _part_ of a
theory. The common misuse of models within Neo Darwinism, where a model is allowed to contest the
theory from which is was simplified is therefore, just an absurdity. This is true even if the
simplified model does not alter the basic structure of the theory it was simplified from. When it
does so by deleting or changing constants/maximums then the level of absurdity is absolute. This is
the case within Hamilton's rule where the total parental fitness of the donor is deleted within
Hamilton's model. NAS attempt to save the rule by adding cmax to each recipient helped, simply
pushed the rule over to the mutualistic side where rb>-c . Here no organism fitness altruism exists
and selection at the gene level is not verified and not even required. Nobody seems to realise that
the altruistic side of the model rb>c is the contradiction and NOT the compliment of the mutualistic
side. The view that the rule is totally complimentary is nonsense. When the total fitness of the
donor is included within the rule rb>K-c where K = cmax this can be proven. NAS solution to save
Hamilton's rule means that rb is obtained for nothing because K-c = 0 in this case. This means is
that only the mutualistic side of the rule is valid. One side of Hamilton's rule is the refutation
of the other and nobody has realised this because, like yourself, they prefer not to tackle the hard
questions re: testability. The fact that the rule actually allows a relative gain for an absolute
cost on the altruistic side allowing the extinction of the altruist allele, where of course, this is
not the case on the mutualistic side because no altruistic allele is verified, refutes the
altruistic side of the rule and verifies the mutualistic side. Neo Darwinians, by excising Popperian
refutation to defend Hamilton's rule sacrificed all hope of finding and fixing Hamilton's error so
it has been endlessly repeated for over 50 years, at the expense of the taxpayer (of course).

GH:- I would also allow that hypotheses and theories can be empirically tested to a large extent
with computational science.

JE:- No. You are trying to substitute nature with just computer simulation! I keep asking the same
question but you just evade providing any answer:

___________________________________________
Do you discriminate between a model and a theory?

Please answer this question.
___________________________________________

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- OK. Do you agree that a minimum of two such linkages must be supposed?

Quoted message said:

GH:- If you only allow yourself to draw one-way arrows, then yes.

Quoted message said:

JE:- I am not restricting myself to one way arrows. I am just suggesting that at least one has to
be present within any testable view. A two way arrow all on its own is just a tautology but a one
way arrow is not. Do you agree?

GH:- No. A two-way interaction arrow is about directions of effect, not about the structure of an
argument, so it has nothing to due with tautology.

JE:- Incorrect. The arrows represent reversible and non reversible connection in _logic_. A
tautology is any loop of logic that has no, non reversible connection.

GH:- If you allow yourself to use two-way arrows of interaction, then is only takes a minimum of one
such arrow of causation to yield an irreversible causal chain.

JE:- One arrow = two connections.

We are discussing the number of logical connections and not the number or arrows.

Quoted message said:

JE:- I find it inexplicable that you did not make a comment. How can you claim that a magnet is
not a system? Any system is just a proposed process of causation existing in nature where at least
one non reversible arrow must exist.

GH:- That is not what I mean by system. I recently posted a couple of satisfactory definitions
gleaned from Webster's Dictionary (see copy below).

JE:- IMHO none of them excluded a magnet as a system. Please explain to sbe readers why they do.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

GH:- Verification, like refutation is not easy. The principle that a process must be shown to
independently cause a pattern is of extreme importance. Dependent and independent fitnesses are
absolutely opposed processes within evolutionary theory and anywhere else.

GH:- I disagree, and assert that this is a false dichotomy.

JE:- Only a while ago I asked you if you discriminated between independent and dependent fitnesses.
You replied that you did. Now you have contradicted yourself.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Please define a system.

Quoted message said:

GH:- Here are two relevant definitions from Webster's dictionary:
- a group of things or parts connected in some way to form a whole (the solar system or a school
system_
- the body, or a number of bodily organs, functioning as a unit

Quoted message said:

JE:- So how does this help?

GH:- You seem to think of systems differently.

JE:- This comment provides no information unless you describe your understanding of this difference.

Quoted message said:

JE:- How is a system different to a process?

GH:- Now that is a good question. When it comes to dissipative systems, at least, the system, the
process and the structure are not physically distinct phenomena.

JE:- Then what is the point of giving them different names?

