Re: Mathematics in biology

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Judith,
I agree with your interpretation, theories are the starters. They set the
problems to be solved. In the case of the empirical/physical science the
results obtained from experiments can be measured tangibly and accordingly
verified or not.  In the case of higher sciences, which enter into the
domain of complexity, starting from biology, not every experimental and
observational result can be tangibly measured - as in the lower level
science- and verified or not. There, the higher level
mental/imaginary/intuitional realm help is called for to verify or not the
results, measured  with intangible means, as they fit. Higher level
verification means/methods include those of the lower level, but not
vice-versa. Rosennean work area is within the higher level. Therefore, for
proving his theories it is right that he looks for means other than those
used for mono-systems, such as matematical logic, models and metaphores,
even intuition commonly shared,  certainly in addition to methods used for
empirical/experimental science.
Let's not forget that scientist is not only the expert of his/her own
limited fields. Most of the scientific discoveries came out thanks to the
serendipity, appeared to those with metaphysical powers and higher level
perception.

In brief, all what I say is in support of your father's mission, which is
though an open ended process, as it should be. It deserves an earnest
follow-up. I would like to have your papers to the ISSS conference in July,
to which I cannot attend for personal reasons. I must say I enjoy viewing
and learning from what is going on in the Rosen list.

My best
Ayten

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Mathematics in biology


> Ayten,
>
> My understanding of what you are describing is that "physical/analytical"
> means experimental/reductionistic science and "mental/imaginary,
> subtle/intuitional, causal" refers to theoretical science, where mind,
> imagination, intuition, and all other human mental talents can be brought
to
> bear on solving a problem first, before experimental work starts.
>
> If that's what you mean, then that's also exactly how my father believed
> science works best. He felt that both the theoretical and the experimental
> sides of science were needed to complement one another. However, he felt
> that experimental science without good theoretical underpinnings is an
> exercise in, at best; trial and error and, at worst; a waste of time,
money,
> and possibly even life.
>
> Judith
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Mathematics in biology
>
>
> > Judith,
> > Further to my previous comment, to avoid misinterpration of my phrase
> > "higher level criteria is to be aplied to a higher level field" I would
> like
> > to clarify that I mean specifically for our case: " the proof for
theories
> > within the complexity field cannot be looked for within the
> > physical/analytical realm but within others commensurate with the
> complexity
> > field - already one step higher- level or looked for within even higher,
> > such as mental/imaginary, subtle/intuitional, causal etc realms.
> > Ayten
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> > To: <***>
> > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: Mathematics in biology
> >
> >
> > > Hi Ayten,
> > >  I think the following quote of yours is an amazing one:
> > >
> > >  "All of the mineral world is in a plant, but not vice-versa and so
on."
> > >
> > > I think that perspective speaks to the notion of Complexity. However,
> the
> > > following is more confusing to me:
> > >
> > > > Ayten Aydin wrote: "Based on the above, I am wondering whether some
of
> > the
> > > difficulties in grasping Rosennean ideas have been and may  still be
> > arising
> > > from a perception and/or a category error emerging from the
application
> of
> > > lower level knowledge/understanding/consciousness to a higher plane,
i.e
> > > physical/matterialistic/nonliving system principles to those of living
> > > systems - while mathematics could help any level with its wide
spectrum
> > > covering all levels, and the living system experiences may enhance and
> > > upgrade the knowledge and perception concerning non-living
> world/physical
> > > plane,  not vice-versa ??"
> > >
> > > Here's how I'm reading that paragraph: That the trouble some people
are
> > > having with understanding Rosennean ideas comes from the application
of
> a
> > > reductionist perspective on things that do not yield to approaches
based
> > on
> > > that perspective because the perspective itself comes from experience
> > > dealing with simpler systems. And that mathematics helps in both
realms.
> > And
> > > that a perspective coming from complex systems will "enhance and
> upgrade"
> > > science dealing with simple systems as well.
> > >
> > > Does it sound like I'm getting what you mean? If not, could you please
> > > elaborate on your ideas for me?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Judith
> > >
>