Re: Mathematical clarification: Impredicativity in Rosennean parlance

[Calvin Ostrum <***>]

On 8/12/05, Judith Rosen <***> wrote:
  
> That's a specious argument, and beneath you-- from what I've seen of your
> own work. Surely you can do better than that? There are some interesting
> papers of yours available on the internet.

> I urge you to spend
> a little more time reading the source material. 

I've spend a great deal of time reading the "source material"
and I cannot see how it helps at all in answering Torkel's 
entirely reasonable and very basic questions.   There is
something specious here all right, but it isn't Torkel's
argument.  

Rosen's apparent central claim, that something that life 
essentially does is essentially uncomputable, as well as
being prima facie highly implausible, is covered by so much 
speciousness and vague confusion that there is very 
little hope of anyone ever getting to the core of it and 
showing where his errors lie (Assuming that Pauli's
remark that "It's not even wrong" doesn't apply here).
Especially when at the very surface where it touches 
real, serious, rigorous, accepted work of highly accomplished 
and respected inquirers, it makes all sorts of weird, grandiose, 
claims misusing accepted terminology, that are excused with
the feeble response that "everything is metaphor".   If 
any of his disciples had any courage, they 
would be working trying to give a clear rendition
of these central claims that would be able to face rigorous 
scrutiny instead of engaging in these desperate tactics 
to defend the faith.

Shame.

At this rate, the central core of Rosen's work
will always remain as it is, entirely ignored by 
virtually the entire scientific orthodoxy.  That is
apparently far preferable to having it honestly 
evaluated.