GH:- When dissipative systems cease to function and enter a phase of break-down, the generative
process has been extinguished leaving a structural ghost. To the extent that the structure breaks
down slowly I suppose you could say that a system is resisting degradation, but that is I mean by
system. I am referring to generative, functional systems that cannot be separated from process.

JE:- Is this "structural ghost" just a zero state?

If you are "referring to generative, functional systems that cannot be separated from process" where
"a system is resisting degradation" are you simply defining a system as the part of a process that
resists degradation?

Quoted message said:

JE:- Are you arguing a system does not have to be a testable process? Do you mean a system only
has to be verified so it can be non refutable?

GH:- I don't know how to adequately answer this question, which assumes such a different
understanding of nature and science. As I have often posted to you, the theoretical paradigm I
am promoting does guide the development of models that make predictions about nature that can
be tested.

JE:- Why the evasion? Are you suggesting that the part of process that resists degradation,
i.e. what you seem to term "a system" only needs to be verified and thus, can be validly assumed to
be a non refutable proposition of nature?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- If you do not deny that where no antithesis exists, no testable thesis can exist then where
are both within your explanation?

Quoted message said:

GH:- I presume you are referring to my claim that self-organization can happen

in

Quoted message said:

nature. The antithesis is that it cannot.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Suggesting that a self organising system does not exist is a valid antithesis of the
proposition that a self organising system exists but that is the question on the table and not any
HOW proposition to that question. "How" has to be established as both a thesis and an anti-thesis.

GH:- This is a major point of disagreement. The foundation for my general point of view in this
context is thermodynamics, which asserts that nature determines limits to outcomes, not how those
outcomes are to be achieved.

JE:- I agree that thermodynamics set limits but "not how those outcomes are to be achieved", that
was _my_ point. If you are supplying a HOW proposition as "a self organising system" can you provide
a thesis and anti thesis of HOW this works? It seems obvious that you cannot. Suggesting that a self
organising system does not exist is simply, NOT a valid antithesis of any HOW proposition re: "a
self organising system".

GH:- I think that the reductionistic focus on mechanism has begun to hinder science, which should
ultimately aim to achieve a balanced understanding of systems that includes both top-down (self-
organization) and bottom-up (mechanism) views.

JE:- Why are "top down" systems "self-organization" and "bottom up", "mechanism" (not self
organization?) viewpoints?

Quoted message said:

JE:- I was referring to your apparent claim that self-organization is not required to be a fully
testable process. All you seem to claim you need is verification. A verification does not provide
an antithesis of self organization as a _process_; hence my question.

GH:- Verification does refute the antithesis.

JE:- But the antithesis is not under test, only the thesis, is! A verification of the antithesis is
required to refute the _thesis_. The refutation of the antithesis is just a verification of thesis.
You are just playing with words to evade providing a valid _refutation_ your _thesis_.

Quoted message said:

JE:- If your self organising system is A-->B then its anti-thesis is B-->A.

GH:- You cannot indicate the structure of a self-organizing system in this way. You could write A--

Quoted message said:

A, or multiple agents interact so as to cause A in its initial formation.

JE:- A-->A is the same as A<-->A. Once again you resort to just a logical tautology to try to
sustain your argument.

GH:- It is the top-down effects within A that self-organize. The self-organization of the
interaction structure among the elements of system A (e.g., caused by entrainment), is the same
thing as the self-organization of the system A. This can be observed, simulated, and studied. If all
phenomena in nature are of this sort, then how do you propose science can find this out?

JE:- If "all phenomena in nature are of this sort" then then science cannot find this out. You
agreed that if a view is "too good" then it is terminal to the idea within the sciences because
it becomes impossible to separate belief from science. All that is happening here is that you
are flattering yourself that you understand more than you do. Unless your view has an "edge"
that provides a point of refutation the view is logically _incomplete_. People who argue that
"all phenomena in nature are of this sort" cannot possibly know this is the case unless they are
a god. All such a "perfect" stance reflects is an _incomplete_ view searching for its missing
point of refutation. The spirit of Godel is complimentary to the spirit of Popper and not
contradictory to it.

Quoted message said:

JE:- You must identify what you are arguing A and B are within your proposed self organising
system otherwise you have not provided a testable argument of science.

JE:- To dispense with your A-->A tautology you must define A and B within the thesis and antithesis
of self causation:

A-->B thesis

B-->A anti-thesis

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- As I understood it, you are supposed to be attempting to defend the (untenable) tautological
view that a pattern can create itself without any process being supposed to cause it.

GH:- No - I give up.

JE:- I can't even understand what you are suggesting you have given up!

Were you suggesting that a _pattern_ can form itself or not? Please be specific on this
critical point.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

JE:-
1) A process is an _inductive_ inference from a set of perceptual patterns, i.e. it is simply a
guess of a system of causation to the patterns.

GH:- Wrong - As I posted before.

JE:- Nothing you wrote made any sense to me.
_______________________________________
Do we, or do we not, only receive perceptual information about everything, including ourselves?
Please answer.
________________________________________

Quoted message said:

JE:-
2) A pattern is a _deduction_ from a (supposed) process, i.e. it is assumed to be a product of the
supposed system of causation under consideration.

GH:- Wrong again. A pattern is either observed in nature or demonstrated (deduced) to result from a
process model.

JE:- If a pattern is not "observed in nature " where then, is it observed? Where is "non nature" ?
If just a pattern does not require any process to cause it then why not dispose of the process
concept, entirely? can you construct a universe that is self consistent but has no process concept?

Some patterns are recognised without learning. Most of the patterns we are referring to here must be
learnt. Any learned pattern is not just a passive observation of nature. A deduced pattern can be
made from a machine that perceives for us. I cannot use my senses to see patterns in ultraviolet
that exist on flowers, but bees can, and so can a machine that sees that pattern via a deduction.
Somebody has to provide the inductive inference to the machine so it can do it, i.e. the pattern was
just a deduction form a supposed process where the pattern verified that process.

Quoted message said:

JE:- A pattern can induce more than one process to cause it, including a random pattern.

GH:- Patterns cannot induce processes. Induction is a logical extrapolation done by humans.

JE:- I was only referring to induction as a process of "logical extrapolation done by humans"
defined as: a generalisation.

GH:- Complexity theory is on the road to discovering the limits of universal induction (IMHO) and
renormalization group analysis proves the validity of universal induction for particular cases.

JE:- Then Godel is refuted?

Quoted message said:

JE:- Nobody has the absolute information to know which process was causative, i.e. we have no
other choice but to just make a guess.

GH:- We can't know that convection cells are caused by convection?

JE:- Exactly. The view that "that convection cells are caused by convection" is a refutable
proposition of the science of physics. It remains true until it is refuted( replaced by a
better concept).

The name given to the proposed process that results in the unique pattern we perceive being labelled
a "convection cell" and not "a banana" means nothing in itself because "convection cell" is just a
name for a proposed convention process.

Quoted message said:

JE:- If the process causes the pattern but the pattern does not cause the process (a necessary
first step one way arrow) then "pattern and process" MUST be able "to be disentangled" or the
proposed inductive process is simply not a testable proposition.

GH:- All processes depend on environmental structure as well as causing them (patterns).

JE:- Yes, but the process must be separate. If it cannot be separated it cannot be tested to cause
the pattern you observe independent of what the environment was doing. The environment sets limits
but must not be assumed to be causative to the pattern. Only the process you provide must be
supposed to be causative to the pattern within limits set by the environment.

GH:- When a process causes a pattern that facilitates the process,

JE:- No, it varifies the suppossed process.

The pattern cannot be supposed to cause the process? Yes or No?

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

JE:- When you say that "the pattern and process cannot be disentangled", you are just submitting
that your proposed process is not a testable view. Why don't you simply admit that this is the
case instead of trying to reverse basic epistemology just to allow your view?

GH:- Why don't you just admit ... Sorry. I almost asked an insulting rhetorical question.

JE:- Be my guest.

Quoted message said:

GH:- A convection cell is a non-random pattern of fluid movement, the pattern/process is self-
generating and consumes (dissipates) externally derived energy to pay for its

construction

Quoted message said:

along the way.

Quoted message said:

JE:- A convection cell is a verified non-random pattern of fluid movement, i.e. you can claim you
actually perceive something via a pattern
i.e. you did not simply perceive nothing at all (just a random pattern). Your proposed cause is
that the process, and the pattern that emanated from it, was caused by a "self-generating"
process which forms as energy is being _released_. Is this correct?

GH:- I am fine with this sentence up until " which forms as energy is being _released_." I don't
know what this last bit means.

JE:- A system is either a net importer or exporter of energy while the system persists. A pump must
import more energy than it uses to pump up water and pays it all back when it ceases to be an
independent system from the environment (fails to persist). A pipe that increases the efficiency of
the flow of water down the hill can release more energy in water flow that was consumed forming and
laying the pipe. The latter system is just a system for energy release, i.e. it is a net exporter of
energy while the system persists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- When you argue that "external conditions" can "cause a system to self-organize" you are only
using "external conditions" as a defacto process to cause the observed pattern.

Quoted message said:

GH:- No. Did your last meal cause you to have a nose (a non-random pattern)?

Quoted message said:

JE:- But a nose is not a dissipative system. We are discussing a system that forms as energy is
_released_.

GH:- You are right. A nose is not a dissipative system. The external conditions I referred to are
not a process. They are a pattern.

JE:- Now you are only using "external conditions" as a defacto pattern to cause the observed
pattern?!?

The question has to be resolved as to the causal relationships between:

1) the environmental patterns and proposed environmental processes

2) the process that causes the system to self organise and proposed environmental processes.

These are the unanswered questions that remain hidden within your proposition of a "self
organising" system.

GH:- Patterns must include boundaries, and are by definition negentropic.

JE:- What does "negentropic" mean?

GH:- Self-organizing systems break down boundaries (gradients) and destroy patterns even as they
construct themselves (more patterns).

JE:- So who wins, the pattern or the system, and how do you know?

GH:- The second law of thermodynamics asserts that every instance of pattern construction must be
matched by a greater extent of pattern destruction as a systems self-organizes.

JE:- Yes, but a delay in time exists so you can observe it. If no delay in time existed then the
pattern change would be instantaneous
i.f. just appear by magic.

GH:- Environmental gradients present potentials (fuel) for something to self-organize and
destroy them.

JE:- Instantaneously?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The conditions must be causative to the assumed pattern and not the

pattern

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

itself

GH:- Yes.

Quoted message said:

JE:- so are you just contradicting your position?

GH:- No.

JE:- If "the conditions must be causative to the assumed pattern and not the pattern" then the
pattern did not self organise, the conditions organised it. Thus you have contradicted your
proposition that the pattern was self organising.

Quoted message said:

GH:- No. The conditions are NOT causative to the observed pattern, which need not be assumed. The
structure of the internal dynamics causes the

pattern.

Quoted message said:

JE:- "The structure of the internal dynamics causes the pattern"? How and why?

GH:- How is about mechanism, which can be idiosyncratic. Why is to serve thermodynamic imperatives.

JE:- Yes, we can agree to dispose of WHY for now. However the HOW proposition remains to be
answered. You cannot just say that HOW "is about mechanism, which can be idiosyncratic" and then
just walk away!

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- But, all suppositions of causation are "black box" processes, i.e. you always have to use
your imagination to dream up a causative theory; this is what science is all about. It is an
illusion to suggest that you can simply perceive a process. Always, the process is just a
subjective, inductive guess derived form the observation of a pattern. However, science requires
all such guesses to be testable. When you throw out refutability you throw out testability so
that no science remains. In the sciences the causative black box is firstly, _either_ a random or
a non random process. Because all random processes are restricted by definition to only produce a
random pattern, it is possible to refute the black box as just a random process but it is never
possible to verify it as such. However, contesting propositions of non random processes that
constitute all the testable black boxes on the table, now become empirically possible because
excluded events in one can become verified events using another allowing one process to refute in
favour of another. However, if a proposed random black box was allowed to form non random
patterns, it would become impossible to empirically test between:
1) A random and a non random black box process.
2) Between non random black box processes. Everything is destroyed by your supposition that a
random process can validly be redefined to cause both a random and a non random patterns, or
that a pattern can be validly supposed to just cause itself without any process being needed
to be firstly supposed to cause the observed pattern.

Quoted message said:

GH:- I am sorry if nature doesn't fit your desires as a theoretician.

Quoted message said:

JE:- No it is you who are making nature "fit your desires" and not me. Are you are a god who
somehow, knows absolute truths of nature?

GH:- Would you open your mind if I said Yes?

JE:- My mind remains open. All a "yes" would do is prove that your mind is now, closed. What
closed it was your "perfect idea" of a self organising system. if was "perfect" because it cannot
be refuted.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

JE:- Once again I find your absence of comment inexplicable. Do you discriminate between a model
and a theory?

JE:- Please answer this question.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

GH:- No biologist, including Darwin, ever tested or considered testing the null hypothesis that
organisms don't exist.

Quoted message said:

JE:- "the null hypothesis that organisms don't exist" ?!? The above is just a mind numbing double
negative which means: The hypothesis that organisms exist.

GH:- And you claim to have read Popper? Null hypotheses are always stated as negatives (something
does not exist).

JE:- Yes but not as a negative, of just another negative!

GH:- That forces you to prove the existence of something as the alternative.

JE:- But the alternative in this instance is just another negative:

"organisms _don't_ exist"

The null hypothesis of a negative proposition is just a way to evade making a formal declaration of
a positive hypothesis of what you think you are talking about.

Quoted message said:

JE: The organism supposition is an absolute supposition of the science of biology. If you delete
this supposition a science of biology cannot exist. Do you agree?

GH:- That is my point, which was a response to your statement that "The burden of proof is on very
biologist to show that the organism supposition is both a verifiable and refutable proposition of
the science of biology. Only Darwin allowed the organism proposition to be both refutable and
verifiable." You seem to be contradicting yourself to be contrary with me.

JE:- You were hiding behind a double negative, not me!

Do you agree or disagree that:

"The burden of proof is on very biologist to show that the organism supposition is both a verifiable
and refutable proposition of the science of biology"

Please answer the question without resorting to double negatives within your answer in order to
evade providing an answer.

Quoted message said:

JE:- AGAIN: Do you discriminate between models and theories, e.g. the model that E=Mc^2 is not the
same as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity? Is this true?

GH:- The equation is not the same as the theory.

JE:- Yes. So, (obviously) is the equation a model or not?!?

GH:- Interestingly, the same can be said of b-c>r and kin selection theory.

JE:- Exactly. However, unless you clarify the inequality as a model, or not a model, you are simply
evading the entire question of what it is supposed to be.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE: I respect any _attempt_ to remove the barrier between living and non living things but I have
no respect for any view that also requires Popperian refutation to be thrown out to save the
attempt.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Well, are you throwing out refutation to save your attempt?

GH:- Maybe. I am not sure how to answer this.

JE:- Maybe, is proof enough for me..

You appear to want a blank cheque to be able to say anything you want within the sciences. I for one
will never allow such a travesty.

GH:- As I have indicated explicitly before I think the concept of refutation is flawed as a
foundation for science. There is plenty I like about Popper, but he was a man of his times. Not all
of his ideas hold up so well for the current, more advanced stage of science.

JE:- Yes, we can all just say something is out of fashion! Fashion has nothing to do with scientific
truth. Is verification enough or not? Please answer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The reason it is right and proper to do so is because epistemologically, no tautology can
be tested. As an example, we cannot rationally invest our limited resources to test all the
processes of the universe to find out if any could provide energy at a zero cost, i.e. a
tautological supposition of energy. We make the law that no more energy can be extracted from a
system than exists within it. The burden of proof is rightfully shifted on to those who argue
otherwise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The above is one of the best examples of how silly any causative tautology is within the
sciences. You have to prove that your assumption of a pattern being allowed to just form itself
is not equally silly.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Why isn't your view that a pattern can form itself not just an empty tautology like energy
can cause itself?

GH:- Because it is not they can't cause themselves under any conditions. They can only do this in a
time, place, and form that dissipates gradients.

JE:- Then the conditions are the process that causes them. Unless you incorporate these conditions
into a HOW proposition you have not correctly identified the causative process. Suggesting that the
process causes itself is just evasion Re; providing a _valid_ HOW proposition.

Quoted message said:

GH:- The degenerative SYSTEMS, like decomposing bacteria, are logically

identical

Quoted message said:

to the complex systems that maintained it while you were alive.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Oh come on, obviously I am not referring to living systems that prey on dead systems I refer
to unaided dissipative systems within a dead body.

GH:- Name one.

JE:- Put a sterile living body into a totally sterile environment and document the dissipation of
that body.

Quoted message said:

GH:- Stochastic (non-systematic) factors that cause your body to decompose are logically rather
different in that they are not self-organizing. They are only logically similar in that they also
contribute to the universal tendency toward degradation demanded by the second law of
thermodynamics.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Yes, so I do not refer to these systems. What logical similarity does the dissipative system
that takes over my dead body have to the massively more complex system that attempted to maintain
it when I was alive?

JE:- No; see above example.

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]