Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Hey Dan! Good to see you on the list! :)

To focus on your main proposal first......

Can you elaborate on the how the CCP (coupled complementary processes) can
model very complex things like organisms? My understanding is that there are
varying degrees of complexity in the sense that one complex system may be
unable to adequately model another different complex system. In LI, Rosen
uses the example of Number Theory, and how although it is complex, there are
certainly other complex systems which NT cannot adequately model. Hence, the
other complex system is *more complex* than NT. And of course, Judith's
levels of complexity demonstrates this also.

So, although a 3-body system may be complex, and therefore "infinitely
open", as Rosen would say, I would not consider an 3-body (or any N-body)
system adequately complex for modeling an organism. So I am having trouble
conceptualizing how you would put together the composition-decomposition or
heterotroph-autotroph processes in such a way as to model successively more
complex systems.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> Fiscus
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism
>
-snip-
> One point here that is like the inverse or complement of your notice
> of the difficulty of modeling, addressing, understanding a system with
> so many variables (ecosystem, biosphere) is that with just three
> variables, components or perhaps functions we can model a system or
> system + context that is infinitely complex as in completely
> unpredictable.
>
> I posted this idea before on the other Rosen list saying the the threshold
> of near infinite complexity is very low - just 3. The easiest analogy or
> evidence is the 3-body problem in physics.
>
> Taking this as a positive or useful observation, we can say that we can
> depict perhaps the vast majority of dynamics of atleast some aspect
> of any complex system with a model with just three variables or
> interdependent functions. Especially if we choose the three functions
> or components with care and informed by Rosen (and I could add
> Ulanowicz and the Odum brothers and others) and also Kercel's and
> others' work on impredicativity, multi-level causal entanglement, etc.,
> we can go very far with a small number of variables or functions.
>
> It is kind of like turning a derogative statement like "statistics can be
> made to say anything" into a positive.
>
> My attempt at such a general model has been to work with the three
> functions of 1) molecular string composition (as in the autotrophy or
> "self-feeding" of plants), 2) molecular string decomposition (as in the
> heterotrophy or other-feeding of animals) and 3) coupled
> complementary processes (as in the interdependence of 1 and 2. From
> this simple set of functions I have suggested that early eecosystemic
> life generated the higher order functions of metabolism and genetics,
> both of which I see as essentially based on variations on the them of
> molecular string composition coupled to decomposition. As Howard
> Odum has written, this ecosystemic set of functions (he called them
> production and respiration; Rosen called them metabolism and repair
> although with different wording, context) could also plausibly
> generate cells.
>
> One other way to modify the same model would be to choose the
> three functions as 1) entropic evolution - as  in the dissipation and
> disordering of radiation, 2) syntropic evolution - as in the
> aggregation and ordering of gravitation and 3) coupled
> complementary process of 1 and 2. In this scheme, functions 1
> and 2 are both abiotic and are both closed future forms of
> evolution - they end at stable attractors of heat death or "ice
> death" (frozen crystalline lattice) respectively. But via function
> 3 the whole system becomes biotic and represents open-ended
> or open-future evolution.
>
-snip-
> Thanks for your thoughts,
>
> Dan