Excellent reply, BB. I meant to PM it as an FYI because Williams said he couldn’t participate.
==In any case, it seems to me we have to be careful about “mixing our metaphors”: speculations about meaning belong to philosophy and theology, not to science.
I think the autopoietic hierarchy has implications for all three. Science is more than just information gathering. In fact, I would argue that the most important aspect of science involves the interpretation of the same. If the various constituents of life are designed, then part of the job of science will be to discover the purpose of said designs. To my mind, such an endeavor overlaps with the concept of meaning.
All the best—GGG
While I agree with you that the AP hierarchy "has implications" beyond science, we still need to recognize that science, qua science, is not "in the meaning business."
"Meaning" in nature is something that only man cares about: a "molecular machine" going from a before state to an after state doesn't need to know what the message "means"; it just needs correct, clear instructions that enable it to contribute to securing the needful biological ends of the total organism of which it is a constituent.
It's odd; but the meaning of science is not something that can be elucidated on the basis of the currently prevailing scientific method, which presupposes the doctrine of naturalism. Meaning is not a "natural" phenomenon.
But science ever since Francis Bacon has chosen to impose this limitation on itself; i.e., the expectation that all natural phenomena have natural causes, which can be discovered by direct observation, and tested by replicable experiments. It wasn't always that way; but it sure is now, in spades.
Thank you ever so much for writing, GGG!