Citation for this page in APA citation style.           Close


Philosophers

Mortimer Adler
Rogers Albritton
Alexander of Aphrodisias
Samuel Alexander
William Alston
G.E.M.Anscombe
Anselm
Louise Antony
Thomas Aquinas
Aristotle
David Armstrong
Harald Atmanspacher
Robert Audi
Augustine
J.L.Austin
A.J.Ayer
Alexander Bain
Mark Balaguer
Jeffrey Barrett
William Belsham
Henri Bergson
George Berkeley
Isaiah Berlin
Bernard Berofsky
Robert Bishop
Max Black
Susanne Bobzien
Emil du Bois-Reymond
Hilary Bok
Laurence BonJour
George Boole
Émile Boutroux
F.H.Bradley
C.D.Broad
Michael Burke
C.A.Campbell
Joseph Keim Campbell
Rudolf Carnap
Carneades
Ernst Cassirer
David Chalmers
Roderick Chisholm
Chrysippus
Cicero
Randolph Clarke
Samuel Clarke
Anthony Collins
Antonella Corradini
Diodorus Cronus
Jonathan Dancy
Donald Davidson
Mario De Caro
Democritus
Daniel Dennett
Jacques Derrida
René Descartes
Richard Double
Fred Dretske
John Dupré
John Earman
Laura Waddell Ekstrom
Epictetus
Epicurus
Herbert Feigl
John Martin Fischer
Owen Flanagan
Luciano Floridi
Philippa Foot
Alfred Fouilleé
Harry Frankfurt
Richard L. Franklin
Michael Frede
Gottlob Frege
Peter Geach
Edmund Gettier
Carl Ginet
Alvin Goldman
Gorgias
Nicholas St. John Green
H.Paul Grice
Ian Hacking
Ishtiyaque Haji
Stuart Hampshire
W.F.R.Hardie
Sam Harris
William Hasker
R.M.Hare
Georg W.F. Hegel
Martin Heidegger
R.E.Hobart
Thomas Hobbes
David Hodgson
Shadsworth Hodgson
Baron d'Holbach
Ted Honderich
Pamela Huby
David Hume
Ferenc Huoranszki
William James
Lord Kames
Robert Kane
Immanuel Kant
Tomis Kapitan
Jaegwon Kim
William King
Hilary Kornblith
Christine Korsgaard
Saul Kripke
Andrea Lavazza
Keith Lehrer
Gottfried Leibniz
Leucippus
Michael Levin
George Henry Lewes
C.I.Lewis
David Lewis
Peter Lipton
C. Lloyd Morgan
John Locke
Michael Lockwood
E. Jonathan Lowe
John R. Lucas
Lucretius
Ruth Barcan Marcus
James Martineau
Storrs McCall
Hugh McCann
Colin McGinn
Michael McKenna
Brian McLaughlin
John McTaggart
Paul E. Meehl
Uwe Meixner
Alfred Mele
Trenton Merricks
John Stuart Mill
Dickinson Miller
G.E.Moore
Thomas Nagel
Friedrich Nietzsche
John Norton
P.H.Nowell-Smith
Robert Nozick
William of Ockham
Timothy O'Connor
David F. Pears
Charles Sanders Peirce
Derk Pereboom
Steven Pinker
Plato
Karl Popper
Porphyry
Huw Price
H.A.Prichard
Hilary Putnam
Willard van Orman Quine
Frank Ramsey
Ayn Rand
Michael Rea
Thomas Reid
Charles Renouvier
Nicholas Rescher
C.W.Rietdijk
Richard Rorty
Josiah Royce
Bertrand Russell
Paul Russell
Gilbert Ryle
Jean-Paul Sartre
Kenneth Sayre
T.M.Scanlon
Moritz Schlick
Arthur Schopenhauer
John Searle
Wilfrid Sellars
Alan Sidelle
Ted Sider
Henry Sidgwick
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
J.J.C.Smart
Saul Smilansky
Michael Smith
Baruch Spinoza
L. Susan Stebbing
George F. Stout
Galen Strawson
Peter Strawson
Eleonore Stump
Francisco Suárez
Richard Taylor
Kevin Timpe
Mark Twain
Peter Unger
Peter van Inwagen
Manuel Vargas
John Venn
Kadri Vihvelin
Voltaire
G.H. von Wright
David Foster Wallace
R. Jay Wallace
W.G.Ward
Ted Warfield
Roy Weatherford
William Whewell
Alfred North Whitehead
David Widerker
David Wiggins
Bernard Williams
Timothy Williamson
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Susan Wolf

