Re: Problems for solutions

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Tim,

Good points. A comment that may or may not be relevant,
but to me suggests the challenges to clarity are big and not
trivial. In papers Steve Kercel has written he cites some
people who explain the Liar's Paradox as rooted in an
ambiguity with our sense of falseness - it can either mean
negation or denial (the explicit details and distinctions of
which I don't remember but need to learn). The strange
loopiness and "bad", contradictory behavior of the Liar's
Paradox goes away if one keeps these two meanings of
falseness clear and distinct.

I think we are dealing with a similar ambiguity with life,
one that perhaps is tangled up with the distinction
between complement and opposite. Rosen seems to say
that the opposite of life is machine or mechanism. But I
think in many minds (including mine) the opposite of
life is/has been death, intuitively. But what if death is not
the opposite, but the complement? If life is not a thing but
a process (i.e. living) and if the complementary process is
required  - like two heads of a coin, two poles of a magnet,
two types of electrical charge, etc. cannot be fractionated
or discussed alone, in isolation - then death or dying is
integral to life, not the opposite. But, if machine or
mechanism is the opposite of life it is something other - it
is not required or integral for life, it can be fractionated,
treated in isolation. But machine and mechanism as the
opposite of life may then figure in another coupled
complementary process and impredicative definition - one
about Great Truth a la Bohr: A Great Truth is one for
which its opposite is also a Great Truth. Life and complexity
(in science) may be a Great Truth, mechanics and machines
(in science) may be the opposite. Together we get Great
Truth, alone we don't. Another reason not to slam or shun
mechanism but to seek to resolve the conflicts (maybe not
even needing to say one is more general and the other
degenerate, necessarily. Perhaps more context dependent
in value-neutral way. Not sure.)

Hmm...not sure if that is any clearer or not. I guess I am
asking whether these distinctions are part of the problem,
like a general conflict in wars between mechanistic and
non-mechanistic science and between humans and our
environment, and if so if their clarification could help with
issues like how to move forward, either in learning (science)
or living (sustainability).

Maybe "complement" is more ontic, "opposite" more
epistemic?

Dan




Tim Gwinn wrote:
>  
> I am of the mind that clearly thought-out approaches and 
> solutions require clearly thought-out and stated problems. No science, 
> and certainly not this list, can solve an ill-defined or vague problem.
>  
> I agree that it is not useful to simply bash the inadequacies of 
> reductionist paradigm modalities. Likewise, it is not useful to bash the 
> Rosennean paradigm for not solving vague or general problems. The 
> precision and detail that is expected when posing a problem in 
> contemporary science is no less required when posing a problem in the 
> Rosennean paradigm.
>  
> Regards,
> Tim
>