-----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