Scientists

Michael Arbib
Bernard Baars
Gregory Bateson
John S. Bell
Charles Bennett
Ludwig von Bertalanffy
Susan Blackmore
Margaret Boden
David Bohm
Niels Bohr
Ludwig Boltzmann
Emile Borel
Max Born
Satyendra Nath Bose
Walther Bothe
Hans Briegel
Leon Brillouin
Stephen Brush
Henry Thomas Buckle
S. H. Burbury
Donald Campbell
Anthony Cashmore
Eric Chaisson
Jean-Pierre Changeux
Arthur Holly Compton
John Conway
John Cramer
E. P. Culverwell
Charles Darwin
Terrence Deacon
Louis de Broglie
Max Delbrück
Abraham de Moivre
Paul Dirac
Hans Driesch
John Eccles
Arthur Stanley Eddington
Paul Ehrenfest
Albert Einstein
Hugh Everett, III
Franz Exner
Richard Feynman
R. A. Fisher
Joseph Fourier
Lila Gatlin
Michael Gazzaniga
GianCarlo Ghirardi
J. Willard Gibbs
Nicolas Gisin
Paul Glimcher
Thomas Gold
A.O.Gomes
Brian Goodwin
Joshua Greene
Jacques Hadamard
Patrick Haggard
Stuart Hameroff
Augustin Hamon
Sam Harris
Hyman Hartman
John-Dylan Haynes
Martin Heisenberg
Werner Heisenberg
John Herschel
Jesper Hoffmeyer
E. T. Jaynes
William Stanley Jevons
Roman Jakobson
Pascual Jordan
Ruth E. Kastner
Stuart Kauffman
Simon Kochen
Stephen Kosslyn
Ladislav Kovàč
Rolf Landauer
Alfred Landé
Pierre-Simon Laplace
David Layzer
Benjamin Libet
Seth Lloyd
Hendrik Lorentz
Josef Loschmidt
Ernst Mach
Donald MacKay
Henry Margenau
James Clerk Maxwell
Ernst Mayr
Ulrich Mohrhoff
Jacques Monod
Emmy Noether
Howard Pattee
Wolfgang Pauli
Massimo Pauri
Roger Penrose
Steven Pinker
Colin Pittendrigh
Max Planck
Susan Pockett
Henri Poincaré
Daniel Pollen
Ilya Prigogine
Hans Primas
Adolphe Quételet
Juan Roederer
Jerome Rothstein
David Ruelle
Erwin Schrödinger
Aaron Schurger
Claude Shannon
David Shiang
Herbert Simon
Dean Keith Simonton
B. F. Skinner
Roger Sperry
Henry Stapp
Tom Stonier
Antoine Suarez
Leo Szilard
William Thomson (Kelvin)
Peter Tse
Heinz von Foerster
John von Neumann
John B. Watson
Daniel Wegner
Steven Weinberg
Paul A. Weiss
John Wheeler
Wilhelm Wien
Norbert Wiener
Eugene Wigner
E. O. Wilson
H. Dieter Zeh
Ernst Zermelo
Wojciech Zurek

Presentations

Biosemiotics
Free Will
Mental Causation
James Symposium
 
Yves Decadt
Yves Decadt says he invented the term "interactor" in this April 2000 summary of his book De Gemiddelde Evolutie (The Average Evolution) which amazingly includes Charles Sanders Peirce, John Wheeler, David Layzer, and Jesper Hoffmeyer, along with a wonderful appreciation of the importance of information and its independence from matter and energy.

