Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?

[Judith Rosen <***>]

I don't really understand why this is still confusing. The full explanation
is right in those two sentences that Howard quoted from my father. See
interposed comments:

> > Howard wrote: In AS there
> >is an entire chapter on Adaptation, Natural Selection and Evolution that
> >Bob begins by saying: "This [adaptation] is an idea utterly basic to the
> >biological realm, and which is becoming increasingly important in the
> >understanding of the properties and control of social systems and human
> >sciences."

Since he believed that Anticipation is every bit as "utterly basic to the
biological realm" as he stated that evolution is, it stands to reason that
the book would have a lot of in depth information about associated
properties of the biological realm. As I said before, the subject matter was
entirely because of the nature of the book. Similarly:

> > Howard wrote:
> >In LI Bob says, [evolution] may very well be more a property of a
> >particular realization of life, rather than life itself. Thus it is that
> >the word "evolution" has hardly been mentioned in the preceding
> > pages." Also, in LI the word "adaptation" is not even in the index.
> >I think most readers would find a significant change in attitude from
> >an "idea utterly basic to the biological realm" to and an idea "hardly  >
> mentioned."

If  "evolution may very well be more a property of a particular realization
OF life, rather than LIFE, ITSELF"... and the book is about Life, Itself
(the foundational issues, the causes, the fact that, to even address the
issues, he had to reanalyze and then reformulate the foundations of physics
and science in general...) it again stands to reason that this book would
not get into issues of evolution. Evolution, as he defined it, is something
that deals with changes in organisms over epochs of  time, not in defining
what life is from a scientific point of view.

This isn't a change in his perspective at all. It's merely an artifact (a
false positive, if you will) due to the point of view of the observers.

Judith