1.) Causality is possible because of the co-organization of space and time.
2.) The universe as we perceive it is part of the effects of the complex organization of space, time, and causality.
3.) Causality in the universe is a closed entailment loop such that everything in the universe is entailed by something else in the universe.
4.) The universe entails itself (Causality entails space/time and space/time entails causality).
I've got to go drive one of my kids to violin lessons, so I'll have to stop at #4 but I'll post these beginnings and those who are interested can add their two cents worth. We'll see what comes of it.
Cheers,
Judith
----- Original Message ----- From: John Kineman
To: ***
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Fundamental problems in Physics
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