Re: Mathematical clarification: Impredicativity in Rosennean parlance

["glen e. p. ropella" <***>]

Calvin Ostrum wrote:
> Rosen's apparent central claim, that something that life 
> essentially does is essentially uncomputable, as well as

Well, I'm sure most of the others on this list disagree with me, here; 
but, I don't think this is RR's central claim at all.  Granted, whatever 
he's getting at in Life Itself and the later books takes center stage in 
those books.  But, the content of "Fund. of Meas and Rep in Natural 
Systems", "Theoretical Biology and Complexity", and "Dynamical System 
Theory in Biology" is way more valuable than anything I've found in LI 
or Essays on LI (though I haven't read much of Essays, yet... and I've 
only skimmed Anticipatory Systems).

In particular, the discussion of symmetry in Fundamentals is excellent.

Further, I think it's fairly unreasonable to write-off a person's 
contributions based on some "fundamental flaw".  Look at all the 
mediocrity we find in publications like Science or some "Journal of the 
Obscure"... 99% of science is i-dotting and t-crossing.  And we _need_ 
that 99%.  Mediocrity is there precisely because that's what drives 
industry and productivity.  And RR contributed to this mainstream effort 
at least as much as anyone else and probably more.

The fact that he went off into unexplored, non mainstream territory and 
stuck his neck out making vague and unjustifiable claims should not 
detract from the work he did.

Yet even further, _someone_ has to stick their neck out and make vague 
and unjustifiable claims!  If Hilbert hadn't started his program, for 
example, Tarski and Goedel would not have gotten so fired up and done 
their work.  If Newton hadn't been so interested in alchemy, we wouldn't 
have the calculus (well, we would have still had leibniz, I suppose... 
but you get my meaning).  Not that I'm suggesting RR's contribution has 
or will have as much impact or is as important as those guys' ... But, 
the point remains.

So, it's plenty OK if RR was wrong, even about his "central claim" if he 
had such.  And it's plenty OK if his work is ignored by everyone to the 
end of time.  What matters is that he actually did work.  So many people 
sit on their butts all day doing nothing but drinking beer and watching 
tv (or, worse yet, their only productive work is to run strip mining 
companies or organize suicide bombers) that I appreciate anyone as 
productive as RR.  And I can say the same thing about Stephen King (even 
though I hate his writing).

On the other hand, I have found that RR's disciples seem more averse to 
criticism than others (except maybe for fans of Ayn Rand).  RR disciples 
seem to want to deify the man and his work.  There's often alot of 
book-thumping when it comes to discussing his work.  Part of this is 
innocent... his writings, using a prosaic style, appeal to people who 
don't have the skills to critically evaluate what they read.  The same 
thing happens in popular accounts of quantum theory, as Torkel pointed 
out, and other disciplines that begin to cross interdisciplinary boundaries.

Having said all that, I'd like to make a suggestion about the list now 
that the reins have been handed over.  (Thanks for running the list, 
Tim.)  Your basic point, Calvin, should be heard, especially by Judith, 
who is the custodian of her father's work.  My suggestion, Judith, would 
be to continue to work to get your father's unpublished or out of print 
works in print.  And disseminate his work as widely as you can. 
However, I beg you not to _color_ his work with too much of your own 
explananda or creativity.  When you publish his work, try to publish 
only his work.  When you publish your own work, ensure that your work is 
distinct and distinguishable from his (especially if you choose to work 
in a similar domain).  The same goes for A.H. Louie.

There are two reasons for this.  One is that it is hard to critically 
evaluate something developed by a community of people unless there is 
something like a peer-review process or "open battlefield" in which 
competing ideas can co-exist.  If you editorialize your father's work as 
you publish it, then it will hinder others' efforts to build on it.

The other is that you will be doing yourself a disservice.  Your 
contribution to the world deserves its own chance to survive and 
propagate without the baggage of your father's biological/mathematical 
fetish.

So, specifically, when you post RR's work to this list, don't insert 
your own explananda.  Just faithfully publish it.  Then if you want to 
comment on it, comment as Judith Rosen, not as the publisher of RR's 
work.  I understand that's a hard line to walk.  But, if you succeed, 
everyone (fans and detractors alike) will appreciate it.

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