Re: Howard's challenge

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith,

Here is my response to your 2004/03/25 Thu PM 01:31:39 EST posting.

Judith said:
Here's my caveat, up front: I don't know what von Neumann's theories are-- I have never 
studied them. I'm not addressing whether my father had them right-- or whether von 
Neumann was right or wrong. My sole purpose here is to illuminate the inner workings of 
my father's mind.

HP: That is worthy purpose. It is a difficult job and I think you are doing it well. But 
it is a weighty responsibility that should not be reserved for your shoulders alone. It 
is possible that I have some additional illumination.

Judith: Everything I know about von Neumann's theories comes directly from my father. So 
here goes:

( snip)

1.) von Neumann's theories about complexity were damned by two main things: the 
equivalence of fabrication with computation and the threshold of transformation of one to 
the other and back again, between simple systems and complex systems, via algorithmic  or 
other processes of accretion.

HP: My interpretation is that this assumption of ?equivalence? is Bob?s 
misinterpretation. Von Neumann clearly did not equate construction (fabrication) with 
computation in any of his writing or his lectures. It is quite unreasonable to believe 
that he would fail to make this distinction since he virtually defined this distinction 
(program software vs. machine hardware) as it is now understood. His self-replication 
argument imagining a ?universal constructor? was not in any sense a formal proof but only 
an analogy with universal Turing machines, so it is meaningless to refute it by a formal 
proof such as Bob?s. Furthermore, the Turing machine analogy is not actually necessary 
for the argument itself. It was used only as the creative stimulus for the concept of a 
?universal? constructor? that von Neumann knew was not well defined and had many problems 
to be worked out.

In several places von Neumann is clear about the inequivalence of construction and 
computation, specifically that formal and physical processes are different categories. He 
also says, ?It is, of course, equally clear at which point the analogy ceases to be 
valid? (Von N, 1951. p. 318.) He discusses specifically the different effects of noise 
and how the choice of parts can alter the design of the constructor (the so-called ?parts 
problem?), a problem that is meaningless in formal computation. That is why he said, 
?axiomatizing automata . . . throws half the problem out the window, and it may be the 
more important half.? Namely, why the parts of the construction are ?the sorts of things 
they are.? (von N, 1966 (2) p. 77)

Judith: 2.) Both of those assertions are only possible from a mechanistic view point and 
will not change the foundational mistakes that my father discovered in his own scientific 
investigations. As such, the complexity that von Neumann is talking about bears no 
resemblance to the definitions that Rosennean Complexity deals with.

HP: As I explain briefly above, nowhere can one find support for what you claim as the 
first assertion (equivalence of construction and computation). This was only Bob?s 
misinterpretation.

On the other hand, von Neumann?s concept of ?complexity? is certainly different from 
Bob?s. That does not invalidate it. It is simply that Von Neumann was asking a different 
question than Bob, and naturally he found a different answer. Von Neumann was essentially 
asking why in the presence of the inexorable noise inherent in the universe, life can 
grow in complication while non-living systems decay. Bob?s (M,R) systems did not address 
this question. My interpretation is that Bob?s ?inner workings? conceived of complexity 
synchronically or outside of evolutionary time, while von Neumann was thinking 
diachronically or of evolution in rate-dependent physical time. I can elaborate on this 
interpretation later in some detail.

 snip

Judith: In conclusion, while I cannot evaluate von Neumann's work scientifically myself, 
it is clear to me that my father did, and did so carefully.

HP: This is not so clear to me or anyone else because in none of his subsequent papers 
did Bob reference or quote von Neumann explicitly. As far as I know, Bob only gave a 
general reference to von Neumann?s 5th lecture (von N, 1966 (2)). He does not refer to 
any of von Neumann?s other discussions, specifically the Hixon Symposium (von N, 1951).

Judith: He did not agree with Howard that "von Neumann explains, broadly but correctly, 
why real cells are organized the way they are, and why unique, emergent, novel complexity 
evolves in living systems and does not occur in non-living systems." I think it is the 
word "correctly" that my father would disagree with in the above sentence of Howard's.

HP: Yes, and I agree ?correct? is a bad word. I should have said, ?useful for answering 
certain specific questions about why the cell is organized the way it is.? (See my 
response to Tim about the relevance of von Neumann?s model.) It would more useful for 
this discussion to hear what other specific questions members of this list are trying to 
answer.

Judith: Regardless, I would never, and will never, try to hide my father's conclusions 
from people in an effort to be politically correct.

HP: I don?t know where that came from; but in any case it is my opinion that Bob?s 
fundamental conclusions will not be enhanced by continuing to claim that he invalidated 
von Neumann?s basic ideas, especially since they are not in fact inconsistent with his 
own with respect to the limits of physical description of life.

References

von Neumann, 1951, General logical theory of automata. In Cerebral Mechanisms of 
Behavior, The Hixon symposium, V. , No. 9 L. A. Jeffress, ed. Wiley, NY 1951. (Reprinted 
in Collected Works, Taub, ed., MacMillan, 1963, Vol. 5, p. 288)

von Neumann, 1966, Theory of Self-reproducing Automata, Edited and completed by A. W. 
Burks, Univ. of Ill. Press.

(1) Editor?s Intoduction, esp. pp. 21-28

(2) The Fifth Lecture, pp. 74-87 describing the logical necessity of disjoint description 
and construction for self-replication that allows open-ended complication.

(3) Part Two, pp. 118-131 for more details on the meanings of description and 
construction.


http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/pattee/
http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~rocha/pattee/