Re: Inconsistency, natural vs formal

[John M <***>]

Dear Dan,
let me post a remark to the 'beginning' of your post (truncating the rest of
the sea-serpent of the discussions). See below.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: Inconsistency, natural vs formal


> Howard Pattee wrote:
>
> >>H.Pattee wrote: Inconsistency can arise only in formal symbol
> >>systems. Nothing in nature can be inconsistent (What would
> >>that mean?).
>
> Howard,
>
> What about indeterminate or uncertain or ambiguous? Can't a
> natural system have/be these? And if so, aren't these in essence
> indistinguishable from inconsistenty?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dan, I believe this summs up what you had in mind.
(In)consistency is a comparison of a model with another one.
Natural systems include all connotations the models omit and
so are not prone to be judged by us as inconsistent or the other
adjectives you used. Wholeness has room for diverse aspects.
True: we think (and talk) reductionistic, but also try to learn
wholeness (RR-complexity) - not so natural to accept.

Cheers

John M