Georgina Woodward
I just knew that you would trot out a dictionary definition of “system”, which only goes to prove my point that you haven’t got a clue about what a system is.
I think that in maybe 90% of the comments I have made, I have talked about the difference between a set of equations and a system. A set of equations with associated numbers can’t represent a viable, moving mathematical system, including the real-world mathematical system. This fact has been noted by quite a few prominent physicists. To represent a viable, moving mathematical system, you need to use logical connective symbols to represent the mathematical system’s knowledge of itself, and to represent the mathematical system moving itself in response to that knowledge. These logical connectives represent necessary aspects of a viable, moving real-world mathematical system that can’t be represented by equations, categories and numbers alone.
Similarly, with living systems. The essential aspects of a viable living system are NOT the primitive deterministic physics of a living system acquiring energy from its environment. The essential aspects of a viable living system are exactly the same as the essential aspects of a viable, moving real-world mathematical system. Living matter (and indeed pre-living matter) needs to:
- Know/ experience itself and, to a greater or lesser degree, analyse that knowledge/experience (hunger?)
- Know/ experience its environment via interactions with its environment, and, to a greater or lesser degree, analyse that knowledge/ experience (danger?)
- Be able to move itself in response to the knowledge/ experience of e.g. hunger
- Be able to move itself in response to the knowledge/ experience of e.g. danger
The essential aspects of a viable living system are exactly the same as the essential aspects of a viable, moving real-world mathematical system.