Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
> Dear Don:
>
> Your brief review of the latest writings from Rosen is too short and too
> terse for anyone to make much comment on.
I wasn't reviewing...just making a quick sumarry. Sorry you can't follow
this snippit. I'll develop the idea and post it on my web page with the
rest already there:
http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/
>
>
> 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.
Then why does he call it "epistemology" when he does philosophy and
"mathematics" when he does category theory?
> Thus, a rapid change in his philosophy is not shocking, merely a
> surprise.
It would be to me. I have never observed a rapid change. It is ALL so
consistent!
> 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.
But we were talking about the conditions for such stability, not the
description.
>
>
> 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.)
Please don't mistate things like that. You project "flaming" on to me below.
I declined engaging in ANY conversation where you were using abusive
language directed at me rather than discussing the issues. I have the posts
so please don't deny that.
> 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.
>
>
> Let's discuss these flaws.
> 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.
This can be cleared up. I was being brief. I can't deal with discussions
you had with someone unless you can reproduce them.
>
>
> 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.
For what purpose?
>
>
> 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.
Be happy to.....but will post them on my web page as I have in the past so
that the details can be there without undo length here. I first needed to
see if there was interest. I'm confident that once people see the details
most of what troubles you will turn out to be personal, not general. I DO
want to see your ctique of the category theory. With out the abuse this
time please.
>
>
> 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
>
>
I hope you don't see any flaming in these replies. I remind you that it was
because of flaming on your part that I ended the conversation last
time.Respectfully,
> Don Mikulecky