Interactor also appears in an article by Günther Witzany.

ON THE ORIGIN AND IMPACT OF INFORMATION IN THE AVERAGE EVOLUTION : From bit to attractor, atom and ecosystem

Yves Decadt, April 2000

The average evolution : a heuristic model

1. SPREADING IN THE EVOLUTION

2. INFORMATION AS A SOURCE OF COMPLEXITY AND COHERENCE IN EVOLUTION

3. FLUX-MAXIMISATION AND ATTRACTORS IN THE AVERAGE EVOLUTION

3.1. Damping of variations and the origin of information and attractors in the evolution

3.2. Hierarchical levels in the average evolution

3.3. Flux-maximisation and quasi-equilibrium : the link between microscopical and macroscopical behaviour

4. FUNDAMENTAL UNCERTAINTY IN THE AVERAGE EVOLUTION

5. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

SUMMARY PAPER

ON THE ORIGIN AND IMPACT OF INFORMATION IN THE AVERAGE EVOLUTION :
From bit to atom and ecosystem

 

Yves Decadt, April 2000

The average evolution : a heuristic model

During the evolution of our universe, chance has played a major role. Even to that extent that it would be improbable that the actual fauna and flora would redevelop if evolution would be repeated. All the classification efforts of a biologist as Carl Linneaus would be irrelevant if evolution would be repeated. If Carl Linneaus would still be alive, this thought would be a nightmare for him.

If chance plays such a major role in evolution, and we want to get a good insight in the basic principles of the evolution process, we will have to reduce the role of chance to its relevant proportions. We will do this by performing a huge thought experiment. Instead of asking ourselves whether or not we can repeat the evolution in an identical way, we will assume that this is not the case (due to the role of chance). We will therefore ask another question :

"Which recurrent evolution patterns would we see, if we would repeat the evolution a million times?".

Which characteristics of the evolution process would we see time and time again ?

This question is the basic question to which this paper attempts to formulate an answer.

At the end of the 19th century, the American scientist and philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) has found that "nature has a tendency to create habits". If we want to explain these habits, it is not sufficient to identify and explain the basic laws of nature that govern the development of our cosmos ; we also need to be able to explain the evolution of these laws itself, because they also have been evolving slowly.

It is clear that our search into the creation of habits in evolution, will be influenced by the context in which we live as a human being on earth, and by the knowledge we have gathered up to our current stage in the evolution. Nevertheless, the nature of this question is so fundamental, that it forces us to think very critically about the really fundamental aspects of evolution. Although our thinking process is influenced by the signs of our time, we will be obliged to search for the core of the question.

The resulting evolutionary process is what I have called

"The Average Evolution".

The evolution model presented here is a "heuristical model". It combines different pieces of the puzzle, to recombine it into a new version of the picture. Not the pieces of the puzzle are different, but mainly the composition. I have called this a heuristical model, because it is open for further development and evolution. It is the result of a personal vision, and it is not to be considered as a final solution, suitable for every situation.

As a consequence, I invite the reader to think together with me, during the reading of this work.


Note : this paper is a summary of a virtual book with the same title, published in Dutch on the World Wide Web in April 2000 (for the full text and references, see http://www.geocities.com/evolutionweb). As the complete (Dutch) text is more then 10 times as large as this summary, detailed reasoning is not presented here.

Back to the index of the summary



1. SPREADING IN THE EVOLUTION

Evolutionary spreading

"Everything streams" (Panta rei in Greek)

This is a basic concept originating from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus. This concept is also the basis for the entire evolution process. The only constant and universal characteristic of evolution is a never-ending stream of matter, energy and information. The universe can not be described by describing parts of it, because in essence it is an undivided whole. Each attempt to describe a piece of the universe, drives the description away from the holistic essence of the universe.


If I would be consequent with this bold statement, I should stop here with further writings on the characteristics of the universe and its evolution.

