Re: Excerpts from Robert Rosen's last book notes:

["John M" <***>]

Dear Judith,
Reading these notes was interesting to me - I come from different pastures,
biology is not my beef. I also developed my concepts at a time when I was
not aware of your father's work, however
1. what I learned about him lately impressed me strongly and
2. although differently formulated, I came to rather compareble results with
a different vocabulary (generalizing from physics and consciousness
readings, while he started from (math) biology.)
Now it is hard to separate how much did I absorb from RR into my present
stance - but since I don't run for a Nobel prize, I think it is not a major
issue. I give credit to my sources if I detect them.
Let me interject some remarks after the 'notes' in your post. I mark my
inserts as [JM]:
With best regards and thanks

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:28 AM
Subject: Excerpts from Robert Rosen's last book notes:


> I'm going to post a few things from his handwritten notes for the list.
It's
> short, but these were particularly stimulating thoughts he had put down on
> paper, regarding complexity:
>
>  "Complexity refers to differentiation in space and time"
[JM]:
In my counter-narrative to physical cosmology's Big Bang narrative
I identified the universe as a differentiation into space and time system
from the unlimited invariant infinite symmetry, forming (my) complexities,
the observables, in the new system.
>
> "Two kinds of complexity? As cause and as effect?"
[JM]:
I consider cause and effect reductionistic, since an occurrence is resulting
from the undivided total of the world (wholeness) and it is only our
reductionist pick to identify it as the (functionally chosen) effect of
(modelwise selected) 'causes' from the unlimitable choice.
>
> "Complexity = effect    and also   = causal agent"
[JM]:
I just think about changing my usage of "complexity" and "complex" to come
closer to "the rest of the world", especially mustering the use of a "whole"
by I. Smuts (close to RR's natural system). In my perfectionistic vocabulary
I consider all topically identified items "more or less" reductionistic, as
it is reduced from the wholeness.
The word "Wholeness" may be a bridging semantical cop-out until someone
comes up with "the real word".
Since I feel both an explained 'effect' and 'cause' in the reductionist
domain, I have to re-evaluate the use of 'complexity' as per this note.
>
> "Phenotype of complexity is a duality between objective and subjective"
[JM]:
Phenotype etc. from biology always startle me: I am not in this type of
automatic understanding. Objective and Subjective, however, are 'funny'
terms for me: everything we know is (subjectively) interpreted by the mind,
even named 'objective' objects. Same with 'reality' - especially "objective
reality" which is indeed  "subjective imagination" about something we have
no direct access only through the mind's interpretation. Our mind (we?) is
however part of the wholeness.
>
> "How complex? is How much causality goes through this subjective
>(creating a LOOP)"
[JM]:
I am not quite comfortable with "loops". I suspect (did not confirm the idea
though) that it may include some neglected "other" connection which may
eventually kick out the 'object' from the loop, coming from some
unconsidered appearance of the unlimited influences.
My suspicion is based on the mathematical handling of loops: if they are
computable, they must refer to limited (closed?) models.
The question "how complex?" or the "level of complexity" is in my mind the
result of the model we examine, how much we 'allow' to be included into it.
Everything is unlimitedly complex.
>
> "Relative "sizes" of a system's objective and subjective"
>
> "To acquire a function turns general-purpose into special-purpose"
>
> I hope people find these as intriguing as I do!
>
> Judith
[JM]:
Thanks, Judith. something to digest (regurgitate) further.

John