Rosen, again!

Cliff Joslyn (cjoslyn@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU)
Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:32:29 -0500


> I challange ANYONE to come up with better. I suspect we will
> hear no reply to this, but that the enterprise will go on
> (again) if Rosen's work didn't exist! C'est la vie!

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?