Nevertheless, I will continue because I am convinced that some complementary descriptions of specific aspects and parts of the universe, can contribute to the understanding of the universe and its evolution as a whole.

Limitation of evolutionary spreading

When we look at the environment in which we live, we see many forms of organisation that have a high degree of order, and which have at a first glance little in common with the theory of evolutionary spreading.

During the expansion of the universe, the maximal potential spreading increases continuously. The actual (realised) spreading is also continuously increasing, although the speed of increase is lower. As the figure above is demonstrating, there is a continuous increase of the gap between the total actual spreading, and the total potential spreading.

The difference between both is reflected in the order that we can see in our surroundings, e.g. in the form of tangible matter. In other words, as the spreading in the universe continues, also the order in the universe is increasing.

Limitation of evolutionary spreading holds a key to the creation of order in the universe (Layzer, 1984)


This leads us to the crucial question about the origin and fundamental cause of this order. How come that evolution is happening through a number of intermediate stages of more complex forms of organisation, instead of resulting immediately into the maximal (potential) level of spreading ?

The fact that there is an innumerable number of less or more complex forms of organisation, is very evident in our home planet, the Earth. We can see very complex forms of organisation, as an international company or an army, but also more simple and down to earth systems as worms and micro-organisms.

The difference in complexity and coherence of material systems is very large.

Non-living systems are fare less complex, but they also differ largely in the extent of evolutionary spreading. A gas for example is a material form that has a high degree of spreading : the coherence between the different gas molecules is very low. This is in contrast with for example a diamond, in which the atoms are structured and organised very well, which is also a main cause of the particular symmetry of diamond crystals, and which also makes the diamond very strong.

Nevertheless, the complexity of a diamond is much smaller than the complexity of a micro-organism or a school of fishes.


Thus, in our search for the cause of order and limitation of spreading, we will have to look for those factors that give rise to difference in coherence and complexity of the different material systems in our surroundings.

Back to the index of the summary

 

2. INFORMATION AS A SOURCE OF COMPLEXITY AND COHERENCE IN EVOLUTION


"On the impact of information in evolution"


Information is perceived as more and more important in the study of evolutionary theories, as well in physics as in biology.

The physical researcher John Wheeler says this in a quite extreme way :" No element in the description of physics shows itself as closer to primordial than the elementary quantum phenomenon, that is, the elementary device-intermediate act of posing a yes-no physical question and eliciting an answer…. Otherwise stated, every physical quantity, every it, derives its ultimate significance from bits, binary yes-or-no indications."
This conclusion is epitomised in the phrase "it from bit".

Also in biological research, the attention for information has increased, so far that a separate scientific discipline is created known as "biosemiotics", or the study of (development of) the meaning of signals. The biologist Jesper Hoffmeyer calls this the "semiotisation of nature", in which nature is seen more and more as a universe that is characterised by the exchange of signals (information).

Therefore, I would complete Wheelers statement with the statement "fit from bit", meaning that also the "survival of the fittest" (natural selection) and the "survival of the first" (some types of non-linear self-organisation) are driven by biologically relevant information. The current complexity of living systems on our earth is the result of enormous historical accumulation of information.

This paper is differing from other work especially by the emphasis on the evolutionary influence of information, which has led to the title
"On the origin and impact of information in the average evolution : from bit to atom and ecosystem".
In other more classical works on evolution, information is frequently seen as something that is originated in a late stage of evolution, after the creation of atoms and ecosystems.

In this work, a modified definition and interpretation of information is introduced, where information is considered as being originated before the existence of atoms and ecosystems.


What is information in an evolutionary context ?

This question can be answered with a short definition :

Information is that what has meaning, within a certain context.

The meaning of information within an evolutionary context, is that it increases the probability of selection of certain evolutionary paths, and thus decreases spreading in certain contexts.

This definition is valid for a human being, but also for a drop of ink in water, for an electron in a microchip and for every elementary particle in evolution.

So in essence, there is nothing human related to the definition of information.

