|
Dear Ayten,
thank you for your considerate reflections, they
deserve consideration. I should have waited till those who know more about the
circumstances than me give their thoughts but I risk the 'si tacuisses' and give
you my fast tuppence:
1./
So you put entailment into a completely
different ballpark from the 'simple causality' - while I considered
it almost synonymous with 'effect'. Interesting and considerable.
I called (my) chaotic = nonlinear, and I feel
you use it in a similar way. Then I extended my views to conclude that whatever
we deem chaotic is an outcome of 'influences' we did not consider in our
(model-based) thinking. Maybe: we didn't even know about such. No magic wand.
Rather: ignorance (a malaise being cured by epistemic enrichment).
If I want to
translate it into my verbiage: "entailment"
is an outcome seen in a more wholistic view than the limited, the closely
reduced simple "narrow-model causal" view of a system. OK, I buy it. Goes closer
to RR. - Still not a (maximum?) natural view. Still applicable in science. Not
infinitely vague. Maybe even computable.
I guess your 'self-organizing' refers to the
'evolving stage' -while it (a system) picks up the
optimum "structure" in the forming. (Later on a SELF-organization would be
an oximoron, because once a (broader) 'system' took shape, it requires some
additional input to undergo any (slef/re-) organizational' changes).
Be it observed or not.
2./
I had a 'snide' remark meaning that there is NO
gender unless we consider (at least) TWO. The kaon of the one handed applause.
I definitely distract my question from the 'What
is Life" start-stage, since procaryotes are living without genderizing.
I cannot figure a 'development' from a
nonexisting lower stage into a "more complex' one. I am looking for the
deterministic routes leading (maybe) to something totally different from what
our model included earlier. Potentials for anything NEW have
been around, we just did not know about them. No Deus ex Machina miracle, be it
in a Rosennean or otherwise identified machine.
I feel in your "chain of evolution" a Darwinian
taste. He was a genius, but worked in a narrow model of Gaia. A cell is a
complexity within 'life' (if you like the _expression_) just as much 'complex' as
much we include in our model.
How "low complexity" was life before Watson and
Crick?
and how little-complex the DNA was when only 4%
was (assigned to as) relevant genetic content? We learn and the "complexness" of
our models increases with more and more discovery we allow into the content
within our (as well widening) boundaries. It is a learning process.
"At the end" we face a natural system with no
limitations.
We ARE reductionists by our capabilities. It's
all right. We just TRY to look wider and so did Robert Rosen.
These are my prima vista suggestions, not a
preaching.
Cheers
John M ----- Original Message -----
|