And here is the final episode of our review of 2023, with perhaps a surprising number 1. It's very visual and so I'll be adding some links to the podcast page to some visualizations.

12 days later

Georgina Woodward
A 3 hour 19 minute video? But the actual open access Nature paper is online (1), and is only 12 pages long!

Contrary to the paper’s title, Assembly Theory is seemingly nothing more than an attempt to quantify life; it doesn’t actually “[explain] … selection and evolution”(1) at all . According to associate professor Bill Bateman, a behavioural ecologist at Curtin University (2):

“The “object” in assembly theory is then what “laws of physics” act on. For any object, we can calculate its “assembly index”, a number that measures how complex the object would be to make. Any object that is both abundant and has a high assembly index is unlikely to have arisen by chance, so it must be a product of evolution and selection. This, in itself, is neither problematic nor new – apart from this calculated “index”. How do we figure out that assembly index? We count the number of steps it would take to build a molecule, say, or a bodily organ, or a whole organism. The higher the index, the more likely it is to have evolved. So assembly theory is an attempt to quantify the complexity of something and the likelihood of it having evolved.”

The whole Nature article seems to be a textbook example of how to use diagrams and lots of words to describe unnecessary outcomes, as opposed to using the equations of physics to describe necessary outcomes. The authors have no explanation for the actual selection of actual outcomes, which they describe as “an unknown physical process”:

“This suggests that selectivity in an unknown physical process can be explained by experimentally detecting the number of objects, their assembly index and copy number as a function of time.”

  1. “Assembly theory explains and quantifies selection and evolution”, 4 October 2023. By Abhishek Sharma, Dániel Czégel, Michael Lachmann, Christopher P. Kempes, Sara I. Walker & Leroy Cronin, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9 .
  2. “A new theory linking evolution and physics has scientists baffled – but is it solving a problem that doesn’t exist?”, 10 November 2023. By Bill Bateman, https://theconversation.com/a-new-theory-linking-evolution-and-physics-has-scientists-baffled-but-is-it-solving-a-problem-that-doesnt-exist-216639 .
4 days later

A relaxed in depth interview with the author by Lex Fridman int typical style.Covering far more than just the content of the paper. it is long but you may like to listen to it while doing some mundane but necessary task, such as food preparation or on a long journey. At one point they discuss cellular automera with deterministic past but openas yet undetermined future. The future can't be calculated from initialconditions but always builds on what has gone before. We donot know what each of the steps is without carrying out the whole sequence. Once carried out , there is no uncertainty left -so looking back at the history the progression looks determined. its always where to from here Not from initial conditions.

    Georgina Woodward
    Actually, quick and efficient food preparation from scratch is a multitasking operation that requires complete concentration on the actual job at hand, unless you want to cut your fingers off with a sharp knife, or burn something. Cooking is an enjoyable artform for many people; but I suppose it is a boring, "mundane but necessary task" for those who might just like to (e.g.) heat a can of beans.

    What you describe is an utterly nonsensical way to look at uncertainty and indeterminism: the very next nonsensical step, à la Daniel Dennett, would be to say that, with their "as yet undetermined future", built on deterministic rule-based steps, cellular automata have free will. OMG.

      Georgina Woodward
      A 3 hour 19 minute video is all about the ever-malleable meanings of words and sentences. However, the essential nature of the self-moving universe we live in can’t be understood in terms of these high-level human concepts.

      The underlying nature of the universe we live in can only be properly understood in terms of our symbolic representations of categories/ relationships (which represent measurable, deterministic aspects), numbers, and logical connectives (which represent non-measurable, non-deterministic aspects). In other words, the underlying nature of the universe we live in is symbolised by equations, number symbols, and logical connective symbols and statements (like AND/OR…IS TRUE statements, and IF…THEN… statements).

      Note that the source of, or the reason for, the underlying reality, that we can only represent via the use of these basic mathematical and logical symbols, can’t ever be known. Any speculation about the source of the reality that we need to represent with these basic symbols is futile. However, it is clear that reality is not the deterministic simpleton that many try to claim it is.

