|
John M's post was right along the lines of a discussion I've been
having with someone off-list about these issues and specifically it's the notion
of whether the word "reality" has to be tied to the concept embodied (sorry for
the pun) in the word "material":
Robert Rosen's view was that particulate matter is only a fraction
of the aspects of what we call "reality" that make up the universe.
Organization isn't a tangible"thing", obviously. And it's not something you
could point to and prove it exists, in and of itself, the way material structure
is. We can model it, in some cases, and living systems incorporate some sort of
models of their own and contextual organizations within their own
organization, somehow. But organization is an important concept and it can
legitimately be applied to systems that are not material (not composed of
particulate matter). We recognize the existence of some of these non-material
"things" by the evidence of the interaction of material things with
something else. We recognize "time" by observing "change" in material
"things". In fact, the capability for interaction that exists in this universe
proves the existence of some"thing" interacting/co-organized with space. The
"spacetime continuum" is the phrase often used to refer to this irreducible
organization.
The fact that this organization is non-fractionable (without too
much loss of information) suggests that my father was correct in his
statement that the general organization of the universe is
complex. If we examine what that means for TIME, it tends to suggest that time
and space, in their co-organized relation, may behave very differently than
either would isolated from each other. Just as sodium and chlorine, when
co-organized, completely change character, behavior, and potentialities
(salt)... time and space together are likely to be "unrecognizable" to us
without the relational effects made possible by their co-organization. But time
and space are not all there is, in terms of "ingredients". There is also matter
and energy, which incorporate both time and space into their organization, and
they can be co-organized with each other as well. The atom is an example of
all of the above. So is imagination.
Is imagination, or human consciousness, a "real" thing? Can we
recognize its presence/existence by the effects of its interaction with material
"things"? The answer to those questions, in my opinion, is YES. Is consciousness
solely the sum of the output of the "neuronal brain"? No, just as the
behavior of an atom is not only attributable to the direct sum of its
parts.
Judith
PS: John M. : Philosophical Doctor, you say??? Even a Physicist?!
That must not sit well with those that spit the word "Philosopher" out like it's
the worst insult they could come up with to taint the scientific credibility of
someone like my father!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:07
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Operational
Closure
Tim, in your quote I learned a RR _expression_
invaluvable to my concerns: "material reality". This is a limited model of
what we may call 'physical thinking' (newer or older) and is based on the
topically restricted (reduced?) views of the space-time-etc. model of the
world. I always argued when someone spoke about "the reality" as we can know
only the interpretation of the mind from taht segment which reached 'it' -
whatever a 'mind' - part of THAT reality can interpret through the material
tool of ours, ie. the neuronal brain. Now that was too much for the moelcular
neurologists, who equate tMRI etc. with the 'cause' of thought.
Material reality can be solipsism for one,
mysticism or physics for another. (Caveat: NOT materialistic reality).
Of course it was hard on RR to fit that into
bio-organisms for the 'cell only' crowd to follow.
"In accord with Natural Law" I would say: when
Natural Law can still be considered valid (within that model-view, of
course).
Judith, as my 1st diploma spells out: Ph.D.
does not stand for Physical, rather for Philosophical Doctor (no matter that
is was for Chemistry-PHYSICS-Math). Please, don't get 'physical' with me for
that. (another meaning from 'physos'.)
What you might have in mind is my 2nd diploma:
D.rer.nat, Doctor rerum naturalium (not translatable as a doctor who is a rare
nut). This one spells out "physics" in the conservative (i.e. reductionist)
sense you aimed at. Plato's 'physos' of course referred only to the 'visible,
functions-observable "physical" world'. Natural Laws and so.
May I add that in the numerous commi seminars
I was forced to participate in the Marx-Lenin-Stalin soupmix Hungary we had to
learn that economic/social laws are also "Natural Laws", so the (denied?)
spirit (!) of the spiritless materialistic philosophy WAS representing the
newer views about the physical world. It was in the 50s. The
idea was: you can't 'force' Mother Nature (said not so decently) -
not in 'physix' not in economy, not in
societal developent - and they did it all (all the way to bankruptcy, so it
was proven true).
Another question to Judith:
One synonym of "physical" is "material".
And what is a 'synonym' (meaning?) of
"material"? Dr. Johnson's pebble in his shoe (because it hurts)? That was
'reality'.
Regards
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 2:22
PM
Subject: Re: Operational Closure
Yes indeed.
Thanks for clarifying that, Judith. Howard conveniently provided the quote I
had in mind when I wrote that:
"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.)
Regards,
Tim
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..."
|