Is complexity theory anti-reductionist?

From: James N Rose <>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:51:56 -0800

To the ISCE list; cc's to related topic listservs.

Dear At et al.,

"Consideration" is a dual-process, not 'either-or'.

When mapped vis a vis "holism" that is requisitely true.
The consideration of a 'particular' occurs because
such 'particular' -is a representative member- of the
extended, unvoiced, unspecified set(s) it is resident
and member of, and - and even as -, the cognitive
focus/consideration -process- seemingingly truncates
out and disregards that which is not present and or
not obvious.

Think of it in regard to the field-ground graphic
images used in exploring cognitive psychology.

Do you see the old woman or the young one? Do you
see the cup or the two faces? Do you see the individual
torso-figures or do you see the single face?

The whole is implicitly present in -all- those,
and any, cases under all conditions.

Simply because one cannot avoid collapsing waves
functions when -participating- interactively with
existence -- doesn't mean that relationships between
'uncollapsed wave functions' are both/either
'unaccessable' OR 'un-considerable' ; that such
relations are 'non-existent'.

Not only -must- such relationships exist, but because
the -whole- of existence .. -to be- pandemically,
exhaustively, "whole" .. must have universal
consistencies and coherencies (which are 'communcation
properties') that infuse all events and processes and
occurences .. invariantly and without exclusion.

The structure and nature of 'existence' .. persistence
maintainable/maintained during communing relations ..
requires the above conditions and properties.

And it is _those_ conditions~properties that all that
we discuss and consider are representatives of. It
is the state of existence within which General Systems
ideations voices its eminence.

The holo-relations I've written out above comprise
the existential proposition I have been making for
decades nows, enunciating it as a post-Godel paradigm.
Even in the face of a global community of thinkers
which identifies Godel via his Incompleteness Theorems
as the pinnacle of logic.

The flaw in Godel's logic rests in his trying to
account for information accessiblity that is limited
-after- interaction/wavecollapse/truncation.

When, in point of fact, such i/wc/t cannot even occur
if there is an absence of properties through which
information pandemically -is accessible- with -all-
of its Potentia. Which means, that the properties
of the whole _supercedes_ any limitiations occurring
as a result of i/wc/t. Which properties -must existentially
continue and be concurrent with- all events, states and
conditions -after- any such i/wc/t.

The properties of 'the whole' are imminent and inferrable
and discernable even in limited sets.

My Integrity Paradigm has consistently maintained this
extensiveness, as I've presented varieties of notions
to you all over the years. One issue has been and
still is, very clear: in order to achieve a unitary
science~logic~wisdom~sensibility about the universe
it will be necessary to step beyond Godel's Incompleteness
Theorems. His ideas are -not incorrect-. They are
-self incomplete-. They are still synchrontic with the
universe (by default of the propositions I explicated above),
but they are pre-limiting and deficient to handle the
properties which are now obvious and require -inclusion-
in a universal schemata of being.

To restate it as I've presented it here and elsewhere before:

"We -know something- {about the qualities and operant properties}
of realms of existence which we have never -explicitly experienced
or made part of our 'known/established information' set- and
which Godel('s logic) would demand of us that we exclude and
abstain from making -any statements- about."

We 'know something' that Godel would claim that we could
not know and demand we not conversantly include. We have
real access to information that his Zeno-ic logic would
restrict us from even acknowledging~recognizing.

Godelian proponents and practioners must re-think their
positions. If not entirely abandon the Incompleteness
Theorems as a quaint artifact of logic, explored on the
way to a Univera.

Jamie Rose
Ceptual Institute
December 29, 2002
Received on Sun Dec 29 2002 - 11:49:58 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST