Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

John,
See interposed.
Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 11:03 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism
>
>
> Tim quoted: ( Essays (p. 294-295), ):
>
> "In a nutshell, we find that impredicativities (i.e., complexity) and pure
> syntax are incompatible"
>
> cryptic?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The part that was cryptic to me was
the phrase "incommensurable time frames" at the very end of the quote.


I find a visualization for it: syntax is WITHIN (after
> in a sense)
> the symbolic, which is at the 'edge' of modeling, so I consider
> syntax - as
> language itself, within the reductionist interpretational domain:
> topically
> identified, to say the least.
> Impredicative, however (and as I guess, RR did NOT use it in that
> mathematical meaning as Steve K. does) is wholistic, exceeding the
> reductionist limitations (e.g. all the predicatives, listables,
> simulables,
> computables).
> Impredicatives and syntax MUST be incompatible!
> I find, however the further 'conclusion' puzzling:
>
> "We must accordingly either invoke semantic elements transcendental to
> syntax (e.g., taking of limits) or (what may perhaps be equivalent)
> utilizing two or more incommensurable
> time frames."
>
> First I wonder if in the ("e.g....)"  the 'of' is a typo instead "off"? or
> is does it mean "taking [in] limits"? The 1st way is invoking the


I am pretty sure he meant "taking of limits" to refer to the mathematical
'limits' function, which is a transcendental function (that is, it is a
mathematical function that includes nonformalizable semantic aspects).


> impredicatives, the second sinks into reductionism. The (2nd part)
> 'alternative', IMO, is the reductionist way, since (in my cosmic
> narrative's
> sense) time and space are products of the 'closed' universe formation, eo
> ipso the way towards reductionism (from the unlimited, impredicative
> plenitude-status). Time is a boundary (for motion), just as space
> (extension) is boundary as well.
> Of course all limited models are time- and space dependent
> (controlled?) in
> our thinking, (expressed or not) as we 'reduce' the selection of he
> impredicative into our boundary-enclosed models.
> As  Tim wrote:
>
> "we cannot build nonfractionable systems by purely syntactic
> means either."
> In other words: No wholism (complexity) is ever  attainable by
> conventional
> synthesis from parts of (limited) models.
> (This is a variant of the 'complexity groundrule' #1: the impossibility of
> building (up) complexities from (listable) model-components. )
>
> I am not afraid to follow this line to an "ad absurdum" point as
> it looks if
> we think in conventional ways. Sometimes we cannot see how it makes sense,
> but without such prowess we end up with a hybrid at best. Rosen was in a
> delicate position: he forced himself to express things in a way what the
> general (scientific) audience is willing to follow. So he used
> compromising
> expressions. I don't.


I am not sure he would have used the term "compromising". Certainly, alot of
what his work showed was that the models commonly used were 'compromised' in
the sense of being inadequate for the task to which they were put. In this
way he used these failures in modeling as a way to show that modeling as our
way of understanding the world (modeling is "the habitat of all
epistemology") has limited capabilites, even when we broaden our category of
models to include relational models, etc.

The question is: just how much more complex/unlimited/etc *is* the world
beyond our limited capabilites to understand it? Well, if it is beyond our
limited capabilities, then can we even speak sensibly about that unknown?

For myself,  I say this: the world is *at least* as complex/unlimited/etc.as
our epistemological probes into it reveal it to be, and how *much more*
complex/unlimited/etc.the world is remains an open question, probably
forever.This reiterative process of epistemological probes takes as a
(either tacit or explicit) presupposition that the world will always have
capabilities and features awaiting possible discovery. In this sense, the
process of modeling can be consistent with a view of an "unlimited" world.

I agree with you, John, that as we make these epistemological probes we are
doing so by making cuts (spatial, temporal, topical, etc.) and therefore
none of these probes (singly or together) will reveal the entirety. To me,
the danger from generating the pieces of knowledge via models lies in
imputing that knowledge back to the world, globally and universally,
stripped of the fact that these pieces of knowledge derive only from certain
models of certain subsections of the world in certain contexts using certain
formalisms and certain assumptions.


> I hope I found SOME people with whom straight talk is affordable
> (not the least as a result of Rosen's activity). I am a loner, no bonds to
> faculty, students, publishers. I don't make even a salary by my
> activity. I
> am free to think. (A great feeling).
> As I expressed it to Roberto (in private) about my way of thinking:
> "Unorthodox. I expect 99.999% of mankind to disagree. Of the remaining
> 60,000 people 59,875 will not understand it and the rest wouldn't care.
> Maybe 20-25 persons will react, some will like it... "
>
> Finally: (Tim):
> "So all nonfractionable systems, biological or otherwise, seem to embody
> this notion of differing and incompatible timeframes that Judith described
> below."
>
> If I say about a "system" the specifier "biological" I stepped
> into a level
> of the reductionist domain, even if I allow impredicative notions into it.
> Similarly a 'timeframe' is no different from another -maybe topical or
> fuctional - specifier. It cuts the applicabiity into predicative
> boundaries.
> Time is not adequately defined in our usage. Together with space they are
> the fundamental 'first' coordinates upon which to build our thinking
> (reductionism). The mind (idea, imagination, thought) can transcend both.
> I would be careful to draw conclusions upon something basically
> unidentified.
>
> Sorry, my scientific agnosticism works overtime.
>
> With best regards
>
> John
>