I don't think it could, because neither candle, lit or unlit, would be a complex system within Rosen's meaning. In general, inorganic systems are not complex systems.
Just thinking through what you wrote, how does one "disassemble" a candle? I suppose one could melt it, or smash it up with a hammer. But to "reassemble" it would not reconstitute the original candle. The only thing about that candle (or any candle) that doesn't change is the "form" or idea of "candle." But coming straight from Plato, "form" (i.e., formal cause) is usually regarded as an unscientific notion of the sort Francis Bacon wanted to banish from science.
Also it seems unscientific to ascribe "ineffable properties" to a candle; i.e., its quality of "litness." Its "litness" has nothing to do with the internal properties of a candle. I.e., it doesn't itself produce the fire. That has to be added to it, from outside the candle system.
In short, I'm not sure what your question is, NicknamedBob. Maybe some of the above ideas might help in refining/reformulating it?
Thank you so much for writing!
In the earlier post, NicknamedBob said: "However, if you disassemble a lit candle, you may "extinguish" an ineffable property of the candle that cannot be reassembled readily. "
That point strikes home with me because if you break down a rock, a live rabbit and a dead rabbit - a similar phenomenon occurs. Ultimately, having broken them down, we observe they are all made of the same particles and fields. But some non-physical thing was lost along the way that the live rabbit became dead.
"I don't think it could, because neither candle, lit or unlit, would be a complex system within Rosen's meaning. In general, inorganic systems are not complex systems.
Just thinking through what you wrote, how does one "disassemble" a candle? I suppose one could melt it, or smash it up with a hammer. But to "reassemble" it would not reconstitute the original candle."
In careful accommodation to the spirit of this analysis, one could disassemble a candle molecule by molecule, and the wick thread by thread, reassembling the candle in a new place with every component in its proper place. One would be hard pressed to be able to distinguish any difference from one to the other.
In my example of the lit candle, even this careful and laborious procedure is met with difficulty. For the bottom of the candle, one would proceed as above. Once you arrive at the area of melted wax, you will begin to perceive a few extra dimensions to the problem.
In theory, one could record the temperature of the wax, and continue further. Eventually, when you reach the flame, trying to record the temperatures of the atoms of carbon incandescing in the rising prodicts of combustion become even theoretically perhaps impossible.
The clever student will suggest that the practical thing to do is to extinguish the flame and then re-ignite it. But that is not the same thing at all.
We poets often accord candles a propensity to imitate or allegorically stand in for living things. One begins to understand why this is effective in studying the question I posed.