[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Why does the universe exist?

I've just borrowed a copy of "Theoretical Biology and Complexity", ed. by RR. In the preface, he makes the statement:

"I believe that we each [the authors in this volume] began with a
conviction that contemporary physics already contained the necessary
universals with which to cope with the phenomena of life and that
therefore only a clever rearrangement and redeployment of these
universals would suffice to bring them to bear effectively on biology. I
believe that we each came separately, and with great reluctance, to
admit the possibility that this conviction might not be true, and hence
that a true theory of the organism required new physics and new
epistemology. And again separately, we realized that the measurement
process, which lies at the very heart of every mode of system
description, provides perhaps the only safe and fundamental point of
departure for building a comprehensive theory, not only of organisms,
but of natural systems in general."

This gets right to the heart of my point. What RR seems to be saying is that _measurement_, "a concrete procedure for determining the value assumed by the observable of a system at a specific time" [A.H. Louie from that same volume] is the missing component that leaves much of the typical physical and biological explananda flapping in the wind... at least for him, Louie, and Richardson.

The key words in there are "concrete" and "specific" (though I think I would have swapped "specific" for "particular" ;-). No matter how abstract and theoretical their bush beating (e.g. category theory and perverse formal systems), the underlying element of _satisfaction_ lay in the concrete, practical behavior of measurement. That means actually placing, say, a scale next to an object... or looking at a piece of film upon which photons landed... etc.

These are "things one can sense and manipulate with their hands, feet, ears, eyeballs, nose, skin, and tongue." _That_ is satisfaction. That is where all explananda must end in order to be satisfying.

Responding comments interspersed below:

David Macy wrote: 
Among those answers which I find immanently unsatisfying are those
answering, "why life (or organisms) on earth" with "because of transpermia"
or some other such thing.  The answer answers nothing about the nature or
real origin of life, it merely defers it to a more distance origin.

While I agree that panspermia (at least that's the word I've heard used) is _finally_ unsatisfying, the hypothesis of panspermia is a completely valid, useful, and practical means to the end of following that carrot (the carrot is "why life on earth"... the stick is "measurement" ;-).

If we were to establish that some or all of the current dna was transported here in a bucky ball from outer space, that would be one step up the ladder, freeing our minds to take another infinitesimal slice off the question.

I believe that when we feel unsatisfied by such hypotheses, we're just being lazy. We're not willing to go to the effort to validate or falsify the panspermia hypothesis. We just want to "skip to the end."

What's that bit about the Chinese answering a question with yes, no, and mu?
Where mu means the question makes no sense, re-ask the question.

Part of the wisdom in the answer "Mu" is that people twitch. We do what we do and there's no accounting for taste. "Mu" is more of an "unasking" than a "request for re-asking". And if you look deeper into the heart of Zen, you'll see [surprise!] the ethic that banal tasks are sacred. The act of _breathing_ or raking in your rock garden is a mysterious and sacred act. Again, back to the satisfaction of the concrete.

Practicality!  Yeah.  I like practical too.  I also like art.  I think art
is very practical.  It practically keeps me sane at times.

Yes. Art _is_ very practical. Most artists (distinct from art critics) that I know are geeks. They have honed their sensory/motor system into an autonomous, self-motivated, autotelic "other". They really get into the manipulation of concrete things with their hands etc. Also, most artists I've met are not really abstract creatures like their critics. So, you called it. Art is a very practical ... well... art. [grin]

I read an author once who said at the core of each of us is a paradox.  The
paradox takes the form of a question.  The question becomes the journey that
defines our lives.

I like Rosen's question.  Entirely his own.  Perhaps entirely each our own.
What is life?  So far I've liked the answers he arrived at.  I've yet to
detect any blatant inconsistencies at least.

But of what use is it? Well hell man, he couldn't do everything by himself!

Well, the word "question" has a markedly abstract connotation. A question is a semantic, world 3, thing. However, there are concrete correlates to questions in the real world. An experimental protocol is a type of concrete question. I.e. not the "experiment" that is dreamt up by some _thinker_ in order to answer an intellectual question, but the "concrete procedure for determining the value assumed by an observable at a specific time."

These correlates to our intellectual "questions" are called "models." (I'm talking about model airplanes, measuring devices, fashion models, etc.) Those objects are the practical analogues of the ideological questions asked by scientists. And _those_ are the currency of satisfaction.

So, for example, with respect to organisms, when we can _construct_ organisms (or participate in their construction, like Dr. Venter), _then_ and only then will we be satisfied with the "theory" behind "how and why they work and exist."

There's a quote I like that sums all this up: "What I cannot create, I do not understand." - Richard Feynman

If and when we find ways to use RR's ideas to help us construct or participate in the construction of life, then, and only then, will his questions and answers be satisfying. (Note that for some people, his questions and answers probably _already_ help them construct or participate in the construction of life... for me they don't, yet, but for others, I'm sure they do. That just means that _they_ have found a way to make concrete analogues -- state and behavior -- of his abstract questions.)

--
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                Hail Eris!
H: 503-630-4505                       http://ropella.net/~gepr
M: 503-971-3846                        http://tempusdictum.com