Your brief review of the latest writings from Rosen is too short and too
terse for anyone to make much comment on.
None the less, I will offer the following opinions. Just opinion, mind
you, just opinion.
These opinions with respect to his work have developed from following
Rosen's writings for more than 15 years and from two long conversations
with him. In addition, his assertions about category theory motivated
me to study this fundamental branch of mathematics for several years.
1. Rosen was a superb critic of physics, but he confused mathematics
with philosophy.
Thus, a rapid change in his philosophy is not shocking, merely a
surprise. The mathematics of category theory, independent of Rosen's
philosophy, certainly could be used to describe a model and a modeling
relation for a stable physical system.
2. Rosen work on the applications of category theory to science was
fundamentaly flawed. (I sought recently to engage you in a conversation
on this matter, but you declined.) It is my opinion that these flaws
are so deep that I can not find the linkages between his mathematics and
living organisms. These flaws may or may not influence one's veiws of
complexity.
3. At the meeting in Amiens in 1996, we pointed out to Rosen, in a paper
on the role of time scales and causality in complex chemical systems,
why a living system must have certain mathematical attributes in order
to reproduce itself. If he took our paper seriously, he had but little
choice to re-consider his views on the relation of category theory to
life, which by and large, ignore the transistion functors necessary to
incorporate time into a categorical model of a living organism. As an
aside, I do not think that the physical or mathematical notion of
"stability" is a valid reference for living organisms.
4. If you would like, I can put you in touch with a local scholar /
mathematician who knew Schrodinger personally. He may provide you with
another perspective of Schrodinger which will help you organize your
thoughts.
5. I have read What is Life several times over the years. From a
historical perspective, it is very very very very difficult for me to
believe that Schrodinger was dissatisfied with quantum mechanics. And
indeed, the success of quantum mechanics in the twenty years preceeding
What is Life, was profound; it continues to grow even today. I do not
find any particular conflict between q.m. and living organisms. Of
course, the applications of quantum mechanics to living organisms are
rare and only very very very crude mathematical approximations, as you
are aware.
I suggest you provide us with more details if you desire any
substantial discussion.
All of the above is just opinion. Please do not "flame out" at me
because I have responded to you request for comments.
Cheers
Jerry
Don Mikulecky wrote:
>
> I am in the process of reviewing Rosen's last book : "Essays on Life
> Itself" for Columbia Univ. Press. First off I recommend it highly!
> It is due out in November.
>
> I just had my mind blown and need some feedback. He discusses
> Schroedinger's essay on "What is Life?" still one more time and puts
> it into still one more new perspective. The essence is like this.
> He claims that Schroedinger was after a new physics(implicitly). He
> also, as always, points out that this is because biology can tell us
> things about matter which the old physics can not. In particular,
> he shows how the old physics leads to certain infinite regressions
> if we seek to have a general theory of STABLE open systems. He then
> shows how the answer can lie in the very same closed loops of
> efficient causation he has developed in other ways using category
> theory on his Metabolism/Repair systems. This line of reasoning
> seems so clear and overpowering that I wonder if I am missing a
> potential flaw. Does it make any sense? Please comment.
> Don Mikulecky