        Lorraine Ford
        I mean if the video is too long to give it your undivided attention why not play it while doing something else, that does not require your full attention. If the suggested activity does require your full attention, that particular activity is not a suitable choice for you.
        I did not mention freewill but implied only the next minimum energy step that will be taken given the pattern of stepsalready taken to achieve that particular structure that currentlly exists.
        The video shows an author who obviously cares very much about his 'brain child' and wants people to give the merits and mistakes of it that they see, sather than just rejection or nastiness. He does not claim that it is a finished model. in that regard he is very humble.
        Having a chemisty background he is focussed on material reality rather than the emergent reality of an observer. Seen observation products have more to do withe the characteristics of light ,the signal processing 'apparatus' and location of obsever and observed Structre is only important in so far as it effecs the external surface. Or has an effect upon the observer, eg.causing poisoning.

          Georgina Woodward
          Re free will:
          You did not mention free will, but what you described is a simplified, but exact, version of how some people seem to model free will: free will is somehow equated to the inability to predict future outcomes, despite all outcomes supposedly being fully determined by rules or laws. Just like with cellular automata. So, presumably, those same people must consider that cellular automata possess, or model, free will.

          But this is the problem: despite the fervent hopes and semi-religious beliefs of some people, including physicists and philosophers, the idea that all outcomes are fully determined by rules or laws is not supported by evidence. (More on this topic below.)

          Re the Nature paper:
          As is well known by non-Christian non-fundamentalist non-religious evolutionary theorists, for an organism to be selected by the environment, the organism has to first exist. But for an organism’s physical structure and molecular outcomes to exist in the first place, these outcomes that exist have to have first been “selected” by the physics. And seemingly, this latter “selection” is what this Nature paper is about. But this is the problem: physicists and others have no rationale for the mechanism of this latter “selection” The paper merely says:

          “… selectivity in an unknown physical process …”

          The root of this problem is that physicists and others have no explanation for why a system would ever move or change.

          The problem is that physicists don’t have any rationale for number jump outcomes. And looking at the equations that physicists use to represent law of nature relationships, one can see that these equations only apply IF number movements/ jumps/ steps occur. Despite the delta symbols, the equations do not represent number movement: they merely represent the instant outcomes, due to relationships between categories, IF initialising number movement / jumps occur. The equations have no explanation or rationale whatsoever for any such initialising number movement itself, and clearly, this initialising number movement needs to continually occur.

          Contrary to the semi-religious beliefs of some physicists and mathematicians, equations and numbers cannot move themselves: for a system to move requires something that can only be represented by logical connective symbols. In the actual practice of physics and mathematics, physicists and mathematicians play the part of these logical connectives.

          So, despite the title of the Nature paper, the 6 authors of the paper actually have no explanation for the particular number jump outcomes which constitute the “selection” of outcomes by the physics of the system, which occurs well before the external environment does its own selection.

          So, this is the same old issue: physicists and others have no rationale for why the universe would ever move. A moving system requires an aspect that can only be represented by logical connective symbols.

            Lorraine Ford
            Re logical connectives:

            The thing about mathematics is that half of it is symbols on paper or other medium, and the other half, the logical connections relating to the symbols, is in people’s heads/ consciousness. Mathematics has no other existence than this two-part existence.

            On the other hand, physics is supposed to represent aspects of reality, and experimental proof of the symbolic equation’s validity is required. But it is not just the equations alone that represent the aspects of reality. It is BOTH the equations on paper PLUS the logical connections part in people’s heads, that represents the aspects of reality.

            While physicists and others continue to consider that it is just the symbols on paper that represent reality, and they fail to notice the necessary logical connections relating to the symbols in people’s heads, they will model the nature of reality incorrectly.

            Examples of logical connective symbols and statements are AND/OR…IS TRUE statements, and IF…THEN… statements. These symbols represent a basic, necessary aspect of reality. In order to more correctly model the underlying nature of reality, logical connective statements are required, in addition to the usual equations and numbers.

