There are three possibilities concerning Rosen's theories.
1. He is wrong.
2. His theories are right, but we can only manipulate material
nature in mechanistic ways; therefore it is impossible for man
to create life.
3. His theories are right, and it is possible for man to manipulate
material nature to set up a complex relationship that can be
self continuing and emergent....thus creating life.
Realistically, it will probably have to wait, assuming Rosen is
right, until someone comes up with an actual complex realization
(man-made-life), if possible, before Rosen's theories get the
attention of the scientific community.
Also, it will probably only be through the effort of trying to physically
realize Rosen's theory that one really comes to understand
complexity (analytic vs. synthetic) , (syntactic vs. semantic) ,
(direct sums vs. direct product) , (model vs. simulation) ,
(machine vs. organism) , (the four causes)... and only through this
effort will one be able to tell if Rosen is right or wrong.
Why should someone go through this effort? Because Rosen's theory is
profoundly different from any other coming from mainstream
reductionistic science. We currently have no adequate answer to
"What is life?" from within mainstream mechanistic science. Rosen's
ideas represent a truly unexplored avenue.
Jeff Prideaux