[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
 
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [COMPLEX-M] 2nd Law and Ecosystems
- From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:42:29 -0500
The three quotes below are things that I believe I may be able to
shed some light on, as far as my father's view is concerned:
> > I do subscribe to a "unity of the
sciences", BUT, not in its original,
> >reductionist form. I
claim that the above specification hierarchy:
> >{physics {chemistry
{biology {sociology {psychology}}}}} would make a good
> >basis for
unification.
I believe the way my father saw it was that Complexity,
in his definition, was the overarching scientific basis for the material world.
Physics, biology, chemistry, etc, all were subsumed into the larger scientific
matrix that is Complexity. Physics has to do with the lower echelons of
complexity, as does chemistry, etc. These things inform complexity, but cannot
explain it or the effects of it. In fact, physics deals with simple systems, yet
the atom is a complex system. Physics cannot explain the behavior of an atom,
but biology can. Why? Because biology deals with phenomena that can only be
understood via complexity. It was in his study of Biology that my father
developed his theories and definitions of Complexity, and he was as surprised as
anyone that Biology turns out to embody the aspects of something that is
actually the general case in the universe. The unifying science is
Complexity.
> > SS: But -- there you go making a physics
type of approach (as did Rosen)!
My father USED physics as a tool, as
he did mathematics, systems theory, and a host of other disciplines. His focus
was life.
> > SS: How, exacty does Rosen's approach
differ from that which a
> >physicist would take (say, to a
tornado)?
A tornado isn't a useful comparison. I doubt he would
consider a tornado a complex system, therefore, his approach would be exactly
the same as a physicist's. However, his approach to understanding an organism
would be radically different from a physicist's. He wrote extensively on just
how his approach differs. If you would like me to paraphrase it, I
will.
Judith