Re: Reductionism and information

[Judith Rosen <***>]

John M. makes some insightful comments in his comparison of what we can prove the 
existence of with current technology and what we may be missing-- which doesn't mean what 
we are missing is "non-existent". As he pointed out, and as my father asserted in his 
work: human sensory perceptions are much more limited than the universe. We know that 
now, because we developed technologies that can reveal the existence of ultraviolet light 
or radiation or the difference between odorless gasses..... Yet science balks at the 
notion there all sorts of THINGS have an impact on the material world-- "Things" that 
science says don't "exist" according to a reductionistic paradigm of "proof". When it is 
pointed out just how many things we take for granted would not exist if reductionist 
proof was required, the whole notion seems ridiculous! Yet, my father was attacked for 
making SCIENTIFIC assertions about the existence of things that we cannot prove in any 
traditional, material, reductionist sense.

Information is one example. Everyone knows that information exists. Everyone knows that 
information has causes and effects, just as any tangible matter-based thing does.... And 
most can recognize the difference between "data" and "information". Information has 
causal effects. Knowing about something can alter the behavior of a system even when the 
system never encounters the "thing" itself. In a way, the relationships between material 
parts in a complex system are partly made up of information-- as in a hormone feedback 
loop or temperature regulation or some other maintainance behavior of a cell. 
Anticipatory behavior is one of the manifestations of this kind of relationship. 

>From this point of view, I suppose that anticipation is partly an organism's reaction to 
>"awareness" on some level of something that needs to be prevented... Trying to 
>photosynthesize during winter is difficult in areas that get cold, so a mode of 
>preparing  for other ways of spending the period of time that it will be cold is what a 
>Maple tree does in autumn. The tree isn't "thinking". It isn't making decisions. The 
>word "awareness" is not quite accurate, but is there another word that conveys the 
>impact of information on a system? "Connectedness", perhaps? The behavior I'm referring 
>to is an evolved reaction to its connectedness to information and time. The information 
>is about the change of daylength and temperature and the reference is about the future 
>(as in "it will get cold soon"). Attempting photosynthesize during winter is something 
>that the organism doesn't experience directly. It has acted on the information about the 
>timechange so that it doesn't happen. It isn't a problem. The fact that a tree isn't 
>"thinking" is obvious. The behaviors can be interfered with: A Maple tree that is living 
>in a pot inside a house is going to behave differently than one growing outside in 
>upstate NY as October progresses. Why? Because it's getting different "information" in 
>its feedback relationships. The feedback doesn't correspond to the evolved 
>relationships. We do this to plants all the time. There are huge businesses based on the 
>ability to do this (Pointsettia, anyone?). And yet science says the whole concept 
>doesn't exist?

My father referred to internal "models" with differing time scales. This is one aspect of 
his work that I don't entirely comprehend. But he saw behaviors that were based on 
something immaterial and he was developing explanations that made sense. Clearly, time 
and information are two things that have effects on living systems.

Judith

-----Original Message-----
From: John M <***>
Sent: Feb 2, 2004 3:09 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Theory of Everything, determinism

Dan, I try... will write into your text below
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Theory of Everything, determinism


> John M.,
>
> I am not sure I follow you. Do you really believe in
> perfect causal determinism? Is this the same as a
> closed system, as in closed deterministic past, present,
> future? I believe in open determinism (oxymoron?) or
> open causality, as in true novelty, surprise, new laws
> all can be born, emerge, arise any where, at any scale,
> at any time.
[JM]:
Aha, you assign the reductionistic limited "causalism" to me.
What I state is: things happen triggered (instigated) by some
effect as interaction from outside vs. inside changes/givens.
Nothing happens "by itself - in other words. It IS sort of an
"open determinism" (not an oxymoron, rather a new thing)
with NO WAY to list ALL possible (potential) instigations.
Call it "cause" if you like. Unlimited of them.
We have a firmer knowledge of the past than of the future, it
is the result that we may (perhaps!) list a retrograde path of
a happening (in our reductionistic terms) more or less firmly,
but cannot incorporate the unlimited possibilities that work on
further changes - so you use the words "all can be born, emerge,"
I may call it deterministically occur without our pre-knowledge
of the routes of future exact changes hitting a (changing) system
by all (changing) factors in a changing world. So "emerge" it is.
That's my "open causality".
True novelty? We (I think it can be risked: "nobody") can predict
especially not by a sane human mind how organizational/structural
potentials, vulnerabilities, stability or rearrangement-trends WILL
change "in the future" by effects not restricted to boundaries of
reductionistic models we consider. Similarly NOBODY can predict
the changes in the wholeness as it "lives" on, so we may be up to
surprizes. That is expressed in the difference between past and future.
You called it "true novelty", I call it "unexpectable in human ways".
>
>Also, if you say there are other universes beyond our
>reach, what pragmatic good are they or talk about
>them? If no interaction at all, either direction, is this
>not the same as "non-existent" in practical matters?
[JM]:
for certain physicists: yes. They did not compare our so
'defined' "existent world" with the cognitive inventories as
defined "existent" in 1000AD, or 1000BC, nor did they
extrapolate to 3000AD (!) for that matter. Do you call really
non-existent what we don't know about? When? (Maybe it is
necessary, but insufficient!). In my narrative (naive ontology)
I allow information even influences to 'universes' towards ours,
even if we have no (info or influence) into theirs, not even
any information *about* their existence. (Today).
In my narrative about BigBangs from a Plenitude - unlimited in
number and quality - in a timeless system there may be universes
with capabilities INTO others, or none, systems entirely
different from ours, dimensions beyond our fancy, etc. etc.
I never restrict my speculations to "practical matters" which
may be a euphemism for modelled reductionist science/technology.
I'm no teacher or prophet, don't want to 'convert' an audience,
hence I don't compromise for better understandability. My belief
is not 'their' belief (stands for science).

I skip the rest (my post copied). Iwonder if my expansion was
explanatory or counterproductive.

Cheers

John M


Web address: www.rosen-enterprises.com
Alternate Email: ***