Re: Question, version 2

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Howard, John K, and all,

I was thinking on this some more, and including John K's
points about comparing Langton's iterative approach to
impredicativity and asking whether the two views are the
same as time step t -> 0. I may have missed the deeper
issue in my first reply to Howard's question. It could be
that the apparent similarity of Rosen and Langton suggests
yet another issue we have discussed many times - whether
some kind of relational laws or reality are/is more
fundamental than (and still qualitatively different than)
physical/material reality. It could be that Rosen and
Langton agree just on points 1) that such relational
laws or reality or dimensions are qualitatively different
than the physical/material laws, and 2) that life has an
intimate connection with the relational laws/reality. But
these two may disagree on whether relational is more
fundamental than physical/material, or perhaps if these
two are equal and even mutually causal. It would seem to
me that Langton and the AI/AL camps might all assume
or assert that physical/material reality is more
fundamental, general, universal, context independent and
that life and life-like relationality "emerge" from and are
caused by interactions (iteratively) between
physical/material objects and/or their laws. Thus past some
threshold of iteration (complicatedness) we get complexity
and life as special cases. Rosen and perhaps others might
assume/assert the opposite - that relationality is more
fundamental, general, universal, context independent and
that it is from dynamics in this realm that physical/material
properties emerge and are caused - such as properties of
time, space and matter the metrics for which can change in
relativity theory depending on the velocity of travel of the
frame of reference in relation to the maximal speed of light.

It may be yet another place where we (as in I, me) could do
well to leave off looking for an either/or, win/lose argument
between two views each of which seek to claim the more
fundamental laws, rules, principles, dynamics and ask if or
how these two seemingly fundmental differences might be
unified or transcended with the aid of some other
perspective. This would seem to be the Eastern religious and
philosophical tradition to see unity in apparent opposites
and to assume/assert that relational and physical/material
laws/realities must arise/emerge/evolve and forever "go"
together. They could no more be separated or one
considered "more fundamental" than could night and day or
other such obligate, complementary phenomena without the
specific invocation of a subjective value basis, such as day is
more fundamental when talking about incoming solar
energy.

Hmm...any comments welcome...

Dan



Howard Pattee wrote:
> Here is a question that I suspect will elicit several opinions:
>
> Rashevsky’s relational biology is the study of life at a level of abstraction that does 
> not address any particular material physical realization of life, but looks at its most general 
> logical organization. Rosen contrasts relational biology with reductionist biology in the 
> following words:
> “In any case, I can epitomize the reductionist approach to organization in general, and life in 
> particular, as follows: throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter. “The relational 
> alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: when studying an organized material system, throw away 
> the matter and keep the underlying organization.” (LI, p. 119)
>
> Langton’s and other’s view of Artificial Life is that they also want to get beyond 
> particular material realizations of life. Langton says:
>  “Of course, the principle assumption made in Artificial Life is that the ‘logical form’ of an organism can be 
> separated from its material basis of construction, and that ‘aliveness’ will be found to be a property of the former, 
> not of the latter.” (Artificial Life, Langton, ed., Addison-Wesley, 1989, p.11.)
>
> Question: What substantial philosophical differences do you see here, if any. Of course, the actual research programs are quite different.
>
> Howard

--

Dan Fiscus
Ecologist/Research Assistant
University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science
Appalachian Lab
301 Braddock Rd
Frostburg, MD 21532
301-689-7121 (phone)
http://al.umces.edu/~fiscus/research