Re: MR as ontological

["John Kineman" <***>]

Hi Tim,

I concur with your analysis almost 100% (well said, too). The small caveat
I would hold is perhaps a subtlety that shouldn't be allowed to differentiate
our perspectives. I'll identify it, hopefully in terms that won't ignite
disagreement, but even if it does, I would consider it a small matter that
may come out in the wash.

I can reference this to your statement:

> > A large part of what Rosen
> > demonstrates in Life Itself is that the Newtonian view does indeed make
> > strong claims about reality.
> >  
Yes indeed. I agree entirely. I want to be clear about that first. 

Second, let's also be clear that it is the claim of reality that is the problem
here, not shall we say, the "Newtonian approximation" as such. Rosen also
makes a point of that.

If, then, one insists on discussing reality, I would call any such idea a
relative reality concept, with the Rosenean view being a (perhaps not the
only) larger model of reality than Newton's. 


Tim Gwinn wrote:
> So I feel that one must choose their paradigm (Rosennean, Newtonian, or some
> other) and adhere to it, otherwise one is inviting deep inconsistencies.
This would be the case for paradigms that are "incommensurable." If the reality
claim is retained, they are incommensurable as you say. My recommendation
is to drop the reality claim on both sides, and treat both as alternative
approximations to reality. Then the issues is what are they good for describing
that we are interested in? I don't know how Rosen would feel about calling
his view "real" or "just a model" but I think it would be consistent with
his own views to call it "just a model" even though all who see his vision
(myself included) have the feeling that we just got closer to reality by
at least one big step.

What I propose in addition is that Newtonian mechanics can be shown to be
a subset of the Rosenean view. In fact, he already demonstrated that. Hence,
without the reality claim, there is no conflict. 

The remaining problem is certainly the stature that mechanistic thinking
has achieved in everyone's psyche, which will be translated as a conflict.
But while it may seem appropriate to first break that down so that a broader
view can have a chance at similar stature (the "new science"), I doubt that
will work as hoped, or when hoped. I am lecturing myself here, because I
often lapse into imagining that a living reality can supplant everyone's
notion of a physical one, forgetting the extent to which our egoic nature
depends on this separation. It is better, I think, to focus on the nested
compatibility of these paradigms, so as not to be pitted in competition with
Godzilla, Golliath together, and the tidal forces of many universes together.

Hence, we would be in complete agreement that, as you say:
> One can certainly do Newtonian physics ..., as
> long as we realize that those Newtonian models represent only a very small
> amount of physics, and that the Newtonian formalism and its corollaries is
> invalid as a universal paradigm.
The only caveat, then, is that those doing Newtonian physics may realize
they exist 
> within the Rosennean paradigm
or they may not. The engineer designing a new car can think mechanistically
without running into much of a problem; keeping functional complexity a hidden
aspect of the job that surfaces in design, operation & maintenance (preventing
all those processes that wear and convert the mechanism back to elements
or give it a different function), marketing, social norms, professional training,
etc. with the usual compartmentalization of those aspects that in the larger
reality exist in an evolutionary relationship with the design. Detailing
the compartments in this example is meant to clarify both the larger complexity,
and also the practical / social need to break it down into compartments.
There would be similar analogies with physiology, cognition, .. anything
engagine living process.

Yet, despite these social needs, we are perhaps all saying that the life
scientist of tomorrow, due to accelerating science and human impact on nature,
can no longer afford to be this un-aware, i.e., needs to be more aware of
the larger system. In this, the Rosennean view should be tremendously helpful
even in fields that are not desperate for it. There is no incompatibility
in this unless one is small-minded about there being "nothing but" my model
in nature (which 80% of the scientific world tends to be, but I"m speaking
philosophically, and most of them have some sense that they do this).


Are we closer, or have I made it worse??

-jjk