|
Staring at a blank page, I realize the magnitude of
the challenge I've set myself. I suggested, in my post to the list last
night:
It strikes me that a post on the basic areas
where Rosennean Complexity Theory is radically different from the current paradigm might be useful. I will look into crafting something along those lines, tomorrow. The challenge comes from taking what "Robert Rosen" (who happened
to be my father) said to me about how his Complexity Theory differs from the
current Mechanistic (i.e. Newtonian)/Reductionistic (i.e.
Cartesian) Paradigm... and re-configuring it into a framework that
illustrates cleanly what the seminal differences are, for
science/scientists/posterity ... What could be hard about that? (she asks). Let
us hope that my skills as a writer, combined with my knowledge of Robert Rosen
and his work, will be adequate for the job-- because I sure as hell am not a
scientist. And, with that disclaimer firmly ensconced at the top, let's
begin:
How does Robert Rosen's paradigm differ from the
Newtonian/Cartesian paradigm.... This is precisely what he spent his writing
time attempting to delineate. However, I have found that I could only read his
books with good comprehension AFTER I understood what they were about.
[My understanding, as I've mentioned before, was achieved over a lifetime
of asking questions, although it was really during the final 15 to 20 years of
my father's life in which the most intensive modes and processes of
learning took place, for me.] Since this post could easily be a
book of its own (and, in fact, I had plans to write such a book even before my
father died, incidentally), the main focus here will be brevity. In that
spirit, I will refer to my father's theoretical framework as "RR's" and to
the Newtonian/Cartesian as "N/C". I will also make the assumption that this
audience knows what the N/C framework IS.
The first of the main differences between these two paradigms is
associated with the notion of what my father referred to as "computability". His
use of this term meant a complete formalizability of
something-- to be able to encompass that "something" entirely
within a framework of models created by human beings. The N/C paradigm states
that all phenomena in the universe are computable. My father said that this is
only true if you define "phenomena" in a very limited way. His contention was
that Physics does, indeed, limit the definitions such that what qualifies as
phenomena can then be computable. Physics also further declared that
anything outside the limited definitions of phenomena were "unscientific" and/or
beyond the purview of science. However, under this set of rules, most of what
makes biological systems what they are falls outside these
definitions.
Since biological systems were my father's main interest, his
prodigious skills in physics, mathematics, and other aspects of science, were
considered by him to be useful tools to do a job with. The "job" was to
figure out why living things were alive. Therefore, the situation-- where
contemporary Physics rejected most aspects of salient interest about biological
systems-- was not something he was willing to just accept. He set out to
examine, to the root, the reasons for Physics' decision that so much
about biological systems did not qualify for membership under the
definition of "phenomena". The results of that investigation were: that it
is the definitions, themselves, that are unscientific.
From that point on, my father set out to craft his own
definitions and began to create a new paradigm which was free from
the baggage of history. Therefore, I would say that the second main
difference between the N/C paradigm and RR's is the definition of what
qualifies scientifically as phenomena in the natural world. Putting that another
way, the RR paradigm eliminates nothing out of hand, and assumes instead that
all phenomena ("reality", material or otherwise) will conform to a higher
set of constraints which he labeled "Natural Law". It was my father's belief
that science is supposed to be the human pursuit of learning what "Natural
Law" is and how it works, therefore, his attitude towards the contemporary
physics of the day (in which artificial rules and definitions completely hobbled
any "scientific" investigation of why living things are alive) was that it had
"shirked its duty".
The remaining differences between the N/C paradigm and RR's all
have to do with "how things work":
Because of the nature of the definitions in contemporary physics,
the only real mysteries left (aside from the inexplicability of biological
systems) are, according to my father, at the atomic and subatomic
levels. Therefore, physics invests great importance in "particles" and presumes
that knowledge gleaned from further deep study of these aspects of material
reality will divulge answers to the questions biology raises. RR, in contrast,
said that if you chase the particles, you will "lose" the organism. In fact, he
said that "it is possible to chase particles right through an organism and
never learn a damn thing about the organism in the entire process". Such is the
nature of "metabolism". Therefore, he said, it must be something else about a
living system that makes it what it is. He concluded, after working the problem
long enough, that it is the organization of the particles, rather than the
particles themselves, that is the missing piece of the puzzle. The
importance of the organization of things, with the concomitant relations that
are created by such organization, is a reality we all have direct experience
with every day-- and yet physics discounts the importance of "relational"
issues on the grounds that such a thing is merely an imposition by the
observer on unrelated phenomena. My father said that everything about "science",
itself, is an imposition by the observer.
Once the organization of a material system was acknowledged as a
real and scientific aspect of that system, all sorts of other scientific
truths began to be visible about so called "material reality"
as well. For example, it became obvious that the importance of organization
as an integral aspect of a system was as true of the atom as it was of
an organism. My father was quite shocked by this realization, I assure you.
It was completely unexpected when he began the journey. However, he could not
deny the logic of it. And because it was as true of the atom as it was of an
organism, that meant the entire RR paradigm was far more general than the N/C
paradigm could or will ever be. Thus the statement by my father that
"Biology can, and does, teach us something about non-living physical systems."
If science is, as he defined it; "The human pursuit of learning what Natural Law
is and how it works"... then my father was sure that a thorough study of the
entailment structures governing the organization of living
systems (i.e.; what caused the organization to form that way, and what
did the organization cause, in turn) would reveal major aspects of
Natural Law.
At this point, we are so far beyond the scope of the N/C paradigm
that the purpose of my post has been achieved. However, the RR paradigm was
developed quite a bit further by my father before he died. It was a
massive achievement to prove, at least to his own satisfaction, that the
organization of the material parts of living systems is the engine of "life".
However, realizing that is a far cry from understanding why it is true.
In my father's eyes, the next step was to study the organization to learn what
it did to the lines of causality-- both within the system and between the system
and its formative context, in pursuit of understanding how this
organization, which he dubbed "complexity", caused the property we call "life".
The rest of his paradigm, then, has to do with creating new modes of scientific
study that don't destroy the system under study. Clearly; if the
organization of a system is the aspect to be studied, one can
hardly use modes of study that destroy organization... that wouldn't take
us very far, would it. Thus, the next big issue being generated by the RR
paradigm was how to do "experimental" science.
Once again, my father managed to land on another mine
field in pursuit of his answers. Experimental biologists were often every bit as
hostile as Physic/physicists over what the RR paradigm was suggesting. This is
because experimental biology completely followed the N/C paradigm. My father
said that this is also the very reason experimental biologists
generally hadn't a clue what life was or why it existed as a property of
living systems.
I think perhaps this is as good a spot as any to take a break. I
hope this little overview has been of interest.
Regards,
Judith Rosen
|