Re: What is closure?

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnK,

Certainly any system is going to have thermodynamic qualities that may
affect the system's behavior and which may be influenced by any
organizational properties of the system. In that sense, there is certainly a
relationship between thermodynamics and organization, as described in Essays
ch.1.

However, my remarks were on another matter: that Rosen's claims of "closed
to efficient causation" did not mean the word "closed" was in any sense
identical to, or similar to, "closed" in the thermodynamic sense. That is
what I mean by the two concepts being "radically distinct and bearing no
relationship". I do not assert that, within a given system, organization and
thermodynamics bear no active relationship upon each other. Apologies for
any confusion.

My concern was that Rosen's "closed to efficient causation" was being taken
as an assertion of "closed" in some sense similar or akin to "closed" (e.g.,
isolated) in the thermodynamic sense. The phrase "closed to efficient
causation" sounds so strikingly absolute and without qualification, and I
supposed was why you preferred the term "relatively closed" or "relative
closure to efficient cause" and said that "absolute closure is impossible".
But Rosen's "closed to efficient causation" does not make an assertion of an
organism being closed in the sense of 'isolated' or in any absolute sense.
Instead, "closed" refers to a closed path (i.e., a loop) of efficient causes
of functional components in the relational diagram. So, in my view, there is
no need to qualify Rosen's phrase with a term like "relative closure" since
his original phrase was already referring to only a very specific kind of
organizational relationship.

Certainly a system possessing such a "closed to efficient causation"
organization means a set of constraints on the system (as indicated in LI p.
248 and in the quote you provided in your followup to this post), and will,
in some sense, "uncouple" the system from its environment in certain ways,
and will have ramifications for the thermodynamic and other qualities of the
system in relation to its environment. But I feel that "closed" in "closed
to efficient causation" refers to the loops, the closed paths, in the
organization of efficient causes of  the components, rather than to "closed"
in the sense of any consequences for the system of uncoupling from, or
isolating from, its environment that such an organization would generate.

Regards,
Tim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 2:54 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: What is closure?
>
>
> Tim,
>
> I'm afraid you are mistaken. The discussion about closed and open
> systems have a great deal to do with causality. Take a look at the first
> chapter in Essays. The linkage there is explicit in the discussion about
> genotypes and phenotypes. I think it would be more constructive to focus
> on the arguments themselves, as detailed in my previous post, rather
> than attempting to invalidate the discussion.
> JK
>
> Tim Gwinn wrote:
>
> >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.
> >>