Re: Empirics and Life

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith, 
I think our discussion of objectivity is veering away from Rosen's ideas
of modeling life.

At 11:05 AM 1/29/05 -0500, Judith wrote:
> 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. 

HP: Of course according to your logic you are correct that everything is
subjective. But I don't think that is the issue in modeling life. As I
said last post, we all must make choices about what to believe and what
to doubt, and in your inclusive sense all these choices are indeed
subjective. My choice of Aristotle's narrow logic is just as subjective
as your choice of Judith's inclusive logic. To believe the evidence that
the speed of light is an objective invariant value in the universe is
also a subjective choice. To believe any epistemology, like the Hertzian
condition for a good model, is also a subjective choice. But that is not
the crux of the problem that physics addresses.

The crux is that if you accept the Hertzian condition, then you
will find that a model of Natural laws in which the speed of light is not
a constant of Nature will not satisfy the Hertzian condition. Your model
and your measurements won't commute. That is all physicists mean by an
objective model. I am sure Rosen would agree so far. What Rosen says (and
I agree) is that a model of life based only on state-determined Newtonian
dynamics won't commute. What I am trying to make clearer in my own mind
is just what specific encodings and formal models of life Rosen believes
will commute.

Howard