|
Howard,
A few new comments, interposed:
HP: My interpretation of the machine metaphor is that it is equivalent
logically to strong reductionism. So there is hope, because I don't know any
physicist today who believes in or subscribes to such an "inbred, closed
orthodoxy," i.e., that every model of a system can be obtained from the largest
model by formal means (LI, p. 103). I think that is a straw man. (Consequently,
as I have mentioned before, physicists find this one of Rosen's most irritating
claims.)
I am perfectly willing to believe that you personally
know physicists who don't subscribe to the machine metaphor as a philosophy of
how the universe is, in fact I know a few myself. But if they aren't changing
the basis on which physics is predicated, then nothing changes. Most physicists
don't feel any deep need to put themselves through the trouble that Einstein
faced, because the limitations of the paradigm don't get in their way or make it
impossible to do what they want to do using it as it is. However, since it is
the basis for all science, even areas of science where the limitations DO get in
the way, cause serious impediments, or make real understanding impossible
(Medicine, Physiology, Ecology, Meteorology, etc) will have to bear this burden
unless it's changed at the foundations. The reason physicists find it irritating
is because this is a pain in the ass and they don't see the need: "The trouble
with YOU, Rosen, is you're always trying to answer questions that nobody wants
to ask!" As he said in Life, Itself, "The machine metaphor isn't just a little
bit wrong, it is entirely wrong and must be discarded." The fact that Einstein
(who was also accused of being a pain in the ass) wasn't able to figure out what
was fundamentally in the way of a unified set of "Natural Laws" was, in my
opinion, due to the fact that he stayed within physics as he was looking for it.
The simplified view that a particulate matter-based paradigm creates is a
distorting looking glass. It is a testament to Einstein's intuition and
talent that he kept on looking. I think his work and his frustrations in
not being able to finish it allowed Robert Rosen to come along from the
perspective of Biology and finish the puzzle.
On the other hand, I don't know any physicist that does not believe that
there exists completely general physical laws that every living system must
follow in detail at all levels of complexity. In other words, life requires more
than one model, one of which is the detailed universal general physical model
that Rosen criticizes LI, p.12. In fact, as Rosen used to emphasize (pre-1980s)
that full understanding of life requires a hierarchy of complementary models.
Which model you focus on at any time depends on the questions you want answered.
I don't see sentence number one and sentence number two,
above, as being corollaries of each other. I agree with sentence number two
but I think the physicists are wrong about sentence number one. This is exactly
my point, in fact. I think it's pretty clear from my father's work that one of
the main components of "Natural Law" (completely general physical laws
that every living system must follow in detail (cannot
avoid) at all levels of complexity and
non-complexity) is that there is enormous potential for causality in
relational interaction. Physics, as a science, is less than helpful in analyzing
any system which has an organization where the organization supplies more
"causality" than the parts alone do. Frankly, I see this as being true even in
"simple" systems, like chemical reactions, but you can pretend it isn't and get
away with it. Any chemical reaction is just that; a reaction. It's the effect of
interaction between two or more "things". Therefore, the causality or action is
all in the relation and the way the relation is formed is going to impact the
result. The way things are organized when/while they interact is what specifies
the relation. We live with this reality from birth and it's so familiar that we
don't even see it anymore (familiarity breeds contempt?!). Many things that are
necessary for human health or human life are also dangerous if we interact with
them in a different way from the way it is necessary. Fire/heat, water, air,
nutrients, elements... In fact, I would argue that "causality" could not exist
except via relational interaction. So to speak about "matter" at all,
or "forces" or atomic processes or velocities is to ignore the most important
fundamental aspect of the universe while incorporating it
unconsciously.
HP: That is not a fair assessment of
biosemiotics. I believe my statement below is a more accurate consensus:
"The concept of Biosemiotics requires making a distinction between two categories, the material or physical world and the symbolic or semantic world. The problem is that there is no obvious way to connect the two categories. . . In fact, how material structures serve as signals, instructions, and controls is inseparable from the problem of the origin and evolution of life. Biosemiotics was established as a necessary complement to the physical-chemical reductionist approach to life that cannot make this crucial categorical distinction necessary for describing semantic information. Matter as described by physics and chemistry has no intrinsic function or semantics. By contrast, biosemiotics recognizes that life begins with function and semantics." (Pattee, J. Biosemiotics 1, in press) Again, what the above doesn't acknowledge is the foundational issue
of how these two "worlds" (material/physical and symbolic/semantic) interact to
make each other possible. "Matter as
described by physics and chemistry has no intrinsic function or semantics. By
contrast, biosemiotics recognizes that life begins with function and
semantics."
Matter as described by physics has no organization, either, which
is pure nonsense. My father's point is that Physics needs to change because it
is in error at the most fundamental level.
Judith
Original Message -----
|