*John M.*
** *I understand what you're sentiment is and I appreciate it (very much, in fact!). I think I can reassure you that your concerns are unfounded, though, for several reasons.*
** *The main one is the issue of "prediction". In biology, prediction is a very different "animal" from the prediction Einstein used to prove his theories. (I'm not suggesting that sort of thing in my Rosennean Challenge post, by the way.) According to Robert Rosen, all living systems are anticipatory, even single celled organisms. The human mind, by virtue of being part of the human organism, is anticipatory in its organization and then adds volition and abstract thought to an anticipatory consciousness. Science, as a human pursuit, is also very much concerned with "what will happen if", or anticipation of future events. I see this as a natural extension of the kind of innate tendencies and capacities of the nature of /life/ as anticipatory systems, not as some artificial or unnatural preoccupation created by the limited models of classical or contemporary physics/mainstream science.*
** *One of my father's main points was that using simple models to decide policy having to do with complex systems will create side effects. That can be looked on as "a prediction". He explained why this is inevitable. Ultimately, in his explanation, he concluded that if biological systems are involved in a problem we need to analyze (and that would be the case with human social/political/economic systems of any kind, or human interaction with global climate, etc) then the only kind of models that will really help us decide good policy are biological models of the relational type. He came right out and said that anticipatory controls are better than reactive controls in any solution we want to apply to a complex problem (an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure). It all comes back around again to understanding the nature of complex systems. *
** *"One of the lessons to be learned from biology is that there are lessons to be learned from biology," my father said, in "Life, Itself". Part of what he was referring to is the nature of anticipatory controls. *
** *So, while I understand your distaste over the idea of going backward, in the sense of "proving" anything about limitations of the models of physics in general and the benefit of relational ideas even within physics, I do think it's necessary. I also believe that there is no way to "discredit" my father's work. It's too solid. He had absolutely no fear in that regard; ZERO. So while people can (and do) try to discredit it using words and arguments, I am suggesting that putting these ideas to the test of "their real world" is the fastest way to dispense with all the argument and move forward. (Sneaky side benefit: In order to try to disprove it, a reductionist would have to learn about it...) Sometimes the way to prove something is to try to disprove it-- you can bet that my father did all that, very thoroughly, long before he ever wrote about these ideas.*
** *I would very much like to see any reductionist actually try to prove that there is "no such thing" as Relational Causality. It would be far more entertaining than anything that's on TV these days. Too bad Monty Python is defunct; they could do their version of "a reality show"... /And now, for something completely different.../*
** *Judith*
****
----- Original Message ----- *From:* John M <mailto:***> *To:* *** <mailto:***> *Sent:* Monday, January 03, 2005 11:57 AM *Subject:* Re: [ROSEN] Anyone up to a Rosennean challenge?
Dear Judith,
let me refuse the occasion of your post about RR-predictions.
You hit the nail's head when capitalizing *"In other words, let's look at where the paradoxes are, the
anomalies, the inconsistencies, WITHIN PHYSICS, and see if they
exist because the models lack a relational approach." *
as the main point.
Prediction is an obsession of reductionistic classical physics,
to further the model they work in. Is there any reasonable (long
term!) prediction in evolution? or in history? or would you deny
them the status of science? I believe we are not ready with
redefining the RR-type "science-concept", a theory (hypothesis, or
theorem?) to change the way we think in a 'science' broader than
the limited model-based past. Proven? read Popper on proof
(however I don't hold him the lighting pharos for the future of
all scienceS).
I believe the predictional urge is a trap prepared by opponents of
the RR ideas, to weaken his arguments. Don't we fall into it! It
is a retrograde tendency and we may lose the Rosenistic spirit by
looking for compliance to the past classical modelistic views.
Rosenism is broader than the predictive quantized physical etc.
domains of the tenure-seeking science-potentates. True, it is not
YET at the practical achievement level, but a newborn baby does
not recite Sonettes of Shakespeare either. The name Robert Rosen is acknowledged today even by
"non-Rosenites" as the pioneer in a new way of viewing the world.
I would consider it a degradation to try to 'fit it' into Physics
101.
He fought hard for such acknowledgement, we can take it from there.
John Mikes
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Judith Rosen <mailto:***> *To:* *** <mailto:***> *Sent:* Monday, January 03, 2005 9:19 AM *Subject:* Anyone up to a Rosennean challenge?
*Hi Everyone,*
** *Over the weekend, I was thinking about the perennial
complaint that Robert Rosen didn't make any of the kinds of
predictions of the sort that Einstein did, with which to
test/verify his theories... And it occurred to me that my
father actually DID, in a certain sense... (Can anyone on the
list come up with formal ways to prove the following?):*
** *One of my father's main tenets was that the physics-based
models don't accurately describe even the systems they were
created to describe. For example, particulate matter/atomic
organization. He said these deficiencies don't show up much
when applications are kept to simple systems and relatively
"low-level" complex systems like atoms but that when you apply
them to global weather or ecosystems or human physiology...
the deficiencies become far more obvious. It seems to me it
should be possible to prove, via accepted scientific means
within physics, that /_"relational causality" as created and
constrained by organization_/ is what has been missing from
the models at the basis of physics. *
** *In other words, let's look at where the paradoxes are, the
anomalies, the inconsistencies, WITHIN PHYSICS, and see if
they exist because the models lack a relational approach. It's
sort of the same idea as the /quantum systems, observation,
and time/ paper by the Iranian Physicist, Dr. A. M.
Ghorbanzadeh, that Tim posted on the list a while back:*
/Tim Gwinn wrote, on 12/01/04: Today I have been reading a
fascinating new paper on arXiv quant-ph, entitled "Quantum
mechanics as a result of time broadening of the classical
object" by A.M. Ghorbanzadeh:
//http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0411169/
/The essential idea of the paper is that the author has shown
mathematically that the equation describing a quantum particle
can be put into a form which appears to indicate that the
appropriate interpretation of a quantum entity is as being an
entity which is extended in time, both into the past and the
future./
** *I think it should also be possible to look at so-called
"proven" tenets of physics and show where the relational
aspect was there all along, but has been ignored or gone
unnoticed because it's just accepted. The relational nature of
the universe is so familiar that it sort of becomes invisible
unless you start trying to create complex systems without
using this principle in your attempts.*
** *I'm curious to see what you guys can come up with!*
** *Slainte,*
*Judith Rosen*
*Website address: **http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/*