Re: The physics of open systems:insight from Rosen's last book

Don Mikulecky (mikuleck@HSC.VCU.EDU)
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:21:31 -0400


Gavin,
Sorry for the shortage of detail in my original post, I'll eventually flesh
it out on my page. You caught the essence though. There are references
galore to physicists who long to "clean up" biological problems like
self-referential loops and the like. Biology is replete with them. It is
not only that they won't go away, but it is also that they are so common as
to make biology the general and physics the special.
Don Mikulecky

Gavin Ritz wrote:

> 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
>
> Dear DonIt is very difficult to make sense of what you are saying in
> such a short comment. But there is something that rings for me in your
> comments. Systems theory is about closed systems and not direct
> causation and how they evolve or devolve. Often cause and effect are so
> far in time (about time again) that it might seem that there is no
> relationship. It is clear to me that physics cannot tell us too much or
> has its limits because it belongs to the school of Discriminant Objects
> (mechanists) whilst I would imagine biology is really part of some
> Continuous Field school of thought. I do not know enough about biology
> to really comment too much here. But Cybernetics which is my interest is
> part of a Continuous Field theory. The most obvious Cybernetic link is
> the mind and the body. Which is a closed loop in terms of causation.
> When often think things, with intention and then act, we often don't see
> or even realise the consequences but they may hit us 12 months later.
> There is a Continuous Field or flux that brings us to the situation but
> we often only see it in isolation.
> And try explain cause and effect in a linear way (Discriminant Object).
> Hence my deep interest in Temporal Horisons because it can go a long way
> in linking causation.
> At present I am not aware of a unifying or field theory for physics and
> quantum mechanics, and my guess it will not come from the Discriminant
> Objects of thought, but from Biology or cybernetics or systems theory.
> Kindest
> Gavin Ritz
> Godzone New Zealand
>
> >