Informed variations and informed selections in evolution


In essence, evolution is a sequence of variations, whereby new evolutionary pathways are created, and selections, whereby certain evolutionary pathways are selected and others neglected.

The total number of potential evolutionary paths is an indicator of the maximal spreading in evolution. So, variation increases the number of evolutionary pathways, while selection is narrowing the scope of actual evolution.

Both variations and selections, can be influenced by information, as the scheme below is

demonstrating :

 

Evolution principles in nature, stratified by the influence of information on variation and selection


Based on the influence of information in evolution, I will distinguish 3 types of variation-selection sequences or evolution principles.

When no information is present in the system (and level) that we consider, this results in a "blind evolution", in which both variation and selection are at random phenomena. The end result will be - on the average - a situation of maximal spreading. This happens for instance in a gas, where the overall behaviour of the gas is determined by the average behaviour of the individual atoms in the gas. The individual atoms or molecules behave completely at random, and their evolutionary path is in the end unpredictable ; in contrast, their average behaviour is statistically predictable and quantifiable.


When the random variations are selected by information in the environment, we call this "natural selection", the process that is first well described by Charles Darwin (although Darwin did not explain the behaviour of the environment as adding information to the evolutionary process).

Many variations in nature are not completely accidental. Certain variations have a higher probability of existence, due to the process of "self-organisation", and as a consequence, have also a higher chance in being selected. These variations are informed in a certain way.

Because most systems in nature are very complex, and thus natural selection and self-organisation happen in a concurrent and almost inseparable way, this group of variation-selection sequences will be called "self-organisation and natural selection".

Through the non-linear and auto-catalytic characteristics of self-organisation, this leads in some instances to the "survival of the first", while natural selection is best characterised by the "survival of the fittest". The combined process is the basis of the complex biological diversity as we find it today on earth, including the existence of man.

The human being has - due to its conscious thinking - the advanced skill of effectively combining informed variations with informed selections, in a process that I will call further "artificial construction".

Man creates artificial variations by designing sophisticated experiments, in which predetermined factors are changed, while others are kept constant. In these experimental designs, some of the variations are clearly informed. In a next step, the desired product or process is selected, based on predefined selection criteria.

This powerful process of artificial construction (also in less sophisticated forms) has led to innumerable "artefacts" used by men, from spears and bows of primitive human beings, to space shuttles studying earth from space.

Because both steps of the sequence, variations and selections, are consciously manipulated and informed, the human being is able to build complex and effective constructions.

Back to the index of the summary

 

3. FLUX-MAXIMISATION AND ATTRACTORS IN THE AVERAGE EVOLUTION

 


3.1. Damping of variations and the origin of information and attractors in the evolution

 

We have seen that information plays a crucial role in evolution, by influencing both variations and selections. As a consequence, we must ask ourselves the question how information itself is created during the evolutionary process, in other words : What is the origin of information ?

Information is neither matter nor energy, though it needs matter for its embodiment and energy for its communication

Evolution can be seen as a stream of matter and energy (neglecting information for a while). If within a certain system, a variation occurs in an incoming stream of Matter/Energy (M/E), then this system will react to this change. If the system consists of many particles, these particles will experience this variation as an additional "stress". Passing a certain critical threshold value of "stress", each of these "egoistic" particles will move in such a way, that they minimise the stress for themselves. As the number of solutions to resolve the stress is limited, many particles will move in the same direction. The result is that many of the particles, although they maybe intrinsically independent, make a coherent movement together, until the variation is completely damped.

Think for instance of a raindrop that is falling into a pool of water. At the moment of impact of the raindrop, the individual molecules of water will try to move away from the point of impact (this is not "the will" of the particles, it is the result of what Newton called "action leads to reaction"). Because all the neighbouring molecules are trying to do the same, there are only few overall (average) possibilities, leading to a coherent movement of the molecules. On a macroscopic level, this will be visible in the form of circular waves, expanding around the point of impact of the raindrop, until the initial energy-injection caused by the falling drop is completely dissipated or spread over the pool.

