[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: What is closure?

Hi Tim & list,

Thanks for the reply. I am very sorry this began as a disagreement;
something I hadn't anticipated and was a little taken aback by. I do
think it is important for us and the list to clarify these points
because whenever an a-priori exclusion is taken in science, unless it
has been well established, it blocks progress. That is why I came down
on the statement that "there is no relationship." I then provided the
quotes indicating Rosen's view: that they are indeed distinct forms of
system closure, but nevertheless that they are relatable in a discussion
(i.e., this one) of the relationship between old and new physics and in
analyzing reasons why the later is indeed necessary.  I suggest we
accept that position as a working hypothesis and move forward by
actually exploring the ideas. Otherwise I am cut off from commenting -
excluded from the court before you even hear the case.

I was echoing the description of such a relationship (between these
ideas of closure) that Schrodinger and Rosen described and saying that I
had finally gotten it - sort of an aha. It would be nice to offer that
experience to others on the list and to be able to do so I require an
open minded atmosphere. I think I have discovered something in the
literature we are all studying and I would like to share the discovery.
If there is any ego in trying to be "right" I could, in any case, only
make the claim now, as even a few weeks ago I didn't see it, and if it
is not right, obviously I would like to know why. The best choice is to
discuss the ideas and, if possible, try to imporve them. So...

I would like to discuss the idea that "closed to efficient cause" is a
direct and important extension (and expansion) of other forms of system
closure. From my reading, which was not casual, I think that is a very
important message if not the most important message of the first chapter
in Essays. For clarity only (not confrontation) I should reiterate that
I believe (strongly) that the concept of "closure" is similar in both
cases where the word has been used - the case of thermodyamics and the
case of efficient cause, and that Chapter 1 in Essays describes this
similarity. If there is agreement to proceed, here is my attempt to
outline the major points we might start out with, that perhaps will get
us to heart of the matter.

1. Let's explore the idea that the term "closure" in both cases refers
to causality. If that is true, then certainly they are related in at
least that way. Here's the case: The physical concept of a closed system
means essentially, in Aristotelian terms, "closed to material cause."
This translates directly into conservation of energy and matter. Science
(old physics) presumed absolute closure to material cause, which led
naturally to the 1st law of thermo, which builds on to conservation of
energy (part of material closure) to deduce that energy flow can only
take place from higher to lower energy environments (hot to cold). The
2nd law of thermodynamics then then also implied, where the same
principles of universal closure and resulting conservation laws require
that (a) there can be no perpetual motion machine, because it would
violate material closure, i.e., it would imply you can "get something
for nothing" or something from outside the system; and (b) there must be
a univeral increase in entropy as energy is used and thus necessarily
flows toward lower energy states and ultimately "heat death." These are
all logical consequences of material closure.

2. We recognize that living systems and especially organisms are not
"closed to material cause" but instead quite open in that regard, thus
being exceptional to the ideas stated above. While the physicist tends
to emphasize the "larger system" in which the hope for material closure
is retained, Rosen shows that there cannot be a "largest system" in
which this is true. Finding one is thus the very definition of
mechanism. In contrast, the physics of open systems [and yes, this does
mean open to material cause], as Rosen states, is quite primitive. The
ideal of material closure was the main paradigm of mechanistic science
for centuries, with astonishing results regarding material properties of
systems and little attention to open systems until recently. The physics
of open systems - meaning systems that are open to material cause
[implicitly matter and energy] is in large part the "new physics."

3. Efficient closure has to do with bringing into a system material
processes that, in the paradigm of materially closed systems, would
otherwise reside in the [concept of] its environment, or "outside." The
importance of this simple proposal of bringing what might otherwise be
outside, inside a system, is the critical step in expanding beyond the
"old physics." Its importance in this regard cannot be overstated. In
the logical progression of ideas that Schrodinger and Rosen presented,
and which I am attempting to recapitualte and explain, we are reasoning
from the old physics to the new. [Warning: this does not mean that the
new physics can be "deduced" from the old, it is a logical progression
of thought from old to that needed for understanding organisms, which
along the way demonstrates that some of the assumptions in the old
physics are too restrictive and must be relaxed, mainly the idea of
absolute material closure]. If we remember that the separation of system
from its environment is a conceptual issue in the old physics model -
that they are not truly separate in reality - it is perhaps easier to
see that the "trick" of bringing something of the outside, inside, is
what violates the old physics assumptions and creates "causal loops"
that cannot be represented without generating mathematical
impredicativities. This is because "outside" in the old view is the
source of material causality, i.e., gravitation or forcings, and
"inside" in the OLD view is the inertial thing being forced. The whole
thought system cannot have things forcing themselves, and thus must
preserve insides and outsides. Once we bring an outside thing that acts
causally into an inertial system, we have internal causation - a
violation of the old rules. What kind of causation is that? What do we
call it? Well, it is efficient cause because it has to do with forcings
that become part of the inertial system - it is a constructor, i..e,
like the builder of a house living in the house.

4. The reason this "trick" has not been perceived as important in the
old view is that it strongly believes in being able to fractionate
systems for analysis. So, what has been internalized is not regarded as
part of the inertial object - it is analytically fractioned away as an
outside force when that aspect is studied, or as an inside inertia when
that aspect is studied. The problem is that these two fractions cannot
then be combined meaningfully, and that is the part of science that was
simply not developed. Hence, the old view has been preserved as a
"valid" analysis, with "valid" meaning mechanically valid, and the
closed loop causalities treated as a problem that has not yet been
solved. This left plenty of room for substituting belief for knowledge
by assuming that the old paradigm could indeed eventually be used to
untangle the closed loops, but it can't be.

5. These are the basic beginning that take us as far as considering
efficient closure. In other posts I suggested there might also be a
discussion of formal and final closure, and that those very distinct
kinds of closure may also be relatable to these ideas. That, I
suggested, might be why Rosen later saw fit to say there are potentially
more issues in establishing a "sufficient" explanation of organisms and
hence presenting efficient cause as only a "necessary" element.

OK, that's about as good as I can do explaianing the ideas - what I get
from Ch 1. Any aha's? Or do I get the boot?

JJK



Tim Gwinn wrote:

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.