Which then is the same as "explain".
Not really. True, I can describe anything that I can explain, but I mean "explain" using logic and empiricism (that is, I can "explain" how unicorns create rainbows, but in my use this would require an empirically-based explanation and this is impossible).
But are you saying it actually exists?
Of course it does. I don't differentiate between "actually" existing interpretations.
Cause is inferred by the fact that I mentioned creation I think.
That you mention creation assumes a creator, which not only assumes a model of causality without justification but a creator without justification.
For ex: according to Dr Dawkins
I don't care what that moron has ever said.
So what therefore is natural? Where does it come from? What made it? Did it have a beginning? How do laws form within it?
Whence, wherefore, hence, thence, etc., all assume.
In plain English please with basic examples.
Consider a model, simulation, or similar "realization" of a cell and the process of metabolic-repair, and let
f:
A→Bbe a function
"where
f is the process that takes input A and output B...The system Rosen uses for an example is the Metabolism-Repair or [M,R] system. The process, f, in this case stands for the entire metabolism going on in an organism...The transition, f, which is being called metabolism, is a mapping taking some set of metabolites, A, into some set of products, B. What are the members of A? Really everything in the organism has to be included in A, and there has to be an implicit agreement that at least some of the members of A can enter the organism from its environment. What are the members of B? Many, if not all, of the members of A since the transitions in the reduced system are all strung together in the many intricate patterns or networks that make up the organism's metabolism. It also must be true that some members of B leave the organism as products of metabolism...In the context developed so far, the mapping, f, has a very special nature. A functional component has many interesting attributes. First of all, it
exists independent of the material partsthat make it possible.
Reductionism has taught us that every thing in a real system can be expressed as a collection of material parts. This is not so in the case of functional components...Fragmentability is the aspect of systems that can be reduced to their material parts leaving recognizable material entities as the result. A system is not fragmentable is reducing it to its parts destroys something essential about that system. Since the crux of understanding a complex system had to do with identifying the context dependent functional components, they are by definition, not fragmentable". (emphasis added; italics in original)
Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple? In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.).
Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology(
Mathematical and Computational Chemistry). Springer.
"systems biology is concerned with the relationship between molecules and cells; it treats cells as organized, or organizing, molecular systems having both molecular and cellular properties. It is concerned with how life or the
functional properties thereof that are not yet in the molecules, emerge from the particular organization of and interactions between its molecular processes. It uses models to describe particular cells and generalizes over various cell types and organisms to arrive at new theories of cells as molecular systems. It is concerned with explaining and predicting cellular behaviour on the basis of molecular behaviour.
It refers to function in ways that would not be permitted in physics. It addresses an essential minimum complexity exceeding that of any physical chemical system understood until now. It shies away from reduction of the system under study to a collection of elementary particles
. Indeed, it seems to violate many of the philosophical foundations of physics, often in ways unprecedented even by modern physics." (emphases added)
Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F. J., Hofmeyr, J. H. S., & Westerhoff, H. V. (Eds.). (2007).
Systems biology: philosophical foundations. Elsevier.
Not intial casuation would mean that whatever everything is had always been
Only if one assumes a naïve linear causality.
The same seems to apply to circular
Linearity applies to nonlinearity?
Let me give you an ex: evolution happens through random mutations which have no chance of forming anything
If random, then they have the chance of forming everything.[/QUOTE]
