Don't know much about biology; don't know much about physics (This has a
nice ring to it and may be the start of lyrics to a new hit song.), but
I do have a very strong uninformed opinion (for which I am renown). Be
that as it may, I like to think of what I interpret from your comment
about Rosen's insight as akin to self-organizing processes. Still, my
understanding of self-organizing processes differs from those that were
articulated on this same list server recently.
I start with the notion of non physical differences that can make a
physical difference (an extension of Bateman). Then I add the notion
of self referencing loops of differences. Self referencing differences
necessarily infer some memory mechanism and the ability to trade
differences in the form of non physical data. Some might say that this
trading of differences takes place through space and time, but to me
space and time are nothing more or less than forms of physical
differences that in some ways seem to be self referencing and
self-organizing non physical differences.
It is much easier for me to understand this construct as opposed to
theories of quantum mechanics, particle physics and strings etc. So
when I hear Rosen's ideas, they jump right out at me as closely related
notions of what's behind both physics and biology. They also work when
applied to what we call thought and even the notion of -- dare I say it?
-- spirit. Rosen's construct makes perfect sense to me Don. But then I
base my very strong uninformed opinions on not knowing much about
anything.
Norm
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