[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Modeling relations and semantics: "Blame" and causality

Jamie Rose wrote:
Re-instilling such notion of being into the fixed machination
system that Science is at the moment .. its like expecting
that butterfly which chaos theory says has the potential
to eventually 'cause' a hurricane, to fly intothe middle
of that storm, and affect its current behavior.

Someway, somehow, the butterfly will - but not by direct encounter.

Nothing is unrelated to anything else, and surety/unsurety
co-integrates to produce the effective world we are part of.


Your language use is sometimes difficult for me to integrate into my mind, Jamie, probably as my father's language use can be for a lot of people... but I think we generally "see" things very much the same way (at least, judging from our conversations to date). The above passage, I would translate into "It's a relational universe."

What you're saying, as I interpret it, is very much in concert with RR's point of view; namely, that in a relational universe, one of the universal entailments is the impact of relational aspects on causality. In fact, relational interaction drives causality (meaning, I suppose, that it is the "ontology" of it). One of the nifty and yet baffling realities about relational interactivity is that direct relations are often not the most impactful, and that is why relational issues need far more study in science. The current paradigm generally only takes direct relations (such as those between any component to the overall material structure of a system) into account, at least in the formal logic of the paradigm foundations. Yet, in any field dealing with complex systems (which tends to encompass all of them really, to some extent or other), most of the questions will have answers beyond the capabilities of the paradigm to find.

You mentioned Chaos Theory, which tries to answer to that issue, at least as I understand the descriptions I've read about Chaos Theory. But Chaos Theory is hobbled by the schizophrenic nature of scientific logic, right now. For instance, they don't address the fact that most of what they are talking about or describing is actually beyond the allowed boundaries of science. In other words; if we allow the current paradigm to define science, then what Chaos Theory describes is actually "unscientific"-- as unscientific as philosophy or teleology... or religion (and "intelligent design" vs. evolutionary theory). This is why my father kept hammering away at the requirement to remove the machine metaphor from the foundations: It's not enough to just add new stuff onto the old stuff in an attempt to increase the capability of scientific investigation. The paradigm is such that it forbids according any causal power/causal ontology (I don't know if the word "ontology" is correct to use, here, but it describes the concept I'm after) to the aspects that complexity invokes.

I like your butterfly analogy, although perhaps not the way you intended? Then again.... could be! In the Prolegomena of "Life, Itself", my father wrote:

"What is life? What is it that enables living things, apparently so moist, fragile, and evanescent, to persist while towering mountains dissolve into dust, and the very continents and oceans dance into oblivion and back? "

It was Robert Rosen's fascination with living organisms and his drive to use science to answer his own questions about them that led to his frustration at the artificial road-blocks science puts in the way of investigation and, ultimately, led to the body of work he created. So there is a real analogy here between the effect of biological systems on the evolution of science and the situation he described in the quote, above.

I've always had a problem with the proverbial butterfly quote that Chaos Theory is so famous for. The butterfly of Chaos Theory no more causes a hurricane than a hurricane causes butterflies. What they need is some of that "proximate cause" thinking! But I think the point they're trying to address is the fact that direct relations, either singly or in sum (via accretion/added together) rarely can account for the behavior of complex systems. All that science can really describe that way is complicatedness, not complexity. And life will never emerge from complicatedness. Nor will consciousness. Or intelligence. The balance inherent in a complex system, especially a living one, is entirely based on relational interaction/interactivity and it is a matter of scale or dimension, not arithmetic.

Jamie Rose wrote:
RR effectively and explicitely made the point that the
nature of open existence includes causal links that are
potentially neither recognized nor included in extant
models and noted information.
RR may have been an adamant Causalist but he gave the
world a causal-concept extraordinarily difficult to
deal with or even get their minds's around .. entailment.

What is it about entailment that is so difficult??? Let's hash this out, because it's a sticking point for lots and lots of people. It's also really important. I need to know where I'm not addressing the questions people have about this concept, so speak up out there, OK?

Judith






Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:04 PM, James N Rose wrote:

Judith,

I'm gratified you concur with the things I write about.

RR may have been an adamant Causalist but he gave the
world a causal-concept extraordinarily difficult to
deal with or even get their minds's around .. entailment.

The basic notion is relatively easy, but it's grand scope
and inclusiveness, anything but. More than the last of my
pghs you cited, my two that immediate followed it were the
denoument point of the three.

"In other animals the perceive-evaluate-react net of
awareness/behaving, is a crucial causal-analysis
chaining as well.

How challenging then is it to break from "tangible"
specifiable-causality concept processing, and accept
indefinite but as or more important, indefinite
nebulous relations as the more important ones."

RR effectively and explicitely made the point that the
nature of open existence includes causal links that are
potentially neither recognized nor included in extant
models and noted information. Causality in known and
recognized phenomena is one thing, but watch out,
don't be arrogantly prideful that what you see is all
there is to see .. other causal influences abound and
effect significant entailings that (re)direct system
operations, actions, performances, values, and being.


It might be a bold point, but as much as causalities
of the 4 aristotelian kinds are definitive, RR cubby
holes them as a -sub-grouping of a larger causal world,
where reality is expanded group:

identified/known unknown/potential

A1 x x

A2 x x

A3 x x

A4 x x


|classical Causes|

| Rosen entailed Causes |



Currently, statistical analysis and quantum mechanical
concepts reign in the area of projected-supposition,
which involves accounting for observed phenomena
in a quasi-causal linkage .. likelihoods following
patterns, from random events potential. Where no
event - and therefore no formal causalchain - can be
absolutely predicted and specified.

RR might have eventually written that -underscoring-
even indefinite phenomena, causality is a preordinate
primogenitor state or qualia of existence; but the
openness of being, being itself a companion a priori,
makes causality appear a-causal before it can present
its own true nature and instantiate the vast involvements
of being.

Nothing is unrelated to anything else, and surety/unsurety
co-integrates to produce the effective world we are part of.

Re-instilling such notion of being into the fixed machination
system that Science is at the moment .. its like expecting
that butterfly which chaos theory says has the potential
to eventually 'cause' a hurricane, to fly intothe middle
of that storm, and affect its current behavior.

Someway, somehow, the butterfly will - but not by direct encounter.

:-)


Jamie