"However, there is nothing in the
relational strategy that is unphysical, in the sense of "ideal" physics.
The organization of a natural system (and in particular, of a biological
organism) is at least as much a part of its material reality as the specific
particles that constitute it at a given time, perhaps indeed more so. As such,
it can be modeled or described, in full accord with Natural Law; the resulting
formalisms have at least as much right to be called images of material reality
as any reductionistic model based on states and dynamical laws." (LI, p.
119-120, ital. orig.)
Tim is correct in his analysis, however there is one language
issue that always confuses me, so I thought perhaps I'd point it out. The word
"physical" has two equally logical potential meanings in this
sentence:
Tim Gwinn wrote: I don't think of Rosen as "more of a Platonist" because
he focused on system
organization. I think his argument was quite the
opposite: that organization
was as physical as anything else, and therefore
models of organization were
valid models, and belonged to an expanded view
of physics.
Except one of them would be wrong. Time clearly meant the other
one, which makes his statement consistent with my father's view. One synonym
of "physical" is "material". The other is an extension of the word "physics"
and the synonym is "physics-based".
It would be more accurate to say that my father's contention was
that organization is as scientific a concept as those that physics embraces,
and ought to be part of physics.
Judith
PS: The term PhD stands for Physical Doctor, whereas MD stands
for Medical Doctor. When I first learned that, my response was "What's the
difference? Medical doctors do physicals..."