Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life

[John M <***>]

Dear Judith,
we agree in the praise of JohnK's interpretation even if I would look at the
phrase you selected for closer scrutiny from another angle. (See my
very short post to JJK).

I arrived by 'agony in defining things' at a possible elimination of the
term
'complexity': you cannot control the millions of minds understanding this
word in undesirable connotations to its historical ballast. Possible, I
said, because in some discussions it cannot be eliminated (not even by the
stilted RR-Cxity).
[J]:
> Complexity-- as an innate quality of organization of natural systems--
> doesn't evolve or increase from simplicity; it is a basic principle of the
> universe.<...
sounds fine, if I may insert an "all" before 'natural'.  Especially if I
call it
wholeness. A smooth, unlimited interconnection. It becomes "complex"
by reductionistic cut-offs, when someone tries to complexify the simple.

Spontaneously nothing arises, everything comes from/by something.
God does spontaneously arise but we don't deal in such business.

Your descriptions fit more or less my definition of reductionist thinking.
Atoms, levels/dimensions, even organization, systems, etc. all models.
It is useful and practical, applicable, - not in explaining 'RR complexity'
(wholeness).  As I mentioned several times, RR wrote to the reductionist
crowd and HAD to use the vernacular they could follow.  We may (should?)
apply a fine screen to select (off?) the words - of course we should find
the appropriate ones to use.

I took a position of accepting a 'startup' point for the universe (ours!)
and
take it from there, because I wanted to satisfy 'my' (human) logic/mind in
thinking. For this reason I postulated a "from where" - an unspecified
plenitude, by which I could deduce our (and other) universe(s). It is MY
crutches. I envy you if you get along without such (I would fall on my
nose).

Cheers

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life


> John's interpretation of my father's view of complexity (below) is
> fundamentally the way I believe Dad would describe it, with one caveat:
>
> > John K. wrote:
> > Rosen's view of complexity, as I read it, would make this a nonsensical
> question. Complexity doesn't increase or evolve, it is a basic principle
of
> nature. It would be like asking how light evolved from humble beginings
and
> increased its speed to what it is today. Complicatedness evolves and
> increases, but that is just a measure of the number of relations or
> connections in a system, and generally it is reduced to the number of
> non-complex relations. So the endless variety that is discussed here is
> variety of form only, because that is what is most rigorously observed. I
> think to step out of complicatedness you have to consider functional
> relationships (as causal). That, of course, introduces other problems; but
> I'm not saying its perfect.
> >
>
> The line; "Complexity doesn't increase or evolve, it is a basic principle
of
> nature." bears closer scrutiny. The word "Complexity", even within my
> father's theoretical framework, has different applications. It can be a
> noun, it can be an adjective, it can be talked about in specific terms as
> each of those and in general terms as each of those... so it's tricky to
> leave the reference unspecified in the sentence above. If I'm interpreting
> John K's thoughts correctly, I would reword it as follows:
>
> Complexity-- as an innate quality of organization of natural systems--
> doesn't evolve or increase from simplicity; it is a basic principle of the
> universe.
>
> So, it's something that spontaneously arises. If there is such a thing as
a
> birth moment for the universe (which I personally doubt) then complexity
was
> one of the qualities present from birth. Or perhaps the "big bang" was
> actually a dimensional shift from a simple universe to a complex one. This
> is off the top of my head, but I know that enormous quantities of energy
are
> held within the organization of a single atom, and an atom is the least
> complex system of the complex system organizational dimension... so it
> stands to reason that to get from simple organizations to complex
> organization, there would have to be a lot of fireworks to say the least.
>
> Complexity, in general terms, has what I tend to describe as different
> levels or dimensions which increase with each dimensional jump. I can see
> how one might use the word evolution to describe the increase from atomic
> structure all the way up to consciousness, but I don't think my father
would
> agree that it's the same thing that happens with evolution of species.
> Atomic organization does not exhibit the functional component in its
> organization or its behavior that organisms do. My father felt that
function
> is what drives evolution and function emerges with life. So whether
> complexity evolves in the sense of atoms interacting with one another to
> increase the complexity dimension of the new system.... He might agree
that
> we can't know the answer to that at present. Once the organization is
better
> understood, it may become apparent how it happens, but it might not.
Perhaps
> complexity was born in all its many "levels/dimensions" at the same
instant.
> Size certainly doesn't seem to be important with complex organization, nor
> is material form necessary (eg: volitional systems). Human beings seem to
> naturally visualize the concept of"development" as progressing from
smaller
> to larger, or gestation to maturity, or accretion to critical mass, etc.
But
> that's just the way it "looks" to us. That kind of interpretation is based
> on reductionistic thought patterns. It works a LOT of the time, which is
why
> we still do it, but it doesn't work when you want to understand the
> principles at work in making life possible in this universe.
>
> Judith