Hey Judith and all,
I hope you guys don't mind but I
will probably end up spending a lot of time on this subject. I'm going to
pull a John M and play super dumb (because sometimes I am). I have a
strong intuition that the (M,R)-systems are gold and rubies and I intend to get
them in my formal tool bag to the best of my ability.
Metabolism and repair, both generated from within the system, are
the homologies unique to living organisms.
Let me propose a hypothetical and odd state of
affairs. Let me propose that I had an intimate familiarity with
(M,R)-systems before I had any first hand experience with organisms in the
flesh. If later I recognized that a material system realized an
(M,R)-system then would that system necessarily be an organism?
So, time is a constant. It isn't spelled out that way, in the
model... but it's included by association or implication.
Are you saying then that time is not specifically
encoded in this relational model? If so does this preclude us from doing
so? I assume that because "metabolism" is formally encoded as f:A-->B and
that this vehicle of entailment admits an answer to why in terms of efficient
causation that we could in fact "pre-encode" a specific time referent.
Also "metabolism" seems to have a great deal of "brought to the table" aura of
meaning. I suspect though that it is a very flexible kind of thing, and
that it could carry meanings completely different from the one's that many may
carry, including myself.
Do you believe that the (M,R)-systems, if properly
understood could be used for the purposes of prediction?
I guess that does it for the moment. I know
you're a busy woman Judith, and I just wanted to take the time to thank you
again for your attempts to clarify. I hope others also feel free to jump
in where they feel they can speak into the subject that might free at least
a little time for you.
David ![]()
