Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 12:45:42 -0400 From: Louis Irwin <lirwin1-AT-ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: BHA: Closure Andy: We are very much in agreement. You are correct to highlight interactions of mechanisms as being essential to openness. We seem to oppose an "isolation" definition of closure, but Caroline's description "isolation in a causal sense" may be equivalent to our view. Caroline: I am uncomfortable with the following statements, because you seem to be saying that closure is the hallmark of systematicity, which would mean there aren't anything as open systems at all. "We have to ask what makes us talk about a 'system' in the first place. Isn't it by virtue of a theory about the interrelationships of various mechanisms that we identify systems? Their closure is what can demonstrate their systematicity." Colin: I said to consider the solar system, or some other suitably large SPATIAL domain, and to assume for the sake of argument that nothing ever crosses its SPATIAL boundary. (I considered temporality later.) You ask: "In which case it is free from *external* influences, no?" Well, it would be free from external SPATIAL influences, but it would not necessarily be free from external influences in general, unless you are using "external" to mean spatially external. You clearly aren't using that meaning, because you go on to say: "Hence closed if by external we mean all influences; temporal, spatial." But my example only requires spatial closure. You then go on to say: "Empirically, of course, we know this is not the case. But nonetheless, if our solar system were free from external influences, then it could be considered closed." Yes, if you use "external" here to mean free from spatial and temporal influences. But, to repeat, my example was one of spatial closure only. You then say: "This doesn't mean, I don't think that we need necessarily expect event regularities." Why not? If a system is closed, no matter what the definition of closure, don't we agree that event regularity is an essential trait of closed systems? Re quantum phenomena. Consider a closed system (by some definition of closure or other). If quantum phenomena were to exist within that system, then event regularity would be lost. Suppose a doomsday machine is connected to a geiger counter in such a way that if at noon of some specific day the reading of the counter is even then the device will explode and destroy the earth, otherwise not. If quantum phenomena are truly random, there is in principle no way to predict the outcome. I conclude that such a system cannot be closed. I offered an example that would have large macrosopic effects, but in ordinary phenomena it is possible that quantum phenomena are largely unimportant to general issues of closure. In other words, although the world would be technically open at a microscopic level, but there would be no emergent effects upwards at the everyday level. The example I gave shows that such microscopic effects can indeed have macrosopic effects (and they routinely do in certain laboratories). As I understand, Roger Penrose believes quantum phenomena are essential to consiousness, in which case they would have important emergent effects. Louis Irwin --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005