Re: ontology vs epistemology

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Just to follow up on epistemology/ontology a bit more......

After mulling it over, I think that one of the reasons why the relationship
between epistemology and ontology is not so clear-cut in Rosennean complex
systems is that, in such systems, the causal categories (material, formal,
efficient) become intertwined.(see AS p. 425) As a result of this
intermingling of causal influences, there is no way to segregate aspects of
complex systems in an analysis that can simply be re-aggregated in a reverse
process of synthesis. Once such a system is broken apart, there will be a
loss of the contextual relationship between those aspects, in terms of the
interrelations of causal categories. Conversely, there is then also no
obvious (to me, anyway) absolute delineation between ontology and
epistemology, although it seems intuitively likely that the ontology will
be - as Rosen says - "generally very different" from the epistemology of
such a system.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Discussion [mailto:*** Behalf Of
> Tim Gwinn
> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:04 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: ontology vs epistemology
>
>
> 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: ***