On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:40:23AM -0500, Phil Henshaw wrote: > > The interesting question is if there might reasonably be no means of > proving a theorem about things you can't observe as that puts them > beyond your 'box' of definitions for proof... I think Rosen's > conclusion that organisms are "closed with respect to efficient > causation" is decidedly true, but unprovable because it's true. It's > implied by observing inaccessible organizational development, missing > content on nature 'between our models', but proof rests on things within > a model. >
I don't think that living systems being "closed to efficient causation" is necessarily being disputed (although I think it is far from proven). Rather, what is being disputed is Rosen's "result" that machines cannot be closed to efficient causation. From what I understand, things like the SCL artificial chemistry (which is definitely a type of machine) is closed to efficient causation in Rosen's sense, but again it must be admitted my understanding of such matters is a little foggy. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
