|
I think I must be defining "logic" differently than you are. To me,
logic is a very general concept and can perhaps be characterized as "clear,
rational thought process that consistently maintains all entailment
relations which pertain to the ideas being processed". There's no stipulation
regarding formalizability or use of language, etc. I don't see logic and
creativity as being antagonistic to each other; quite the contrary. Robert
Rosen's mind was a very logical mind, but also extremely creative. Those
qualities worked together very well.
I am aware that logic is also a word used in a mathematical sense,
where it has a much narrower definition, and I consider that an artificial
limitation on the concept. Logic in that usage is constrained by mathematical
rules and encodings, and can wind up creating outrageous paradoxes that are
anything but "logical" to my mind.
Applying my own definition of logic to the subjectivity of
measurements in science, I question whether we CAN put an objectively
verifiable number on "the speed of light". I question whether we CAN verify
objectively that this is one of the invariant values in the universe. We can't
even objectively verify what light IS. It seems to me, logically, that all we
can do is generalize about such things as "invariant principles" in the
universe. Specific numbers can only be viewed as accurate in a narrow, local,
particular situation. Most direct human experience is all of those things;
narrow, local, and particular. So, what I'm ultimately saying is that our view
is extremely subjective and cannot be otherwise. Extrapolating from that view to
a specific about the entire universe is very much like quicksand. Accuracy won't
survive the transition. We can only approximate accuracy and then, only by using
generalities.
For example, I think the logic is sound in the few definitive
statements Robert Rosen has made about the universe:
1.) Most, if not all, causality is relational.
2.) Various types of system organization create/maintain/govern
relations within the system which adds differing amounts of
information/causal impact to the system as a whole, depending on organization
type.
3.) Complex organization adds so much information/causal impact to
the system as a whole that it is impossible to fully learn about or
understand such a system using a reductionistic approach.
4.) The universe is complex.
5.) Change is the only constant because time and space are
co-organized into the complex system that is our universe. (In other words,
there is no such thing as a "state" in the physics-based use of that word,
except in physics-based models.Therefore, such models do not correspond to
natural systems in the universe in general.)
Some of the above are not direct quotes, but are translations of
quotes or are statements he made in conversations. Using these as springboards,
I can make some logical assertions of my own:
1.) The universe has more potential than what we have seen so far,
in terms of system organization types and behavioral
manifestations.
2.) Potential for relational (interactive) causality is not the
same as expressed causality via specific relations. In other words, the same two
systems can interact in infinite ways, with the only difference being the nature
of the relation that specifies their interaction with each other. The causal
effect will be different based on the nature of the relation.
3.) This is why taking a system apart and studying the "parts"
in isolation is of limited value in a relational universe. What the parts have,
in isolation, is potential... The relations those parts have, as specified by
the intact natural organization, are what specifies the range of values as
expressed in the system.
Judith
|