Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Natural Law and the Modeling Relation » Natural Law and the Modeling Relation

Natural Law and the Modeling Relation

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3

Natural Law and the Modeling Relation
Legion
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117
Posted 04/28/08 - 06:14 AM:
Subject: Natural Law and the Modeling Relation 		quote post
#1
Science as a philosophy and art rests on a handful premises which we must take on faith if we are to proceed. Any attempt to prove these premises only results in circular reasoning. In the end, they must be accepted or rejected. These premises are provided for us by the assertions of Natural Law. And according to biologist Robert Rosen these are the assertions of Natural Law.

1)The succession of events or phenomena that we perceive in the ambience is not entirely arbitrary or whimsical; there are relations (e.g. causal relations) manifest in the world of phenomena.
2)The relations between phenomena that we have just posited are, at least in part, capable of being perceived and grasped by the human mind, i.e., by the cognitive self.

Rosen then goes on to show that the modeling relation is a concrete embodiment of Natural Law. Here is a further quote from his book Life Itself.

“Specifically, the causal entailments manifested by a natural system provide the orderliness required of the ambience. Inferential entailment in a formal system is a way of providing the orderliness required of the self. The art of bringing the two into correspondence, through the establishment of a definite modeling relation between them, is the articulation of the former within the later; it is in effect science itself.”

These two entirely different systems (natural and formal) are brought into a modeling relation by the establishment of two “dictionaries”. One dictionary encodes (abstracts) phenomena in the natural system into propositions in the formal system (e.g. measurement). And one dictionary decodes (de-abstracts) propositions in the formal system into phenomena in the natural system (e.g. prediction).

I would enjoy discussing this with you guys and for further reading see Chapter 3 of Rosen’s book Life Itself and/or go to this link…

http://www.panmere.com/?p=39
We sense. We reason. We predict.
We don't always get those right.
Legion
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117
Posted 05/06/08 - 05:30 AM:
quote post
#2
“I have been, and remain, entirely dedicated to the idea that modeling is the essence of science and the habitat of all epistemology.” – Robert Rosen

This post has been here for over a week. And none of you have anything to say? I find that surprising.
We sense. We reason. We predict.
We don't always get those right.
rigelrover
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 559
Posted 10/23/09 - 09:49 AM:
quote post
#3
One of the things that we also take on faith, in science, is the time-like nature of causality; i.e. progressive causality.

The intelligibility of nature is a strong indicator to us that there is intrinsic order. But should we take it for granted (i.e. a properly basic belief)?

The usefulness of models (e.g. languages) are also indicative that we should, perhaps.

The intelligibility and rationality of nature sometimes lead to intentionality as paradigm for understanding the nature of reality.

Edited by rigelrover on 10/23/09 - 10:00 AM
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation.
If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap
between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself,
then 'true' mystery does exist.
ciceronianus
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"
Posted 10/23/09 - 10:20 AM:
quote post
#4
Legion wrote:

1)The succession of events or phenomena that we perceive in the ambience is not entirely arbitrary or whimsical; there are relations (e.g. causal relations) manifest in the world of phenomena.
2)The relations between phenomena that we have just posited are, at least in part, capable of being perceived and grasped by the human mind, i.e., by the cognitive self.



Just why are these propositions matters of "faith"? It would seem to me we have reasons for accepting them. Does he believe we don't?
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce

"There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey
To Mega Therion
Grand Moff
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 178
Posted 10/23/09 - 03:20 PM:
quote post
#5
While I agree that science is a modeling of sorts, I would say Rosen's (and, I suppose, your) account of it seems flawed. For one thing, we do not take your points (1) and (2) 'on faith'; it is simply that they are a feature of every theory we have developed so far. One could make a Kantian sort of argument that they are a necessary feature of all such theories, but that doesn't mean we accept them on faith, either. We accept them because they work; because they are useful as guidelines for interacting with our environment and so on.

