Re: Rosen, Kauffman and compatibility

[James N Rose <***>]

Thank you Howard, but I was really probing to see
if you had any thoughts about the nature of mathematics
more than any concerns about perception(s) and subsequent
modeling.

Bohm dealved into primordial numerical spaces that
could generate quantum phenomena, but I noticed that
he essentially designated a space that was already
quantized ; which tried to resolve temporal symmetry
but didn't account for _continuum_ waves any better than
conventional QM.

Kaufmann -to my way of thinking, and I told him so 
directly during a brief meeting at Nashua some years ago-
fell short of his ambitious goal because of his lack of
-as you succinctly said in a recent post- an holistic ontology
or thematic paradigm.  He felt he did, simply on the 
strength of intepretive math sufficiency ; but he was wrong.

When I confronted him with the cognition that his schemata
was nothing more than an updated 'chaos version' of Carnot's
Engine, he seized on the notion and has tried to spin that
reality into a positive rather than accepting it as a 
negative and a failing; hoping to make lemonade from a 
distinctive lemon.  He self embraced and rationalized
that tautology of his schemata and is hoping that will 
sugar coat the essential lack of organizational coherence.  

Its a defect but he can't see how to eradicate it without
throwing in the towel to really better paradigms out here.
I spoke with some folks in 2000 during WOS/ISSS in Toronto and
they shared with me the vehement animosity betweem Kaufmann
and Prigogine .. who's complexity ideas are - though still
improvable upon - far suprioir to Kaufmann.  Albiet it's
tough to make the case because SK's ego is 'rather' strong
and he's already won the plaudits of notable organizations
who don't want their premature adulations called into question.

Anyway, I showed during my 1997 Nashua presentation that 
complexity is enacted by merely a minimum of two conjoined
probabilities .. quite a bit less than Stu's minimum
10,000 events required to reach his postulated threshhold 
for autocatalytic transform into self-containmenthood emergence.

Now it's quite in line with RR that complexity be that former
schemata and only require a few components, because in its
most simple form, that's what 'entailment' is .. a closed 
loop (-not a tautology I might warm) .. which has all members
as drivers and instigators.

SK's NK model lacks that and attempts to materialize organization
out of nothingness.  Though, he does try to say that numbers are
the driver (a modest version of what Wolfram takes to an
extreme); For Wolfram, I spoke with him about 3 years ago
and asked him directly if there are any analogs in real 
phenomena for his algorithms and he flat out said, "No, there
aren't any." Which I suppose makes him the Platonic Idealist's
Platonic Idealist. :-)  Numbers are the only reality to him.

RR's ideas superiorly have the potential of discovering a
mathematics, where as SK's math has no hope of a new/natural
themata; the latter is too tied to 'insufficient' standard 
numeration techniques.

Which is why I asked if - because you have excellent insight
in the nature of these sundry paradigms - if you might have 
any incling of new math operators or re-valuation of interpretations
of math relations which natural entailed systems could be 
natively extracted/extrapolated from.

Jamie