[FRIAM] not enough of Robert Rosen

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> What's important is the ability to form, use, and abandon languages (at
> will, obviously).
>
> And any system where the language is fixed will be fragile to ambiguity
> _because_ of Gödel's result.
>
> The only thing remaining is whether (and how much) contact and
> interaction with the environment provides what's needed for forming,
> using, and abandoning languages.  If, as may be the case, all
> assemblages of formal systems merely amount to a more complicated formal
> system, then even an assemblage won't do what we're after.  But if the
> world is somehow "supra-computation", then perhaps sporadic interactions
> with the environment can help a computer resolve unexpected exceptions
> gracefully.
>
> - From that perspective the phrase "holarchy of formal systems" may well
> be self-contradictory and only reality is capable of forming holarchies.
>   
Well, I don't think requiring that a formal systems be grounded in 
semantics leads to a hopeless cascade of unintelligible stigmergic 
relations, uncomparable to others.   At least from the point of view of 
building working control systems...