Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

[John M <***>]

Dear Ayten,
you know: it is easier to write long post than to read such, because you
agree with what you write and WANT to express it. In reading I always
develop the urge to reply (argue?) and with books it is futile. I have to
swallow the urge. List-posts, however, are game. Here is to your post:

In the science-predictions book the enjoyable may be the ways how the
different brilliant minds look (differently) at the topics. There is some
remark to math, however, from my part. I consider "Math" a World on its own,
not relatable to the one we (normal people<G>) observe. It has its own
symbolics, languages, metaphors, even humor, a math type philosophy and art.
Evolution and development. All in (pure) math.
Then, people who shared the mathematical mind (I did not write the word
'impairment',  it is an addition) with the rest of the human minds observing
mostly the so called physical/ideational world found a quantization of
model-items useful. They also found that math-formulae can be APPLIED to
their models, doing "math" on them. Indroducing:
Applied Mathematics. Physicists did the worst job in that. They took the
limited models, assigned numbers to assigned quantities in those cuts they
selected as those models and applied the marvels of math to them.
So the ingenious mathematical results came to apply to the incomplete
model-values of conventional (reductionistically cut) sciences. An electron
(what is it?) has exactly that much mass (what is it?) and so on.
No wonder if at the basic level this process produced paradoxes.
So what should Stewart's 'new math' represent? Probably something in this
dichotomy. Either calculating models in a nonquanti way (maybe as Jack
brought up: as Qualitative (AI?)-Physics) or making math-versions
inapplicable to the applied math - science.
New geometry? Topology may come to mind. Think in xD forms.
I concur with 'solutions to problems' over 'solving equations' since
equations are static snapshots in an ever changing world. If a process
approaches 'equilibrium' meaning: it reduces stress, it most likely
increases (generates) new ones (unless it happens within a BH).

> -Very quickly every area of mathematics was 'complexified'. >Quantization
will be the 21st century version of complexification...<

I would reverse that: with a 'new math ideation' complexity (RR) may be
(new-)mathematized. I hate to use mystical distinctions: "analog"(?)
handling of the unlimited variables, unlimited connections all in their
specific (??) parametrical 'strength' to the substrate. Statistics extended
into unlimited base-cases, probability wide open to unlimited kinds.
Causality gets revisited. The uncertainty also gets unlimited (no joke)
since no boundaries apply.
I wonder which present definition triggers St. Kauffmann into his 2050
identification of life?
You wrote "complex systems" - the name (and distinction you wrote)that
caused most trouble in explaining RR's terminological ideas.
You emphasised "pattern", the recurring template of models within an aspect
of the world. We select a model (aspect) and find similarities in it so we
have a 'pattern'. Maybe the model-choice followed the way to find it (theory
laden). Then from that choice of model we count an exorbitant statistical %
matching such pattern and calculate a 98% probablitiy for its occurrence (in
that model).
Well, I exaggerated. Simplified (as JuR said).

Thanks for facilitating to ease my mind on such subjects. I believe I
applied (my way of understanding) RR's views in reading your post.
I believe RR was a biologist and a mathematician just as I was a polymer
chemist and technologist. He 'speculated' beyond it and I do so. (I still
call it 'philosophizing'). I started in 1987 when I put my polymer science
into a pawn shop.
One question: did any of the illustrious authors mention RR's name?

Cheers

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"


> Dear John M,
> As my reading proceeds I feel the same way you do. But one thing I learn
> from it where the stage of knowledge in a variety of scientific or
> semi-scientific fields in the eyes of several well known persons, not
nmuch
> what they predict. In effect I started with Ian Stewart and noticed that
he
> sees a need to develop a new mathematics to deal with the requirements of
> the new science etc.>
...........Truncated to the end of the post.........
> I 'll wait for your reflections - hopefully not reactions only, to further
> my own thinking and linking with all the rest in these pretty intricate
> matters.
>
> My best,
> Ayten
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John M" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 5:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"
>
>
> > Dear Ayten,
> > in your very comprehensive and professional post you wrote:
> > >>...
> > >> At present I am reading a book entitled " The Next Fifty Years:
Science
> > in
> > >> the First Half of the Twenty-First Century", edited by John Brockman,
> > >> Vintage Books 2002. Among the articles (25) the ones by Ian stewart
on
> > The  Mathematics of 2050; ...<<
SNIP
> > John M
> >
> > ---- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
> > To: <***>
> > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 4:06 AM
> > Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"
> >
> > not copied
> >
> >