Re: [Fis] Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature?

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Guy A Hoelzer wrote:

> I doubt we disagree in substance here, but I would take issue with the
> statement that "there are no laws for biology in the same sense as the
> laws of physics", because I think the laws of physics apply in all
> realms. In other words, the laws of physics are not limited to physics
> in an exclusionary way, because all other disciplines exist within the
> bounds of physics. Therefore, the laws of physics are also laws of
> biology to me. After picking this nit, I would agree that there are no
> additional, proprietary laws of this sort within biology that do not
> extend to non-biological physical systems.

Hi Guy!

No disagreement whatsoever. I was trying to be brief. The laws of physics
continue to hold for biotic systems, they just lose their capability to
*determine" the results. To summarize Elsasser's arguments in three words
-- combinatorics overwhelm law. By which is meant that for any lawful
constraint there usually is a multitude of possible configurations that
satisfy that constraint. There being no discrimination among the multitude
as regards the law in question, something else must do the discriminating.

I propose that something else is "process". What I mean by processes and
how they work is explained in the citation, which I repeat here:

<http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan/ISEPP.DOC>

The best,
Bob

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Ulanowicz | Tel: (410) 326-7266
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory | FAX: (410) 326-7378
P.O. Box 38 | Email <ulan@cbl.umces.edu>
1 Williams Street | Web <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan>
Solomons, MD 20688-0038 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Oct 26 21:42:27 2006