CT theory of life

[hibbsa-/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

Hi David, hope you are well,


Your latest paper, Ct Theory of Life.


I am quite interested in the direction you are trying to pursue. I read the paper, and then thought it through a little, but I cannot see the new distinctiveness that you bring to this matter.


Bring it you do, I feel sure. Perhaps it's on a level that I do not yet see. But in terms of the structure your proof and the Constructor Theory so far, what in your view is most transforming the current picture?


There's a clear reasoning of course. Your conclusions are clear also, and do follow from the reasoning. But it seems to me, that all you actually do, and take what are the components of the current longstanding reasoning no-design evolution, which presents a world view of high fidelity replication, and copy-errors involved in Life.


The copy errors, follow from the reasoning. What do you add?

[David Deutsch david.deutsch-LR/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

Post by hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
Your latest paper, Ct Theory of Life.

It's not mine. It's by Marletto.

Post by hibbsa-/***@public.gmane.org [Fabric-of-Reality]
I am quite interested in the direction you are trying to pursue. I read the paper, and then thought it through a little, but I cannot see the new distinctiveness that you bring to this matter.
Bring it you do, I feel sure. Perhaps it's on a level that I do not yet see. But in terms of the structure your proof and the Constructor Theory so far, what in your view is most transforming the current picture?
There's a clear reasoning of course. Your conclusions are clear also, and do follow from the reasoning. But it seems to me, that all you actually do, and take what are the components of the current longstanding reasoning no-design evolution, which presents a world view of high fidelity replication, and copy-errors involved in Life.
The copy errors, follow from the reasoning. What do you add?

Two of the fundamental innovations in the paper are:


(1) It shows why vehicles (organisms) are necessary even in principle, to complex life, in addition to replicators. (Contrary to the consensus in neo-Darwinian evolution theory. See, e.g. the Foreword here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Host-Manipulation-Parasites-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0199642249 )


(2) It addresses the question "how could life have originated?" without getting stuck in the question "what is the probability of each step" in which prevailing-conception treatments get bogged down.


-- David Deutsch

[hibbsa-/[e-mail] [Fabric-of-Reality]]

---In Fabric-of-***@yahoogroups.com, <***@...> wrote :


On 7 Sep 2014, at 22:55, ***@... mailto:***@... [Fabric-of-Reality] <Fabric-of-***@yahoogroups.com mailto:Fabric-of-***@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Your latest paper, Ct Theory of Life.



It's not mine. It's by Marletto.
I am quite interested in the direction you are trying to pursue. I read the paper, and then thought it through a little, but I cannot see the new distinctiveness that you bring to this matter.
Bring it you do, I feel sure. Perhaps it's on a level that I do not yet see. But in terms of the structure your proof and the Constructor Theory so far, what in your view is most transforming the current picture?
There's a clear reasoning of course. Your conclusions are clear also, and do follow from the reasoning. But it seems to me, that all you actually do, and take what are the components of the current longstanding reasoning no-design evolution, which presents a world view of high fidelity replication, and copy-errors involved in Life.
The copy errors, follow from the reasoning. What do you add?

(1) It shows why vehicles (organisms) are necessary even in principle, to >complex life, in addition to replicators. (Contrary to the consensus in neo->Darwinian evolution theory. See, e.g. the Foreword here: Host >Manipulation by Parasites: Amazon.co.uk: Richard Dawkins, David P. >Hughes, Jacques Brodeur, Frédéric Thomas: Books http://www.amazon.co.uk/Host-Manipulation-Parasites-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0199642249

I would strongly concur 'vehicles' are part of the indivisible arrangement in evolution.


So David, is this a recent change of mind on your part? I pointed to this on a few occasions a couple years back on FoR. From memory, you wouldn't have it. At the time I actually included Popper's C&R, saying that any extended chain of C&R instances leading to full blown knowledge evolution must necessarily imply a vehicle: Dismissed; assigned 'popper: the myth of the framework' re-education (probably) :o)


Do you extend your vehicle insight to C&R? If not, in your view what is the fundamental, mechanistic (Darwinian NS) distinction? If this vehicle business fails universality,is the inference is evolutionary fragility....of Life>






http://www.amazon.co.uk/Host-Manipulation-Parasites-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0199642249

Host Manipulation by Parasites: Amazon.co.uk: ... http://www.amazon.co.uk/Host-Manipulation-Parasites-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0199642249 Buy Host Manipulation by Parasites by Richard Dawkins, David P. Hughes, Jacques Brodeur, Frédéric Thomas (ISBN: 9780199642243) from Amazon'...



View on www.amazon.co.uk http://www.amazon.co.uk/Host-Manipulation-Parasites-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0199642249
Preview by Yahoo

(2) It addresses the question "how could life have originated?" without >getting stuck in the question "what is the probability of each step" in which >prevailing-conception treatments get bogged down.

I> read it again...I don't see that she added anything non-trivial and new to >abiogenesis efforts.


The fact is, if you are suggesting that chemistry will naturally tend to emerge life, given like- molecules, say molecules a little more alike will feel nnatural selection, with complexity rising as the result.


Something like that translates into rising complexity with entropy being held constant. For life to emerge from chemistry, strong forces of natural selection in a consistent direction were necessary. It's reasonable as a ballpark figure to speak of a causally linked sequence involving millions of chemical events.


This is a huge problem. We may know it happened, but talking about evolution just 'happening' to chemicals doesn't add anything. Not unless you've solved the physics and busted the law of entropy.




-- David Deutsch