|
Judith,
I concur (even appreciate) every word you wrote
below -
except the phrase
>There is no "state" in a living system, only a
dead one.<
in two ways:
One is the misconception what reductionist
modeling includes as the snapshots of (imaginary? frozen-in) states and handles
them as such.
Two: the 'dead' stage is just as living as the
live one, except for different processes. Even mummys change.
The #1 argument is what I apply against the term
"equilibrium" as well, unless it refers to a dynamic process of dissipation and
production at the same rate. (I allow a special case, when within the same
closed system the change goes back and forth, like in the BZ phenomenon (poorly
observed, modeled, of course, because it cannot be a perpetuum mobile either).
I may use different words, but I concur with
your father's opinion and your personal intuitive conclusions in the
matter.
Such is the reason why I went through pains
to identify a timeless world.
I wish someone had the vocabulary for doing
that.
Regards
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 8:19
AM
Subject: Re: Time and change
In a living system, it's not really a case of
"changes" (which implies moving from state to state) as a constant dynamical
process. There is no "state" in a living system, only a dead one. This was the
source of so much of the trouble in trying to use contemporary physics or
quantum physics to try and answer biological questions, which was what led my
father to look at the questions differently. He started also examining the
roots of what is accepted as the "laws" of physics and found that various
assumptions that became part of the basis for those laws were incorrect
assumptions. When he applied that same examination to most seemingly
carved-in-stone laws in current scientific approaches, he found many similar
cases of early mistakes leading to conclusions that are
misleading.
My intuition about time is based on the idea of a
dynamic system never being in any single "state". The quality "Life" (in an
organism) is a fluid, dynamical quality or " process" rather than a
state. It's something that cannot be tampered with beyond a small group of
exceptions and still remain life. It also cannot go backwards (as in reversing
aging, or undoing embryonic development) and yet there are different time
scales involved in the behavior of living organisms (which was how my father
developed the idea of Anticipatory Systems). There are so many aspects to the
essence or quality of life that intrigue me personally in regards to how time
is involved at the organizational level-- the level of Rosennean complexity.
That quite naturally leads me to ask what is time? And to want to apply my
father's approach to it, ignoring the seeming "laws" that have simply been
accepted heretofor, and ask "Why time?" Why is it what it is, how does it
work, what aspect of material reality is this shaping? It simply fascinates me
personally, which is why I keep pushing smart people like my Dad to take a
serious look at it and see what they can come up with!
Judith
|