Re: ontology vs epistemology

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Roberto,

The relationship between ontology and epistemology is one that Rosen
describes at various points in his last book, Essays on Life Itself. In the
chapter "What Does it Take to Make an Organism?" (p. 268), he relates the
following, regarding a universe that is strictly a Newtonian mechanism:

"For our purpose, the main thing to notice is that, in such a world, there
is no ontology because there is no semantics, no external referent. This is
the heart of the first Newtonian constraint or simplification mentioned in
the Why the problem is Hard section. In such a world, ontology has been
swallowed by epistemology, as semantics has been swallowed by syntax."
...and two paragraphs down....
"Loosening the Newtonian constraints thus means asserting the existence of
material systems with nonsimulable models. In such a world, semantics cannot
be reduced or subsumed under syntax; ontology has been decoupled from
epistemology. Only then can we talk meaningfully about the existence of
external referents, which manifest themselves precisely in those semantic
aspects that cannot be formalized.
 It is also only in such a world where there are autonomous ontological
aspects, that we can meaningfully talk about immanent causality, and hence
about fabrication."

At another point (p. 290), he mentions that in a simple world "ontology and
epistemology coincide".

And on p. 306: "For instance, one of the corollaries of simplicity can be
stated as follows: The ontology of a simple system is entirely subsumed
under its epistemology."

Finally, on p. 307: "In complex systems, this is no longer the case; in
complex systems, ontology and epistemology are generally very different. Our
contemporary science, which has concentrated almost exclusively on
epistemological issues, accordingly gives very little purchase on
ontological aspects when the two are different. This is why the
origin-of-life problem (or for that matter, the origin-of-anything problem)
is so hard."

I think that Rosen used the word 'subsumed' to indicate that by engaging in
the act of complete analysis of a system, ontology would simply come along
for free.Technically, I think that the word 'coincide' is more proper for
the Rosennean view, since in simple systems synthesis is an inverse of
analysis. I will have to change that on my website - thanks for pointing
that out. :)

As for complex systems, I used the somewhat more cautious quote "ontology
and epistemology are generally very different" as the basis for
"Epistemology can vary from ontology". I speculate that for him, full
understanding of the ontology of complex systems was a subject of his
research, and that he was reluctant to say that ontology of complex systems
absolutely never ever shared any aspects at all with epistemology, and that
is why he used more cautious wording. Also, considering that the realm of
complex systems has simple systems as limiting cases suggests that the
possibility exists that there might be some overlap. I think that is why he
used phrases like "generally very different" and "decoupled" which allow for
some potential overlap.

Tim



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Discussion [mailto:*** Behalf Of
> Roberto Poli
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:33 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: ontology vs epistemology
>
>
> Tim,
> I discovered and read your web page a couple of days ago. I really enjoyed
> your presentation of Rosen's ideas. I nevertheless run into a problem and
> would like to discuss it with you (and the other participants to
> the list).
> Since the question is of a general nature, I think it is proper to discuss
> it publicly on the list.
> The last line of the table explaining the differences between simple and
> complex systems ( in the section "Complexity in a nutshell" ) claims that:
> for simple systems "Epistemology subsumes ontology"
> for complex systems: "Epistemology (is) generally distinct from ontology"
> The subsequent "inverted" table claims that
> For simple systems "Epistemology must coincide with ontology"
> for complex systems "Epistemology can vary from ontology"
>
> The first apparent problem is that the two
> descriptions/definitions regarding
> simple systems are not equivalent (being coincident and being subsumed by
> are not the same relation). As a matter of fact, this is not a
> deep problem
> and can be easily remedied.
>
> The real problem concerns the connection between epistemology and ontology
> as far as complex systems are concerned. It seems to me that two
> major options
> are possible: either epistemology and ontology are simply
> different or ontology
> subsumes epistemology (as I tend to believe). The third possibility, that
> epistemology subsumes ontology, will transform complex systems into simple
> ones and is therefore comparable to the definition you have given. Which
> of the two is better remains to be seen.
>
> The whole matter is rather difficult and different thinkers have seen the
> problem in opposite ways. As far as I know Rosen never discussed in great
> details the connections between epistemology and ontology. It
> would therefore
> be helpful to collect the passages in which he analyzed/discussed
> the problem.
> Do you remember where the evidence for the claims you have made in your
> tables came from?
>
> Cheers, r
> *************************************
> Dr Roberto Poli, PhD
> Editor-in-chief of Axiomathes, Kluwer:
> http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1122-1151
> Papers and other information
> http://www.mitteleuropafoundation.it
> preferred e-mail: ***