Re: Empirics and Life

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Howard and Judith,

An interjection here from listening in...

Howard Pattee wrote:
> Judith,
>
> I don't think you understood what I was aiming at. I was trying to 
> illustrate how physicists narrowly define objectivity, and why it is not 
> really inconsistent with your more general view that everything is 
> ultimately subjective. As I said, that is not the issue we should be 
> discussing. All physicists really worry about is satisfying the Hertzian 
> condition for all possible observers. That much I think Rosen would 
> agree is necessary for a good model. That is why he spent so much time 
> clarifying what the modeling relation is in more detail. The 
> controversial issue is what types of formal model and what types of 
> encodings (observables) actually can satisfy the Hertzian condition for 
> living organisms. He shows that the Newtonian state-determined dynamics 
> and simple physical observables cannot. I agree. In my opinion, the 
> relevant problem is that we as yet have no specific Rosennian models of 
> organisms.
>
> I suggested that we need to work on clarifying the type of model Rosen 
> had in mind beyond his abstract graphs. In my opinion, they are general 
> epistemic models from which we need to derive more detailed models 
> specific enough to test by experiments.
>
> Howard

The models or hypotheses they pose may not be testable
by experiment. If experiment depends on control for
meaningfulness (have to control the variables involved,
hold "all else constant", all else being equal, otherwise no
clear link between treatments and results, causes and effects)
and if control as in truncation from other perhaps infinite
influences is impossible, then experiment in the traditional
sense of a crucial, objectivist test may be out the window.
In the field of models for climate change this has been
acknowledged - that crucial testing cannot be done, nor can
model validation. Rastetter called this type of problem
"trans-scientific" (not sure if he was the first). The people
developing syntropy from Luigi Fantappie have said the
same about syntropy which depends on the future to
determine the present - you can't develop or test such
science in the traditional, experimental way.

But, what is another way beyond experiment? On that I
agree with Howard that there is room for contribution and
creative work, and (my preference) collaborative in a spirit
of harmonious teamwork (more fun that way). All under
my dual research headings that I think Dr. Rosen may
have liked, What is the Meaning of Life, and How to Save
the World.

Dan