This means that the individual damping behaviour of the "egoistic" particles, has caused a collective behaviour in the group, in which the particles move "in formation". In order to do this, a kind of "molecular communication" (molecular information exchange) has happened between the water molecules.

Every time a raindrop falls in a pool of water, we will see the same behaviour : this damping pattern is a pattern with an increased probability of occurrence. It is a "habit" of nature.

I will call this type of variation-damping patterns with increased probability "attractors".
What we call here the formation of attractors, is in line with the earlier mentioned insight of Charles Peirce that evolution has a tendency to create "habits".
At the basis of the increased probability of these "evolutionary habits", there is a certain type of evolutionary information exchange. As a result of the presence of this information, the local (microscopic) spreading is limited, and a collective (group-) behaviour is visible (a macroscopic phenomenon). We will call this collective behaviour "coherence" (coherent behaviour), as opposed to and complementary with the term "spreading".

There are many ways to classify information.


Within this evolutionary context, I will distinct 3 types of information, mainly based on the relation between the meaning of the information, and the physical carrier of the information. This contextual dependent relation between the meaning of information and its carrier, is called "the code".
These 3 types of codes, are the basis of 3 distinct types of information, and 3 distinct types of attractors.

The difference between Alpha-, Beta- and Gamma-codes is based on the increased independence between the meaning of information (I) and the vehicle of information (M/E). This independence is high for the Gamma-code, intermediate for the Beta-code, and low for the Alpha-code.

  • Gamma-information

    This is symbolic information, as used in the human language and in the genetic code of all biological organisms.
    The relation between the meaning of the symbols, and the symbols itself, is fully conventional.

    Gamma-information is the basis of all Gamma-attractors. All living systems are the result of the development of Gamma-attractors, as for example micro-organisms, plants, animals, human beings, human organisations and societies. It is precisely the large independence between the meaning of the symbols, and their physical appearance, that is the cause of the large complexity of the structures that are built according to this information. Because of this independence, there are two levels of meaning (which is called "double articulation" or "double patterning" in semiotics). For example in human language, each word has a meaning on itself (first level of meaning), but furthermore, the words can be combined in innumerable ways into an innumerable number of sentences with other meanings (second level of meaning). This is the power of double articulation.

In the following two types of codes, the relation between the meaning of information and the carrier of information is more direct, and this is more the case for Alpha-information, than for Beta-information. Because of this more direct relation, double articulation is almost un-existing, and thus the complexity of originating structures is smaller.

  • Beta-information

    Beta-information is process-information. This means that certain patterns in time are the basis for the meaning within a certain context.

    In the example of the raindrop falling into a pool, communication between the molecules of water is the result of a dynamical process ; so this is an example of Beta-information. The waves in the water are the macroscopic result of the Beta-attractor, in which the meaning of the information is directly related to the time-dependent process.
    Other examples of Beta-patterns are :
    - all dynamic patterns in fluids (e.g. waves, turbulent streams, laminar streams,…)
    - the formation of flocks of land animals, or the formation of schools of fishes and birds
    - the dynamic structure of clouds in the sky
    - the formation of dunes and chains of dunes in a desert
    - the regular structure of fern leafs
    - the black and white patterns of a zebra
    - the colourful design of the many tropical fishes we observe around tropical coral reefs.

  • Alpha-information

    Alpha-information is matter-dependent information. It is the consequence of the spatial structure and form of matter.
    The relation between the meaning of information, and the carrier is very direct.

    As an example, hormones (or other information- transmitters) in plants, animals or humans fulfil an important communication role. The meaning of the information they carry, is directly dependent on the spatial structure of the molecules, comparable to the way a key fits in the lock of a door. When the key fits into the door, or a hormone fits in its "receptor", this leads to a go/no go decision or binary signal within the context of the key or the hormone. When a hormone connects to a biological receptor, an electrical or chemical signal will be transmitted through the body. In the study of pharmacology, and the design of medicines in pharmaceutical industry, much research is done to find new receptors that are related to important diseases. When a new receptor is found, a new chemical molecule can be designed, acting as a key to the receptor, which can open new doors to a more healthy life for the patient. The knowledge about this type of biological Alpha-information has resulted in the invention of many life-saving drugs.

