Re: What is closure?

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnK,

"Closed to efficient causation" has nothing to do with "closed systems" in
thermodynamics. The word "closed" has an entirely different meaning in the
two usages - the former has to do with loops of entailment, the latter with
thermodynamic isolation. The two concepts are radically distinct and bear no
relationship to each other just because they share the word "closed". To
speak of "closure" in some kind of generic sense (whatever you might mean by
that) only adds to the confusion.

I agree with you that not *everything* about an organism in terms of
efficient cause is entailed within the system. Rosen's assertion about
"closed to efficient causation" does not make that claim; his claim has to
do only with the manner of the relational organization of entailments of
functional components. See my post from this morning.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:56 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: What is closure?
>
>
> JohnM & list,
>
> John, this is to reinforce what you say in your post, which I find no
> fault with.
>
> In the first chapter of Essays, which is about Schroedinger's idea,
> Rosen discussed openness and closure in a very constructive sense which
> finally got through to me. He pointed out (after Schroedinger) that 2nd
> thermodynamics applies to closed systems, of which there are no natural
> examples of an absolute nature - as JM states here also. Open systems
> can, of course, exist within theoretically closed systems and have the
> property that they dissipate energy to an "environment" - thus
> establishing an inside and an outside. The inside can become ordered
> with respect to the outside, which must then become more disordered. It
> is also clear that relatively closed systems can exist within a
> relatively open one - in other words if we have systems that behave
> mechanically they will conform to the 2nd law of increasing entropy,
> conservation of energy, and so forth.
>
> --- As an aside, there is nothing in science itself that can tell us
> whether the "ultimate" system is open or closed. Hence the universality
> of 2nd law thermo vs its negation is not something that can be
> determined. What we know is that both occur in nature. ---
>
> Now, he discusses the difference between "gravitation" and "inertia" as
> a metaphore for "genotype" and "phenotype" claiming that this dichotomy
> is epistemologically identical. It represents a split between a source
> of action and an object of it.  The essence of efficient closure is then
> described as  whatever means a system (organism) has for bringing the
> source of action into the object of it. It is an embedding principle.
> Whereas in more simple system concepts the force is separate and outside
> the object it forces (the force representing genotypical gravitation,
> the object representing phenotypical inertia); in complex and living
> systems certain "forcings" have been incorporated into the system. It
> thus remains conceptually the same as a system being forced from the
> outside, except that parts of the "outside" are now inside. This creates
> a very different kind of system than can be analyzed by separating
> outside from inside. How do organisms achieve this inclusion of outside
> forcings? One way is enzymes, another is DNA, and there are
> presumably more.
>
> We can see from this picture that "closure" means not that the whole
> thing - i.e., every aspect --  is closed to efficient cause, but that
> certain efficient causes have become incorporated such that
> self-directing properties appear as characteristics of the system. How
> much of such closure phenomena is required for an organism to be stable,
> evolutionary, etc. is an open question, but it certainly is not abolute
> closure that is required. Furthermore, identifying the importance of
> such closures does not exhaust all questions about how such a thing can
> occur, or will occur, or to what extent or result, and hence it cannot
> be counted as the only criteria for organisms or life - much more
> research is needed.
>
> John K.
>
> John M wrote:
>
> >Judith:
> >
> >"Closed to efficient causation" means that everything about the
> system that
> >involves "efficient cause" is entailed by something else about
> the system.
> >It means that there is no one outside the system actively creating the
> >"effecient cause" aspects of the system-- the system is self-sustaining."
> >
> >Thanks for the definition, I can see the logical language-link, which was
> >obscure so far in my feeble English. Problem: it sounds like
> being cut off
> >from "outside the system" - which in my views is a nono. I can understand
> >this as a chosen aspect of a closed (limited) model (=system?) unless the
> >"system" is boundariless - unlimited.
> >As you explain it - a "self sustaining system" - means a cut-off
> view of a
> >model, extracted from the total interconnectedness (interefficiency).
> >
> >JR:
> >"All complex systems manifest closed loops of entailment; this
> is one of the
> >definitions of complex organization... "
> >
> >Conform with your additional defining: this is a necessary, but
> by far not
> >sufficent description. ("one of")  - IMO complex systems (any,
> as everything
> >else) have open connections with 'the world outside our model', do we
> >recognize them, or not. We cannot list all sufficient causes, unless we
> >restrict the topical view to be explained. I still doubt the 'working'
> >closed loops without (un)closed triggering, maybe indirectly. "A
> system does
> >not DECIDE by itself."
> >As you wrote: " It certainly doesn't mean "closed" in general; quite the
> >opposite."
> >
> >Finally - hurting my past chemist-self:
> >JR:
> >
> >
> >> Atoms (which are complex but not alive) are not "closed
> systems", either.
> >>Atoms give and take electrons all the time as they interact with one
> >>another, etc., but still maintain their organizational stability.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >When 'atoms' give or take electrons they change their organization from
> >'atom' to 'ion'. Their stability becomes different (to information they
> >receive) from the same shown as 'atoms'.
> >(If I condone the term atom, which washed away lately in my
> thinking, just
> >as molecules, giving place to 'limited effects depicted in a way of
> >mathematically formalizable models of conventional (old?) observation and
> >its (maybe obsolete) explanation".)
> >In my reductionist chemistry, however, I can condone a "repair" of an
> >atom: - from its anion-form, ('plus' electron) by discharging
> that electron
> >for certain stability -reconfirmation into the more stable (?) (neutral)
> >atomic format. In certain cases it goes spontaneously as rearrangement.
> >(Indeed a stability-induced "closed to efficient causation"). However the
> >opposite process: to take 'in' an electron from the
> 'environment' into its
> >'body' is metabolism at its best.
> > Restoration is repair, just as "imbibing" from the environment
> and building
> >it into its body is metabolism. Should we call an atom "alive"?
> I may do it.
> >Maybe you can paste other 'necessary' conditions into the satate
> of 'being
> >alive' to exclude atoms.
> >It all would go into the "sufficient" to assure YOUR choice of selection
> >into YOUR theory. (The YOUR does not mean Judith Rosen of course).
> >
> >John M
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> >To: <***>
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 12:21 PM
> >Subject: Re: Could you give me your analysis of this?
> >
> >Skipped
> >
> >