              Lorraine Ford
              (continued)

              Getting back to the Nature paper, which is about the “selection” of outcomes for molecules and organisms by the physics of the system, which is required in order for these molecules and organisms to exist in the first place, and which must occur well before the external environment does its own selection of the already existing organisms:

              Despite the use of delta symbols in physics’ equations that represent law of nature relationships, these equations with their associated numbers can only ever represent static relationships between categories. But on the other hand, computer programs can represent a moving, changing world because they use symbols for logical connectives, as well as the usual equation and number symbols, to represent a system.

              And in computer programs, selection of very specific outcomes, in the context of very specific environments or situations, is represented via the use of logical connective symbols: a combination of AND/OR…IS TRUE statements, and IF…THEN… statements.

              However, in relation to the real world, as opposed to the aspects of the real world that might be symbolically represented in computer programs, the above-mentioned logical connectives are not a measurable aspect of the world. The only measurable aspects of the world are the above-mentioned categories, and the results of these measurements are numbers that apply to the categories. The numbers themselves are not a measurable aspect of the world; what is represented by equals signs or plus signs are not measurable aspects of the world; and logical connectives are also not measurable aspects of the world.

                Lorraine Ford
                To represent a living thing’s particular responses to particular situations, you need to use logical connective symbols. But also, to represent any type of moving world or system at all, you need use logical connective symbols, not just equations and numbers.

                To represent the essential aspect of living things, you need to represent their comprehension/ knowledge of aspects of a situation as “this AND this AND this IS TRUE”; and you need to represent their response to this knowledge of the situation (they don’t respond to the actual situation) as “IF this, THEN that response”; where both the aspects of the situation, and the aspects of the response, can be thought of as being represented in terms of numbers that apply to categories or variables.

                Living things are just a more complicated development of the parts of a moving system, where what would be represented by the combination of AND/OR…IS TRUE statements and IF…THEN… statements is always pretty well unique, and so these logical connective statements represent unique on the spot knowledge, and unique on the spot responses: the AND/OR…IS TRUE statements and IF…THEN… statements do not represent rules.

                Those anthropocentrists, who thought that human beings were so special, have been barking up the wrong tree all along.

                  11 days later

                  Lorraine Ford
                  From the most primitive living things to more complex ones, living things are a more complicated development of the necessary parts of a moving system. As opposed to physics’ static law-of-nature relationships between categories, with a moving system, the necessary parts are the parts that handle situations, which would be symbolically represented by the combination of AND/OR…IS TRUE statements and IF…THEN… statements. With living things, these situations are always pretty well unique, and so these logical connective statements represent unique on the spot knowledge, and unique on the spot responses.

                  The AND/OR…IS TRUE statements and IF…THEN… statements do not represent rules/ laws that control living things. The AND/OR…IS TRUE statements and IF…THEN… statements represent unique on the spot knowledge, and unique on the spot responses.

                  The universe is not the rule-run simpleton that the testosterone-fuelled mathematicians and complexity theorists seem to think it is. The top-down, rule-based, patriarchal-type world they envision is countered by a vision of a living moving world where individual elements of the world need to make up their own “rules” on the spot in response to their knowledge of the unique situations they encounter.

                  The mathematicians and complexity theorists have made a fundamental mistake. The mathematicians and complexity theorists (i.e. subjects) wrongly believe that their symbols could represent a world of objects that don’t need subjects to be conscious of the symbols, interpret the symbols, and move the symbols. The mathematicians and complexity theorists never noticed that they themselves are an inherent, but "hidden", part of their symbolic equations. And so their symbols actually represent a world that requires something that is conscious of things, something that interprets things, and something that moves things.

                    Lorraine Ford
                    The necessity for fundamental-level aspects of the world that are conscious of things, fundamental-level aspects of the world that interpret things, and fundamental-level aspects of the world that move things, has been hidden simply because people writing and reading symbols failed to notice that the above-described aspects of people are a necessary part of a symbolic representation system.

                    When it comes to the symbolic equations and other symbols purporting to represent the fundamental-level universe, the symbols themselves can never represent a standalone system. What can more correctly represent a fundamental-level standalone system is the symbols+the above-described aspects of people.

                    Write a Reply...