    I my opinion, also the fundamental physical forces in nature can be classified as Alpha-attractors (I am aware this idea maybe somewhat controversial). The forms of power-fields of these physical forces are determining the resulting interaction of the forces. A difference with the Alpha-attractors described above is that the context where the information is relevant, is extending to the whole or a large part of the universe (also in contrast with the Gamma- or Beta-attractors). Therefore, we could call these physical attractors "universal attractors", as the information is relevant in the whole of the universe ; we could also say that the context for this information is the whole universe.

    As a conclusion, we can state the relation between the carrier of information, and the meaning of information, has substantially changed during evolution.
    Originally, there was a direct relation between the carrier of information, and its meaning. Carrier and meaning of information, have smoothly grown apart in the course of evolution.
    As a result, the need for contextual conventions about the meaning of information, and the importance of interpreting information, has grown.
    In the later stage of evolution, the meaning of information rises from the correct interpretation of the information code (the convention). For instance in biological organisms, the fertilised egg interprets the information carried by the DNA, to express the meaning of the genetic code to its full extent. This principle is for instance used in cloning animals (cows, sheep,...).

    Thus, attractors lead to structured patterns in nature, that have little in common with the "spreading evolution", that we defined earlier as a basic principle of average evolution in nature. Attractors can limit evolutionary spreading in certain contexts.
    Attractors cause a kind of state of equilibrium, that is far away from the average state of equilibrium that is typical for a stage of "total spreading" in average evolution. We will therefore conclude that attractors can cause a state of "quasi-equilibrium" in nature.

    At the same time, we have to make an important note here. Where evolutionary spreading is a universal phenomenon, the structuring relevance of attractors is limited to the context where the information has meaning.
    Nevertheless, as a human being we have the intuitive tendency of overweighing the importance of the limited and contextual organising effect caused by the attractors, versus the more important and universal effect of evolutionary spreading (this will be a typical antroposophist characteristic).
    The limitation of spreading caused by attractors is thus limited, but very visible (because human beings are trained in detecting patterns, rather than chaos).

  • Interactors in evolution

    Evolutionary structures or evolutionary patterns are formed under influence of attractors. I will call these patterns "interactors", and the trajectory followed by the interactor, will be called "interaction".
    Attractors are the characteristics of the "average evolution" ; these are the (implicit) habits that we see when we observe the evolution repeatedly. The interactors are the subjects of the individual evolution paths, which are subject to real-life interactions. While the attractors represent the evolutionary habits, the interactors are the (explicit) players in the arena of evolution that follow the habits.
    Consequent with this expansion of our evolutionary language, we will further use analogue terms as Gamma-information, Gamma-attractors, Gamma-interactors, and so on…
    Thus, attractors are rather theoretical ("average") classes of damping patterns, while the interactors and their interactions are related to the real path in evolution.
    The distinction between interactors and attractors is artificial, and maybe somewhat abstract. But this approach is not so unusual, as for instance Darwin has also used the "species" as an abstract idea, to enhance the post-factum understanding of the evolution process.

    For example, the gravitation force can be considered as an Alpha-attractor, while a stone falling under influence of the gravitation force is considered to be an interactor. Also, the moon, the earth and the sun are interactors that have a cyclical behaviour that is due too the universal Alpha-attractor that is the gravitational force.
    The genetic pool of a species of frogs is related to a certain Gamma-attractor, while an individual and "real" frog is an interactor.
    So the notions of "attractor" and "interactor" as described above, enable the same terminology for both physical and biological phenomena (and of course this was also the reason for introducing this terminology).

Back to the index of the summary

Go to the next page of the summary

Normal | Teacher | Scholar