[COMPLEX-M] 2nd Law and Ecosystems

["James N Rose" <***>]

"Stanley N. Salthe" wrote {Complex-M}:
>
> John K said: (see interleavings)
>
> >Thanks for the detailed response. You were kinder than I expected. Let
> >me make a few responses, then perhaps let it alone, as I think we are
> >each looking at the same elephant, but from slightly different
> >interpretations of what we see. I'll skip to the latter comments, which
> >seem to reveal this, but let me emphasize that I'm only trying to
> >clarify the thoughts I'm working on about this, not to argue that anyone
> >else is wrong about it or would necessarily benefit from my view. Each
> >has its utility. I mostly value the dialogue.
>      SS: Same here!
> >
> >Stanley N. Salthe wrote:

> >John K said:

> >I think Rosen's modeling is new. It is also quite controversial and not
> >common among biologists, who I think are afraid to let go of the
> >security of physical laws. But also, as we seem to agree (below) Rosen's
> >model will not replace those laws, which are essential in analyzing the
> >physical aspect of living systems.

>      SS: My point about Rosen's stuff is that it is as fully explicit as
> any physical modeling.  But the actual world is to some degree vague.

You cannot call upon and apply the Liar's Paradox in that
way here, Stan.  It is not logistically legal.  Your statements
appear to invalidate Rosen by making 'specification' isomorphic
with 'modelling'.

The word 'vague' and the meme 'vague' are tantamount to 'A = -A'.

Hesse's notion of 'glass bead game' comes closer to satisfying
Rosen as far as 'form of definition' matching the 'meme qualiae
of the objects of the definition'.  But even his is susceptible
to the same eventual analysis.

You are effectively saying that the following statement is
fundamentally meaningless, where as I and others would say
it represents the best state of reality.


               A = {A = -A}               [Rose, 2003].


This logic statement is the heart of fractal equations'
'sequential reflectivity.'

Jamie
11/14/03



 [clip]

   JK
> >But again, these general characterists fully commute with what is
> >observable, so it is still mechanistic (even if non-linear in the
> >dynamics). Only when you frame the problem as a modeling relation can
> >you see the possibility of something non-mechanistic.

>      SS: This was the part of Rosen that interested me.
[clip]
   JK
> >There would need to be an intrinsic model of different
> >goals for {a multi-tier heirarchy} to become complex
> >in the Rosen sense.
>
> >this also would mean, more than one way of defining the hierarchy.

>      SS: OK.  But then you would be defining another kind
> of hierarchy.  So far I know only of two kinds.  The
> specification one and the scale hierarchy
> (e.g., [population [organism [cell]]] ).

[clip]

> >>     SS: Tornadoes have design and funtions.
    JK
> >I would say differently - that they do not have any built-in
> >representation of design or function that doesn't commute with its
> >dynamics.

>      SS: It depends upon whether they have any ability
> to make a record, store information.  I have played with
> the idea that torques are a short term memory system.
>