Hi Glen
The reason my points were phrased that way was due to the subject of this
thread.
The "vs." paints holism / reductionism as a black vs white "fight", whereas
there is a
whole spectrum (and not only of grays) in between (and beyond) not
necessarily in
coonflict ("Ebony and Ivory ..").
Just FYI, although I am an engineer (who had no inclination to go into
formal research - I briefly drifted into designing some tiny aspects of
"the engines of war") my interest in complexity is almost entirely driven by
religion / philosophy; Aristotle, Socrates .. Rashevsky, Rosen, etc. with a
focus on transmission of biological information via genetics (and is
unconnected to my.work life) .
Returning to my point (1) - ie "non-computable" biological entities, I
propose that this further reduces to defining if there is actually a limit
to the smallest "bit" of information. For eg, is an electron (or atom)
computable? My rough and ready approach to determining which biological
systems are computable (and dare I say you would have encountered some
variant of this in your own complexity adventures) abandons mathematical
formalisms entirely (if you know the answer why frame the question) dwells
on the the "reality" of "Man". For, those who say that "Man" is "real" and a
"creation" usually fall within the "computable"camp, whereas those who
favour the "unreality" line would say Man is non-computable..
Your point about mystics/seers (possibly / occasionally) being a few hundred
years ahead of science, is not too far off the mark. In the context of
Zeno's.paradox, extracting even the slightest sliver from the progression
would render the infinite computable,. So when we "measure" it affects
reality (?) and fools (deludes) us into believing that we have "solved"
(computed) the problem. However, I have no problem with such approximate
computation ("pseudo-science") if it delivers some practical application
(sooner rather than later).
Finally, I wonder why Vladymir perceives us to be idealists who put up with
"corruption"
Sarbajit
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:07 AM, glen e. p. ropella <
g...@agent-based-modeling.com> wrote:
>
> You make some interesting points; but they're phrased in a way that
> makes it difficult to respond. I'll just tick off a few things I think
> stand out.
>
> I don't think it's very easy to justify the assertion that any given
> biological system is non-computable. It seems to me that such a
> justification would have to be a _demonstration_ that something was
> non-computable. And based on the way computability is defined, such a
> demonstration would consist of showing that the system was definitely
> beyond the capabilities of a universal turing machine. Hence,
> determining which biological systems are computable and which are not
> doesn't seem like a simple task to me.
>
> Similarly, determining which parts of the data/info glut contributors
> will lead to the next leap of insight and which parts are just noise or
> trivial doesn't seem so simple to me, either. So, it seems to me that
> you're throwing the term "pseudo-science" around a little too loosely.
> Granted, there is a lot of pseudo-science out there. And it can be
> difficult to tell the difference because, invariably, one has to wade
> into the jargon and do a non-trivial amount of research to
> differentiate. And none of us has the time to do such delving into
> every discipline. And that's why we rely on social networks and
> reputation, perhaps too much at times. But it's working so far! In
> fact, I would assert that the rather mystical statements you make in
> your bullets (3) and (4) can be (somewhat) defended from a scientific
> perspective NOW; but that only a few hundred years ago, those statements
> could only come from mystics and the religious. No scientist would
> stake his reputation on these sorts of metaphysical statements. But
> because these "pseudo-science reductionist" methods are _working_, we
> can begin to build the case that those very same methods, while
> satisficing, are not accurate enough to capture the vanishing point that
> is reality.
>
> Of course, this is just a restatement of critical rationalism. While we
> _know_ that our "pseudo-science reductionist" methods will ultimately be
> proven inadequate, we also know that they each take us a tiny step
> closer to the limit. And to get over Zeno's paradox, we sporadically
> construct theories that repackage all or most of what's come before to
> take us a huge leap forward. But we'll never get there. And we've
> known that for quite some time (at least since the early 1900s).
>
> So, it seems that your (4) is a well accepted position to me, even
> amongst many of the scientists fully engaged in what you're calling
> "pseudo-science reductionist" methods.
>
> The old saying comes to mind: It may not be perfect; but it's the best
> we have!
>
>
============================================================
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
