At the risk of rudeness (always risked when talking w/Don :) ), I'll
just say again:
*) I read all of LI deeply;
*) It's chock full of errors;
*) I don't know enough category theory;
*) You liked my review;
*) We had a horrible argument before you read my review, which was
never sastifactorally completed. In particular, I leave you with this
question:
What is it about category theory that allows us to transcend the
limits of assuming universes of discourse a priori? In other words, if
I posit a function f : A -> B, A and B are specified in advance. In
this formulation, Rosen's scheme collapses to an expression of
recusrive function theory (not very interesting).
But, he claims that if I posit an entailment relation
f
A ---> B
in category theory, that I transcend functional ideas, and A and B can
not only remain unspecified, but indeed can BECOME specified in virtue
of their participation in such a complex network. This becomes,
basically, a notation for emergence.
Whaddya think?