[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Metabolic closure in (M,R)-systems
- From: Tim Gwinn <***>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:24:22 -0400
Judith,
I'd say 'metabolic
closure' is just their phrase to say essentially the same thing as "closed to
efficient causation". And 'invertibility' refers to the invertibility condition
for Beta (replication).
I think the use of
some different phraseology on their part is due in some part to a need to appeal
to the editors of JTB or similar publications. But I do think that some of the
negative remarks about Rosen's work are needlessly
hyperbolic.
I just found a
pre-print of the paper here, at one of the authors' site:
Regards,
Tim
Hi David,
I found the abstract for
that paper quite interesting. On the one hand, I dispute the claim made that
Robert Rosen "never explained the mathematical context nor gave any
mathematical or biological examples". On the other hand, I find it interesting
that the writers still chose to accept the conclusion my father reached, in
spite of their dissatisfaction, and then built outward from that; assembling
what they considered to be the "missing" mathematical context, etc. I've got
to say-- that's a really unusual reaction. Most of the time, it has been a
situation like what we recently saw with Franzen and Ostrum, whereby every
intelligent shred of evidence is discounted because it does not conform to the
usual formalistic "logic", and instead of checking into whether the
formalistic logic is as limited as RR claimed it to be, they start cataloguing
all the useful things mathematics and science can do with it (as if that
constitutes proof that RR was incorrect about those limitations...). That
totally misses the salient points. So I really appreciate the fact that
Letelier and his associates chose to concentrate on the salient points, even
though they felt there wasn't enough evidence to nail those points
down.
[Incidentally, I found several references to "naive set theory"
while I was researching infinite sums... it refers to Cantor's version, the
original Set Theory. I can't remember which one it was who seemed so offended
by Aloisius' use of that term, but one who is truly fluent in mathematics
ought to know the derivation of that term, it seems to me. They acted as
though Aloisius made it up.]
Anyway, back to the subject at hand: I
don't know if I would agree that there is "metabolic closure" in living
organisms. In the (M,R)-System model, metabolism and repair are both required
for a system to be "closed to efficient causation" and THAT is what is
required for life. Metabolism, by itself, is not enough. On top of that, I'm
not sure where the term "metabolic closure" comes from. To my knowledge, my
father never used that phrase.
I also have a question about which
"invertibility" they are referring to in this paper-- I suspect it is the
issue of "repair" and "replication" entailing one another, but I don't see the
connection to the central argument of this
paper.
Anybody?
Judith
Web address:
http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of
general science based on the Relational Complexity
Paradigm