Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[John Kineman <***>]

Howard,

I think the question is indeed an inquisition. Here's why:

HP: I usually mean by physical laws the natural laws that I imagine 
exist whether
or not I have created a model of these laws.

Given that defintion of laws, they are presumed to exist as an absolute 
and untestable REALITY (recall my earlier attempt to point out that the 
disagreement is over different concepts of reality?). That is a 
dogmatism which cannot be challenged on rational grounds. It is a belief 
that nature is governed by formal laws, whether we know them or not, 
which is OK in itself; but it is also a belief that those laws are 
absolute and unchanging, sitting "out there" to be discovered by science 
if science can state some formal representation of it.

Rosen's is at its core a different kind of epistemology, although it 
does not contradict the above; it is larger than the above. It has the 
potential for explaining where the laws themselves arise from. The laws 
themselves are a formal product of reality, which is a complementarity 
between formal and realized components of a system. This metaphysic, 
unlike the law-based metaphysic, is capable of emergence and new law as 
a natural phenomenon. The other one is only capable human discovery, and 
as such precludes the discovery of anything truely creative. That seems 
to be excluding the recognition of life itself.

So, the answer I would give to your question, which is a heavily loaded 
question, is absolutely yes. Not only does life violate physical laws 
and invent new ones, but even physical systems do. The reason is simple: 
there is not a one-to-one correspondance between any formal system 
(e.g., laws) and any natural system, and yet they are in intimate 
co-defining relationship. Each one may therefore exceed the other. So, 
what do we see?  Realized natural systems continually exceed any laws we 
can write about them, AND, mathematics - the set of laws we can write 
plus the process of inventing them - continually exceeds what seems to 
exist in nature. This is exactly what the view I present would expect, 
and exactly what the view  your definition of law implies, would 
preclude. Whether we call one view "right" or not is irrelevant, the one 
that encompases both phenomena that we have carefully established must 
be the more useful view.

Please point out my error.

John Kineman

Howard Pattee wrote:

> Judith, and anybody else,
>
> I asked in a post to Judith what I think is an important question for 
> clarity in this discussion. I realize it sounds like 
> cross-examination, and of course no one has to answer.
>
> Here is the crucial question: Do you believe that living systems at 
> any level of complexity or organization can violate or evade physical 
> laws?
>
> Howard