In other words, in Rosen's model it is counterproductive to think of time as reducible to a series of discrete, "quantized" steps moving irreversibly from past to present to future. Instead, we are invited to think of time in terms of flow — or as Rosen puts it on pages 222–223, i.e., with respect to a class of material objects called "machines" — of time as a transducer of causal events that relate back to a formal cause, the system's "program." Which respecting the class or set of machines is essentially algorithmic in character.
At this point in the text, we have a description of "machine" — a material system in nature classified generically as a mechanism with "special" properties. As such, Rosen regards the machine description as too "impoverished" (a correlative of "special") in the causal entailment department to have much to say about material systems in nature of the class living organisms. (Pardon my redundancy there.)
The figure or diagram in Life Itself that so entrances me is the one that appears on page 251 as [10C.6].
Though conditioned on an "if," it has a certain beauty to it....
Thanks so much for getting back to me with the page cite! I was looking for the "chasing" reference in later chapters, forgetting that in context it referred to Rosen's discussion of machines.
In any case, the Shannon model would seems to apply to whatever case we're looking at. That is, whether from the standpoint is of the machine (e.g., "chasing", as defined by a program or algorithm) or of biological systems (relentlessly non-algorithmic "life"), "efficient cause looking to impress material cause because that's what formal cause specifies and final cause requires" is the rule applying to both. And to inorganic nature also.
I fear these issues are tiresome for most readers, dearest sister in Christ. But I have to say no thinker has excited me more than Robert Rosen since my "discovery" of Eric Voegelen in 1985. :^)
And thus he joins my "pantheon of truly great ones"....
Just to say I think it's time for me to "put a sock in in." :^)
Thank you as ever, dearest sister in Christ, for all your help and able guidance!
I'm very pleased to hear that Rosen is at the top of your list of great ones! He certainly got my attention as well.
For the moment, most all of the Rosen-speak is between you and me. But I expect as the concepts have a chance to sprout and grow, we'll pick up a few more correspondents.
After all, the subject "what is life v non-life/death in nature" seems to come up a lot around here.