Re: Howard's challenge #1

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith,

I apologize for calling Bob's friends (is that OK) by other names. I?m generally in 
agreement with most of your long responses, but I think you have lost the issue that I 
first raised.

Judith: The biggest problem my father had with von Neumann's theory was not the secondary 
stuff, which as you mentioned, seems to agree quite a bit with
"Rosennean" findings-- it's the primary concern that made my father reject
the whole shebang. Von Neumann's basic premise was what he disagreed with
entirely and wanted to distance himself from.

HP: I understand all that, but it is not the issue I raised. All I suggested is that it 
would be best for Bob?s reputation if his friends, colleagues, relatives, (what should I 
call them?), would not continue to defend Bob?s specific no-longer defensible argument 
with von Neumann over self-replication. This has nothing to do with whether von Neumann?s 
had a good philosophy or even a good model of replication. It has nothing to do with the 
technical meanings of ?equivocation? or ?confounding? or ?invalidation? or any other 
words that Bob has used to discredit von Neumann?s model.

The issue, to put it bluntly, is whether Bob falsely accused von Neumann. In other words, 
the science of the matter is not the issue. It is the ethics of Bob?s refusal to engage 
his critics on the issue and his unresponsive, uncritical repetition of essentially the 
same charge for over 40 years.

If this is the case, then I think you would understand why it is not good for Bob?s 
reputation to continue to justify it by a diversion, explaining that the biggest problem 
Bob had was that he just disagreed entirely with von Neumann?s basic premise (whatever 
that is?) and that led him to reject the whole shebang. That is not considered a good 
scientific or philosophical argument, although it may be a good psychological explanation.

I have given brief quotations from von Neumann showing that Bob?s assumptions (in his 
paper, Bull. Math. Biophysics, 1959) were mistaken. There are a lot more. I can also find 
Bob?s restatements of this misinterpretation in many papers. I think it had become a 
habit. In Life Itself, p. 234, he says it ?parenthetically,? and with no references, as 
if it were an established fact that von Neumann confounded simulation with construction.

I would like go on to discuss why I think some of von Neumann?s ideas were consistent 
with Bob?s, specifically his Theory of Games. I think that iterative game theory might 
fall in the category of Bob?s impredicative models.

Howard