[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Fw:number 1 [ROSEN] MR as ontological, Fechner

Judith,

This did make it to the list. I responded on 8/25, first to this, then to John Mikes's comment. I resolve this as an issue of scale. My understanding is that everything is ultimately complex (the ontology), but at everyday scales we can have systems that behave like machines, which are not complex in that view. Otherwise, indeed, there would be a contradiction.

Judith Rosen wrote:
Hi Everyone,

I believe some of the posts I have been making over the last week or so have
not actually gotten to the list. The following is one of them, and I will be
resending the others too. If they are redundant, please forgive me and
delete.
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] MR as ontological, Fechner


  
John K. wrote:
    
In particular, Rosen identifies everything as being complex.
      
I need clarification on this statement, John. My father only identified
everything ALIVE as being complex. That's the only guarantee you will
    
have--
  
that if it is alive, then you know without checking that it is complex. It
doesn't follow the other way. The notion that all of the material world is
complex was asserted by others--but imputed to Robert Rosen-- and was a
claim that I DISputed as being asserted by my father. His only assertion
    
in
  
that direction was that atoms are complex as he uses the term. But he made
    
a
  
clear distinction between systems that were complex because of their
organization and other systems, created out of atoms, of course, but which
had an organization that fell short of his definition of complexity. This
has been a source of misunderstanding all along with his work and has led
    
to
  
some big disagreements! But it is true, nonetheless.

The question for most people seems to be; How can a system be non-complex
    
if
  
it has other systems, complex systems, even living systems, in it's
organization as "components"? You actually phrased the answer beautifully
    
in
  
an earlier post regarding how the global ecosystem is not an organism. So
    
I
  
need clarification on what you mean by the above statement or I don't
understand.
    

  
Judith