[Fwd: [Fwd: The physics of open systems:insight from Rosen's

Don Mikulecky (mikuleck@HSC.VCU.EDU)
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:02:36 -0400


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------E77713D95965287785E80388
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is an attempt to break out of a dialog....

--------------E77713D95965287785E80388
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <owner-complexity-l@VENUS.VCU.EDU>
Received: from venus.vcu.edu ([128.172.1.43]) by dragon.vcu.edu
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.54) with ESMTP id AAA7C6;
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:00:54 -0400
Received: from venus.vcu.edu (venus.vcu.edu [128.172.1.43])
by venus.vcu.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA85222;
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:02:28 -0400
Received: from VENUS.VCU.EDU by VENUS.VCU.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c)
with spool id 2840261 for COMPLEXITY-L@VENUS.VCU.EDU; Thu, 10 Jun
1999 10:02:28 -0400
Received: from venus.vcu.edu (venus.vcu.edu [128.172.1.43]) by venus.vcu.edu
(8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA22226 for
<COMPLEXITY-L@VENUS.VCU.EDU>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:02:27 -0400
Approved-By: mikuleck@HSC.VCU.EDU
Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.12]) by venus.vcu.edu
(8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA41340 for
<COMPLEXITY-L@VENUS.VCU.EDU>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:37:02 -0400
Received: from wotan.ens.fr (wotan-gw.ens.fr [129.199.1.19]) by nef.ens.fr
(8.9.3/beig-1.0) with ESMTP id PAA14221 for
<COMPLEXITY-L@VENUS.VCU.EDU>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:35:06 +0200 (MET
DST)
Received: from ecpc01.ens.fr (ecpc01 [129.199.18.82]) by wotan.ens.fr
(8.8.5/jb-1.1) id PAA04387 for <COMPLEXITY-L@VENUS.VCU.EDU>; Thu, 10
Jun 1999 15:35:05 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Sender: gonzalez@biologie.ens.fr
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by venus.vcu.edu id JAA35208
Message-ID: <199906101335.PAA04387@wotan.ens.fr>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:35:05 +0200
Reply-To: VCU Complexity Research Group <COMPLEXITY-L@VENUS.VCU.EDU>
Sender: VCU Complexity Research Group <COMPLEXITY-L@VENUS.VCU.EDU>
From: Andrew GONZALEZ <gonzalez@WOTAN.ENS.FR>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: The physics of open systems:insight from Rosen's last
book]
To: COMPLEXITY-L@VENUS.VCU.EDU
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by venus.vcu.edu id KAA85222

This I have to reply to. I find these comments in general synical and
unsubstantiated.

>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.

I don't see any mathematics in the entire chapter on epistemology in 'Lif=
e
Itself'. Rosen was always very clear on his epistemological stance.
Everything from 'Fundamentals of Measurement' to 'Life Itself' indicates
that he argued/critiqued from the stance of empiricism (ie knowledge of
phenomena in the ambiance results from a mapping of external objects,
through our sensory organs, usually aided by a measuring instrument, to o=
ur
brain. Usually via a labelling of these events by numbers). Rosen may or =
may
not have held this epistemological belief himself, I don't know, and one
doesn't need to know. It is clear though that in order for Rosen to be re=
ad
by the rest of the scientific community he had to begin his critique from
inside the system. The vast majority of biologists are clearly empiricist=
s,
biology remains a science obsessed with measurement. The idea being becau=
se
we have already accepted our choice of formalism (mechanics) it suffices =
to
just encode through measurement and eventually after enough measurement t=
he
predictions will come forth!!
The modelling relation is as clear a statement about scientific
empistemology and its relation to the modelling process as one can find i=
n
the literature. Furthermore, I don't see any change in his philosophy.
Everything he says is from within the empiricist realm. That is, if we
accept this epistemological stance, what are its limitations and what for=
mal
systems, other tham mechanics and the state concept, could we use to bett=
er
integrate and comprehend the phenomena of life we are measuring. In fact =
I
remember clearly a phrase in 'Life itself' were Rosen emphasizes that we
should not forget that system state is a CONCEPT, a NOTION, rather than a=
n
OBSERVATION. To confuse this would be to confuse mathematics and philosop=
hy,
clearly Rosen never did.

>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.

Well not being a mathematician or a Category Theorist either it is diffic=
ult
for me to say much about this comment. It is, however, clearly extremely
important that as many people as possible read critically Rosen and his
Category Theoretic approach. However, I have read (!!!) Dr. Louie's chapt=
er
titled 'Categorical System Theory' where in his own words he concludes:

"In sum, this work represents a formal extension of some of the ideas
suggested in Rosen (1978 FM). I have expressed the fundamentals of
measurement and representation of natural systems in the setting of abstr=
act
mathematical theory of categories. I believe i have achieved in this work=
,
with perhaps the exception of the last section, a level of methematical
rigour that is recognizable as such.......I have managed to weave togethe=
r
several theories of natural (alias biological, aging, dissipative,
organismic, living complex...) systems from the standpoint of our
categorical system theory. So this categorical extension of Rosen (1978)
does indeed look promising."

None of the above suggests that the linkage of this mathematics to living
organisms is fundamentally flawed. On the contrary it seems that this
language is very appropriate. I get the impression that Dr. Louie is a
mathematician of considerable talent who also worked a great deal with I.=
W.
Richardson on their phenomenlogical calculus. I suspect that if the Rosen=
's
category theortic approach to living systems had been flawed it would hav=
e
been picked up at this point. If not let's try to engage some category
theoreticians in these conversations.

Sincerely,
Andrew

Andrew Gonzalez
Ecole Normale Sup=E9rieure
Laboratoire d'Ecologie
46, rue d'Ulm
F-75230 Paris cedex 05
France
e-mail: gonzalez@biologie.ens.fr
Tel: 33-1.44.32.37.97
Fax: 33-1.44.32.38.85

--------------E77713D95965287785E80388--