Re: Maximally constrained

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Tim wrote:
I think the mathematical argument that organisms are in fact instances of maximally 
constrained systems is compelling. But it remains unproven empirically to this day; 
therefore, conclusions drawn from comparisons between the mathematical conclusions and 
organisms can be equally compelling, but do not serve as proof.  I think that Rosen is 
making a similar - if subtle - distinction between compelling and unproven.

HP: I don?t see any logical necessity that the mathematical arguments require maximal 
constraints. As I pointed out, Morowitz?s example would hold for any system whatsoever, 
constrained or not. More important, I think the empirical evidence is clear that cells 
are not maximally nonholonomically constrained. That would mean that energy and 
rate-determined laws are not relevant as is the case for computers. The ubiquitous 
processes of folding and self-assembly are all energy relaxation processes that are pure 
dynamics with only a small fraction of the degrees of freedom under constraint.

Howard