|
Robert Rosen also, in response to the accusation that theory is
"abstract" compared to so-called hard science, said; "There's nothing more
abstract than a measurement!"
Measurement is one of those incredibly slippery terms that are
capable of being defined many ways and applied to all sorts of activities that
may or may not fit individual definitions of what measurement means. My father
wrote a whole book on this subject! Measurement is at the heart of how
we interact with the world and yet it's a hard concept to pin down with
language. For example, I recently had a discussion with someone who
asserted that any perceptual awareness of any stimulus is a form of
measurement. In that sense, then, observation itself is measurement. So how do
we differentiate types of measurement? Do we use words like "hard" measurement
to refer to tangible modes, and "soft" measurement to refer to visual
observation?
The other problem which commonly arises is that human
beings always tend to equate familiar modes of measurement with innate aspects
of the stuff we measure using those modes. ("Foot" comes to mind.) But if we are
going to measure light, say, and use "candles per square inch" as our
measurement mode, we will come up with some measurement of a
particular aspect of light, in a particular situation, all dependent on the
context of that situation. OK, so what have we learned about light? I
mean, light isn't just one "thing" is it? We can measure stuff even when we
don't have a clue what the heck it is! But will the measurement help us or
hinder us in our investigations?
Is any measurement mode going to be always appropriate? Or
will it be useful in specific situations and downright counterproductive in
others? How will we know? I think most of us are aware that modes of
measurement can add information to the measurement obtained and that
some contexts will make this effect more pronounced than other contexts... but
how do we avoid choosing the inappropriate modes for any given task or
context? Has anyone ever studied this aspect of measurement in a methodical
way? If so, I wonder how they went about measuring the fitness of various
measurement modes...
Then there's the fact that every aspect we want to
apply measurement to and every measurement we arrive at tend to be
directly or indirectly related to human perceptual experience; so a "fast"
heartbeat, say, is only fast in relation to adult human
norms. Values like "hot" and "cold" would be more accurately
stated as "hotter than" and "colder than"... The reality is that all
measurements are relational, but that fact is not apparent from any measurement,
itself. So it gets forgotten. But that is dangerous.
There's an old riddle: "Which is heavier: a pound of concrete or a
pound of feathers?" Little kids have a lot of trouble answering that
one!
Judith
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:25
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] 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
|