3 ms·

even if going by chomsky's choice of qualifier -- “biological system” -- DNA still fits the bill for an abstraction as broad as “digital infinity” pointing to

even if going by chomsky's choice of qualifier -- “biological system” -- DNA still fits the bill for an abstraction as broad as “digital infinity” pointing to it as a profound and unique aspect of language feels like something a college student could accomplish after misreading some wittgenstein, ripping the bong, looking up at the stars, and going ~whoa dude~ don't get me wrong, there's no shame in seeing the concept of discrete signals having some ~corporeal form~ as profound, but you should be open to seeing more instances of your abstraction, even if that ceases to give you a pretext to imbue your chosen field (say, lingustics) with some vaguely spiritual aesthetic

meroes 4y ago
Ya, if you want to see this cashed out here's Stuart Kauffman https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/04/04/135113346/there-are-more-uses-for-a-screwdriver-than-you-can-calculate https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/04/04/135113346/there... "IS THERE A FINITE PRESTATABLE SET OF BIOLOGICAL "FUNCTIONS?" That is, is there a finite prestatable list of features of organisms that MIGHT serve a selective function in some selective environment? I think the deep answer is NO. The unexpected uses of features of organisms, or technologies, are precisely what happens in the evolution of the biosphere and econosphere, and the analog happens in cultural evolution with the uses of mores, cultural forms, regulations, traditions, in novel ways. In general, these possibles are novel functionalities, in an unbounded space of functionalities, and so are not mathematizable and derivable from a finite set of axioms. " I think Kauffman is not against finite origins, but that they can capture infinity afforded by them is the impossible task. What's misunderstood about Wittgenstein though? Didn't he say the uses of language are limitless? I think he also would add in some form for finite starting point.
layer8 4y ago
More generally, molecules are, which for example includes proteins. Finite set of possible atoms, virtually unbounded set of combinations.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Notably, chemistry is the lowest-level "layer of abstraction" on physical reality where this is true. Unless you consider category or set theory "real". I forget whether it was on Complexity podcast from SFI, or on Prof. Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast, but this insight can be attributed to Dr. Sara Imari Walker.
  - layer8 4y ago
    It certainly was mentioned on Mindscape, now that I think of it. In principle it is also true for atoms, or even just atomic nuclei, being composed from a finite set of elementary particles, but they decay too quickly beyond a certain size.

meroes 4y ago

Ya, if you want to see this cashed out here's Stuart Kauffman https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/04/04/135113346/there-are-more-uses-for-a-screwdriver-than-you-can-calculate https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/04/04/135113346/there... "IS THERE A FINITE PRESTATABLE SET OF BIOLOGICAL "FUNCTIONS?" That is, is there a finite prestatable list of features of organisms that MIGHT serve a selective function in some selective environment? I think the deep answer is NO. The unexpected uses of features of organisms, or technologies, are precisely what happens in the evolution of the biosphere and econosphere, and the analog happens in cultural evolution with the uses of mores, cultural forms, regulations, traditions, in novel ways. In general, these possibles are novel functionalities, in an unbounded space of functionalities, and so are not mathematizable and derivable from a finite set of axioms. " I think Kauffman is not against finite origins, but that they can capture infinity afforded by them is the impossible task. What's misunderstood about Wittgenstein though? Didn't he say the uses of language are limitless? I think he also would add in some form for finite starting point.

layer8 4y ago

More generally, molecules are, which for example includes proteins. Finite set of possible atoms, virtually unbounded set of combinations.

uoaei 4y ago
Notably, chemistry is the lowest-level "layer of abstraction" on physical reality where this is true. Unless you consider category or set theory "real". I forget whether it was on Complexity podcast from SFI, or on Prof. Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast, but this insight can be attributed to Dr. Sara Imari Walker.
- layer8 4y ago
  It certainly was mentioned on Mindscape, now that I think of it. In principle it is also true for atoms, or even just atomic nuclei, being composed from a finite set of elementary particles, but they decay too quickly beyond a certain size.