And I have doubts about your phenomena/proposition distinction. After all, what we usually consider observations are really a sort of low-level theories. Take the example of seeing an apple. One would usually report this as 'I see an apple.'. But this is actually a theory explaining that red blot in my visual field. Even the talk of red blots is a theory (we can never be sure if there isn't a potentially more successful way of describing our experience); I would say that every statement is a part of some theory or other.
Legion
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117
Posted 10/24/09 - 06:41 AM:
quote post
#6
Rigelrover, I have come to suspect that time may be complex. I think it may not be as simple as we have typically viewed it here in the West.

Ciceronianus and To Mega Therion, I guess I should have been more clear about the “faith”(for lack of a better word) in science. I can think of no philosophically ironclad proof that phenomena entail other phenomena. I would be extremely interested in seeing such proofs if you could provide them.

As for the proposition/phenomena distinction, I admit I tend to agree with you to some extent TMT. I can’t help but suspect that models are utilized even during perception. It seems to me that young infants, for instance, must learn to see their world. But I think if we are considering propositions then we are entirely within a formal system. For instance, if we are in an algebra and we assert that a=2b then I don’t see that this must necessarily pertain to any phenomena (though it may, either as a result of measurement or as a generated hypothesis to be tested).
We sense. We reason. We predict.
We don't always get those right.
Arkady
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431
Posted 10/24/09 - 06:57 AM:
quote post
#7
Legion wrote:
�"Specifically, the causal entailments manifested by a natural system provide the orderliness required of the ambience. Inferential entailment in a formal system is a way of providing the orderliness required of the self. The art of bringing the two into correspondence, through the establishment of a definite modeling relation between them, is the articulation of the former within the later; it is in effect science itself.”


Does the quote above make sense to anyone? Really?

I have read some of Rosen's work (incidentally at the behest of another person interested in the philosophy of biology). I honestly found it to be absolute nonsense. The quote above from Rosen has more than just a whiff of post-mod/post-structuralist blather about it. His colleague Donald C. Mikulecky (website here) has a similar worldview. Take a spin through Rosen's Wikipedia page for a brief overview and links to some of his papers. Here you'll find an exposition of Rosen's thought. It's...not good, to put it as charitably as I can.

Legion, as I noticed you've also asked John Searle about Rosen, I'm assuming you take his work seriously and are an admirer. I dearly hope you will not construe my post as an attack on YOU, but an attack on Rosen's obfuscatory ideas.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
-T.H. Huxley
ciceronianus
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"
Posted 10/24/09 - 07:00 AM:
quote post
#8
Legion wrote:

Ciceronianus and To Mega Therion, I guess I should have been more clear about the “faith”(for lack of a better word) in science. I can think of no philosophically ironclad proof that phenomena entail other phenomena. I would be extremely interested in seeing such proofs if you could provide them.




"Ironclad proofs" and absolute certainty aren't required though, are they, for any practical purpose? It seems silly to demand them when, in fact, we don't, and get along very well without them. I cannot understand why we even profess to doubt what we rely on all the time, quite successfully, in science as well as "real life."
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce

"There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey
Legion
Graduate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117
Posted 10/24/09 - 07:01 AM:
quote post
#9
Oh it’s no problem Arkady. I don’t expect that just because I find something compelling that everyone should find it compelling.

If you don’t agree with Rosen’s outline of natural law, then how would you do it?
We sense. We reason. We predict.
We don't always get those right.
Arkady
Assistant Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431
Posted 10/24/09 - 07:06 AM:
quote post
#10
Legion wrote:
Oh it’s no problem Arkady. I don’t expect that just because I find something compelling that everyone should find it compelling.

If you don’t agree with Rosen’s outline of natural law, then how would you do it?


I think Rosen's ideas are more than just a tweak away from being salvageable, to be honest.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
-T.H. Huxley
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Powered by WSN Forum

The time is now 11/21/09 - 03:17 AM.