|
H.P. wrote:Here is the crucial question: Do you believe
that living systems at any
level of complexity or organization can violate or evade physical laws? I interpret "physical laws" to mean "Natural Laws". If that's what
you mean, I already answered that question in my post yesterday
morning:
It is my opinion that what has turned out to be Robert Rosen's
major contribution (to science) is to the foundations of it-- although that
is not what he intended, initially, it is what he ultimately achieved. I also
believe that he achieved an integration of biology with physics which healed a
schism that should never have existed in the first place. Far from creating a
rift with his comment ("The machine metaphor is not just a little bit wrong, it
is entirely wrong and must be discarded."), I believe that is an _expression_ of
honest irritation over the artificial limitations on the scope of physics which
made it impossible for physics to be the general science it always declared
itself to be. It was his belief that Physics should be the general science, but
the artificial limitation must be excised.
This was my father's point: That there are general principles
at work in the universe and they are applicable to all systems. There does not
need to be a "new" science to explain biological systems, there merely
needs to be an expanded paradigm underlying physics in order for it to be the
general science it purports to be. The expanded paradigm of organization and
matter, rather than particulate matter alone, is what Rosennean Complexity
Theory amounts to.
Judith
|