Dear Prof. Gonzalez
I received you comments via an indirect route. Thank you for your
interest.
Your comments seem to miss the point and refer to superficial aspects of
the post.
The philosophy of science is at issue, not the general nature of
philosophy (such as empirical, analytical, existential, etc). In
particular, Rosen addressed himself to the distinction between a
philosophy of physics and a philosophy of biology. That he chose to use
a particular type of abstract mathematics known as "category theory" is
neither here nor there. The point is that he choose to make his case in
terms of symbolic logic as opposed to semantic logic.
As Heidegger points out, a basic issue in such cases is the nature of
identity.
Heidegger points toward the distinction between:
A = A
A is A.
Rosen sought to bridge this gap by using category theory.
You may not consider this a confusion between mathematics and
philosophy.
I do.
It appears that I read to much into Don's terse statement.
>From what Don wrote, I assumed that he was referring to a change in
philosophy by Rosen. Apparently Don did not intend to imply that Rosen
had changed.
I reserve further comment about the relation between Rosen and
philosophy until such time as that I can actually read Rosen's new
book. I would suggest to you that Don's views on Rosen's views are
often well grounded.
With regard to you conjecture that:
>Rosen was always very clear on his epistemological stance.
I disagree. He obscured the basic structures of life and the basic
nature of biology and substituted vague mathematical formalisms which
were seriously flawed from the natural science perspective. At issue
is the relation between mathematics and biology and how we use
mathematics to inform ourselves about living organisms.
> 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 an
> OBSERVATION. To confuse this would be to confuse mathematics and philosop=
> hy, clearly Rosen never did.
IMHO, the distinction between a concept (an internal state of a human
mind) and an observation, is deep and I have repeated stated so in
several publications. To be certain that you do not mis-understand, we
agree on the importance of Rosen's statement. It is not a particularly
novel statement from a philosophical veiwpoint.
Your assertion about that
> clearly Rosen never did.
is merely a conjecture which is ungrounded.
With regard to:
> However, I have read (!!!) Dr. Louie's chapter
> 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 am not familiar with Dr. Louie's work. Please post the reference.
I recently re-read portions of Fundaments of Representations, it is
primarily based on automorphisms! Are you aware of an earlier book
(1970's) by Arbib?
With regard to:
>I suspect that if the Rosen 's
> category theortic approach to living systems had been flawed it would have
> been picked up at this point.
You are right.
Actually, the flaws was picked up nearly a decade ago.
I discussed the flaws in some detail several years ago with Don during a
visit to VCU.
Initially, the flaws concerned the nature of theoretical chemistry and
quantum mechanics.
The challenge, of course, is use the power of category theory to to
describe the dynamics of living systems. No small challenge. Rosen's
brillant writings provide a powerful benchmark which one can use for
reflection.
With regard to:
> This I have to reply to. I find these comments in general synical and
> unsubstantiated.
My comments were clearly labeled as my opinion and given in response to
Don's request.
You may wish to reflect on you comments and ask or attempt to
communicate why my opinions are "in general synical and
unsubstantiated."
Don is a very bright, well educated, intelligent, and personable man.
We just happen to disagree on the meaning of Rosen's views on living
organisms and the nature of complexity.
Perhaps you are frustrated by the distinctions between my beliefs and
the extensive interpretations of Rosen's work by Don?
If my vague conjecture about your source of frustration contains even a
grain of truth, then you can expect that your frustrations will increase
in the future. Sorry about that.
Cheers
Jerry
> >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.
>
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--