About 'Life' (:Was: Rosennean "Cookbook")

[John M <***>]

Dear Ayten and List, (I changed the Subject from that meaningless and
overused 'Cookbook' which was cute for the first 50 times)

I was hoping a more positive response for Rosenism, but why should 'others'
be more informed, when in 1997 the NashuaNH Complexity Symp did not even
allow Don M's lecture about RR - so he delivered his talk at an 'apocriphal'
dinner-meeting, where I for one heard the RR name the first time in my
life - after just a decade in concerning speculations (and lots of reading
what I did quite voraciously at that time). I had a poster there on A.
Bogdanov, precursor of Sytems Science - his Tectologya, the complexity of
nature as a whole. No hint (info) of RR that I was aware of.

I wonder if I remember right that RR deemed the "what is life" the wrongly
formulated question? he rather identified 'living process'?
I would appreciate JK's version of the term "life" as today's standard.
I don't consider it a special entity in nature, a process like others, with
more details in its model because the modeler scientists are personally
interested in it. A supernova or a crystallization is just as exciting. Or a
thought. It may be quite different under different circumstances, e.g in the
Water-rocks and methane atmosphere of Titan at 120 below. We represent a
narrow window and make lots of noise about it. Because a pebble in our shoe
hurts.
I don't think there is too much similarity between RR and Kauffmann.
That briefly summs up my opinion...

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"


> Dear john,
> Your post was very quenching (if the word is right-it should be as the
first
> word came to my mind when I finished reading it. Thank you. Now some more
> from this side:
> -Your last line-a question: did any of the illustrious authors mention
RR's
> name? To my great surprise No. I one by one purposefully checked all the
> books I consulted before I wrote my paper to the E-RR/Journal, to my
dismay
> no mention not even in the index. I could not explain the why, while many
> was coming very close to his ideas. Could that be a jealousy or fear of
the
> unknown?
> -Understanding RR and his thought processes as close as possible as a part
> of my learnin I first did a review of the views of the past
> thinkers/scientists having the seeds of his ideas to sense the gist in my
> own way or within my reach. This made my paper long with a relatively long
> premise- as a plunge into the past. (you may have a quick look to see if
my
> chosen thread was leading to RR. I would also suggest to read a passage
I've
> borrowed from Ian marshall and Donah Zohar's book "Who's Afraid of
> Schodinger's Cat?" This passage (page 10) represents my state of mind as
> well, perhaps of many others like me. This also indicates my thirst to
> understand more deeply as my own qualitative proof if my own open-ended,
but
> insistingly vivid thinking process is on the right track. I was also
> somewhat puzzled of the words of Ian Stewart which lean more on Quantizing
> and go away from complexity-orientation of mathematics in future. There
may
> also be wrong interpretation on our part as an improper extrapolation from
a
> word or so. On the other hand he refers to the need for qualitative
> measurements in the new mathematics. On this point, my  view is that new
> mathematics should acquire the apposite ability for using its both
algebraic
> and geometric wings in a balanced way so that it can really fly high and
> lead the rest!! This is my overall world view: balancing the oppsites, or
> opposite looking appearances of the same truth.
>
> -On which present definition triggers Kauffmann's 2050 identification of
> life, I here below excerpted a few passages for you to reflect on:
>
> *Kauffmann says I suspect that the answer to the question of "what is
life?"
> will require a marked change in physics and chemistry, to say nothing of
> biology. Indeed for biology, an understanding of fundamentals of what life
> is will set the stage for a general biology, freed of the constraints of
> terrestrial bilogy, the only biology we know. We will be able to ask
whether
> there are laws that govern biosphere anywhere in the universe.
> *Referring to Schrodinger's book on the matter, Kauffmann says:' Sch.
> reasoned that order could not be due to statistical averaging, where one
> would expect fluctuations on the scale of the square root of the number of
> particles. ....Sch made some brilliant leaps by arguing that order
required
> the stability of chemical bonds - in particular, covalent bonds- which
> depend upon quantum physics, not classical physics.
>
> *Kauffmann's own different image and question: "...the bacterium is acting
> on its own behalf in an environment. I call it a system that can act on
its
> own behalf in an environment an 'autonomous agent'. All free-living cells
> and organisms are autonimous agents. But the bacterium is 'just' a
physical
> system of molecules arranged in some way: so my question becomes not, What
> is the source of order in biology? but, What must a physical system be to
be
> an autonomou agent?.... I will not insist upon the adequacy of my
definition
> of autonomous agents, nor that that definition suffices for lifee - but I
> suspect that it does..... Poincare` held the view (with which I am
> sympethetic, but not all physicicts are)  that f=ma is a definitional
> circle, with force and mass defined circularly in terms of one
another.....
> My definition of 'autonomous agent' is simultaneously a definitional
circle
> of a kind and a jump to a new language game - that of doing and acting. (
> within this sphere I myself -Ayten- feel at ease).
>
> * A biosphere is all about the coming into existence of ever novel initial
> and boundary conditions over past 3.5 billion years, and the physicists'
> isolation of a part of systems 'now' will not suffice to answer the
question
> of the evolutionary emergence of such persistently novel initial and
> boundary conditions.
>
> *Note that while what I have said violates no law of physics, physics and
> chemistry appear to lack the language to discuss it. Note, too, how rich
the
> tentative definition of 'autonomous agent' begins to seem.  ....... Juat
> think of a rain forest. It arose with no central authority in charge and
has
> created a burgeoning, interwoven diversity of linked processes. Yes, the
> biosphere creates propagating linked patterns of organized work. But I
don't
> even begin to know how to mathematize the concept. ...Autonomous agents
have
> an inalienable holism about them.
>
> * As the "chaotician' in Jurassic Park famously commented: "Life finds a
> way". He did not add that  we generally don't have much of a clue ahead of
> time what that way will be. Life is inherently open, and its understanding
> will require raising physics and chemistry to new levels, wherein the
future
> is open rather than predictable in prestated categories.
>
> These are the parts which caught my attention and thought you may also
like
> to know. It is again a long post. I hope you will have the patience to
read
> and reflect on them.
>
> After having written these passages, I asked myself the question of how
> close Kauffmann and Rosen in their views on this question of What is Life?
I
> also further asked myself if the main actors of this list as Tim, John K,
> and Judith consider making a comparison of these two minds and show for us
> similarities and dissimilarities, moreover bring such a comparison as a
> theme for the ISSS/SIG's work on Life and Living of which John K. is the
> president. Perhaps these way certain elusive subtleties may find clear
ways
> to reach us, even help to develop a cookbook for conneuseurs.
>
> Now I must turn to my other chores. This work eaten up my half a day.
> Good luck to you.
> Ayten
>
>
> Original Message -----
> From: "John M" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"
>
> Dear Ayten,

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