|
Dear Judith,
about prediction: I don't vouch for an orthodox
definition, but IMO prediction is used to apply a model to calculate details of
another one. Now RR had a different idea about this, anticipation is not a
prediction, I think it is rather a facilitation of the possible ways
that may happen. Since I have not studied AS, please correct me, (if
possible in less than 60 lines). What you did in your post: you justified what I
said by contrasting it ("According to Robert Rosen...") exactly
my point: RR's definition is different from the classical scientific
prediction.
You explained perfectly why we should separate
the RR-type anticipation from the classical physical sciences' prediction. Your
version of (other) anticipation (not Rosennian) is the role of prophets or
Nostradamus. Nobody in reductionist science can 'anticipate' future events based
on the observation of their limited models, because the "rest of the world"
(neglected as 'beyond boundaries irrelevance') screws up the applied (limited)
cause's consequences. No way to step up in complexities from a limited model to
a less limited model (eg. from a closed map into an encompassing territory). As
you expressed it in RR's words: there are "side effects". Unaccountably. Open
for 20:20 or better hindsight. Not foresight.
RR probably did not come up to the point I
deduced from having done lots of (chemical) analyses: Analysis is a reductionist
process, it considers ONLY the already known and includable components and tries
to explain everything within those. Mental or math analysis does not lead
to such automatically, because they are more open to crossing the
set boundaries by open thought and routine (wider) math-knowledge.
You have to ask a critic (me) of chemical analysis. Not a perpetrator, who is
enthused by his art.
Even in RR's anticipation (I think...) you
cannot include ALL of the natural system circumstances, (totality), so while it
may be more efficient, it still may include 'surprizes'. It is not a precise
calculation of the future for the future.
Even if some exceptional mind (!!) would be able
to include the totality of the possibly influential everything, an 'unvague'
prediction (say: full and precise anticipation) would be illusorical since
nature has more than just a "bifurcaion" - it has unlimited ways to proceed. In
math terms: try to solve an equation with unlimited variables and each of tem in
a high level uncertainty both of its impact constants and applicable
value. I recall a math-titan at the Techn Univ. Budapest, who smeared foll
3 blackboards with his theory and underlined twice the bottom line of the
calculations. The professor humbly asked: "and what is the
error-allowance?"
Answer: +/- 300% - And this was not even in
complexity.(1946)
>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.<
Not "about" is my point: it is: "within". And I
still find it counterproductive in the respect of another
word-variation:
>I would very much like to see any
reductionist actually try to prove that there is "no such thing" as Relational
Causality. <
No such thing in another sense. "WE" have to
prove it, they will not disprove any unproven idea. Why should they? Against
themselves in an "anticipatory" (ha ha) way, PRESUMING that it exists? I believe
it is a mistake to assume that our opponents think with our mind, rather WE
should think with theirs to make a point. Exactly what RR did in his
books.
I stay with my opinion.
John M
|