Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Now we have eight Wild [Ass] Guesses or "WAGs" as Michael Rogers call
> them. Note that Walter Fritz and Sascha Ignjatovic have submitted
> revised versions of their WAGs about the nature of the zone between the
> physical and the non physical.
>
>
>
> > 2. Don Mikulecky suggests we use Rosen's catagory theory that deals with
> > objects and their models as relational.
> >
> > 3. John Kineman proposes that existence and experience are one and that
> > the becoming experience may be quantum related.
> >
> Does anyone else want to add a WAG or edit their WAG summary?
>
> If not, those who are so inclined can go ahead and take a stab at
> combining these WAGs into a short all inclusive statement. What we're
> trying to do is come up with a set of approaches we can use to help us
> learn more about what's going on in the hypothetical physical/non
> physical zone.
>
> Norm McPhail
I thought this kind of distortion was the property of the press, but it
appears not.What I have been writing about here and elsewhere is the life work
of Robert Rosen. I resent a brilliant scholar's work being thrown into a
hopper as a wild assed guess.
Rosen saw in the 1950's that traditional science had put on blinders when it
came to the issue of the complexity of real systems. He then established the
following:
1.There is a clear, unambiguous distinction between our perception of systems
as simple mechanisms or as complex systems.
2.Dealing with complex systems NECESSARILY means dealing with more than the
physical constituents since complex systems are irreducible.
3.Relationships between functional components are far more important than how
the pieces fit together and these two aspects do not map into each other in
any 1:1 manner.
4.Complex systems have more than one way with which they can be interacted.
These are distinct(not derivable from each other).
This is just a glimpse of what is at stake here. It's substance requires hard
work and study to master. I don't think you will get very far by making fun
of it or by ignoring it.
respectfully,
Don Mikulecky