Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism

["John M" <***>]

Tim quoted: ( Essays (p. 294-295), ):

"In a nutshell, we find that impredicativities (i.e., complexity) and pure
syntax are incompatible"

cryptic? I find a visualization for it: syntax is WITHIN (after in a sense)
the symbolic, which is at the 'edge' of modeling, so I consider syntax - as
language itself, within the reductionist interpretational domain: topically
identified, to say the least.
Impredicative, however (and as I guess, RR did NOT use it in that
mathematical meaning as Steve K. does) is wholistic, exceeding the
reductionist limitations (e.g. all the predicatives, listables, simulables,
computables).
Impredicatives and syntax MUST be incompatible!
I find, however the further 'conclusion' puzzling:

"We must accordingly either invoke semantic elements transcendental to
syntax (e.g., taking of limits) or (what may perhaps be equivalent)
utilizing two or more incommensurable
time frames."

First I wonder if in the ("e.g....)"  the 'of' is a typo instead "off"? or
is does it mean "taking [in] limits"? The 1st way is invoking the
impredicatives, the second sinks into reductionism. The (2nd part)
'alternative', IMO, is the reductionist way, since (in my cosmic narrative's
sense) time and space are products of the 'closed' universe formation, eo
ipso the way towards reductionism (from the unlimited, impredicative
plenitude-status). Time is a boundary (for motion), just as space
(extension) is boundary as well.
Of course all limited models are time- and space dependent (controlled?) in
our thinking, (expressed or not) as we 'reduce' the selection of he
impredicative into our boundary-enclosed models.
As  Tim wrote:

"we cannot build nonfractionable systems by purely syntactic means either."
In other words: No wholism (complexity) is ever  attainable by conventional
synthesis from parts of (limited) models.
(This is a variant of the 'complexity groundrule' #1: the impossibility of
building (up) complexities from (listable) model-components. )

I am not afraid to follow this line to an "ad absurdum" point as it looks if
we think in conventional ways. Sometimes we cannot see how it makes sense,
but without such prowess we end up with a hybrid at best. Rosen was in a
delicate position: he forced himself to express things in a way what the
general (scientific) audience is willing to follow. So he used compromising
expressions. I don't.
I hope I found SOME people with whom straight talk is affordable
(not the least as a result of Rosen's activity). I am a loner, no bonds to
faculty, students, publishers. I don't make even a salary by my activity. I
am free to think. (A great feeling).
As I expressed it to Roberto (in private) about my way of thinking:
"Unorthodox. I expect 99.999% of mankind to disagree. Of the remaining
60,000 people 59,875 will not understand it and the rest wouldn't care.
Maybe 20-25 persons will react, some will like it... "

Finally: (Tim):
"So all nonfractionable systems, biological or otherwise, seem to embody
this notion of differing and incompatible timeframes that Judith described
below."

If I say about a "system" the specifier "biological" I stepped into a level
of the reductionist domain, even if I allow impredicative notions into it.
Similarly a 'timeframe' is no different from another -maybe topical or
fuctional - specifier. It cuts the applicabiity into predicative boundaries.
Time is not adequately defined in our usage. Together with space they are
the fundamental 'first' coordinates upon which to build our thinking
(reductionism). The mind (idea, imagination, thought) can transcend both.
I would be careful to draw conclusions upon something basically
unidentified.

Sorry, my scientific agnosticism works overtime.

With best regards

John


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism


> Speaking of time....
>
> One of the most striking things I have read in AS was in section 4.2 "Time
> in Newtonian Dynamics". Utilizing Hamiltonians forms, he arrives at the
> conclusion that the time differential "dt" for any two systems will
> generally be unique: "There is a priori no guarantee that the time
> differentials so defined for different conservative systems are in fact
the
> same."
>
> This applies not only to conservative systems, but also arises in his
> discussion of adaptation/evolution in AS. (p. 375) The "dt" for individual
> organisms is significantly different from - and incompatible with - the
"dt"
> for evolutionary timeframes.
>
> I think those remarks clarified for me something that has always been
> cryptic to me in Essays (p. 294-295), at the end of the quote:
> "In a nutshell, we find that impredicativities (i.e., complexity) and pure
> syntax are incompatible. More specifically, complexity and an ontology
based
> on a single syntactic time frame (the ordering of purely syntactic
> operations into individual steps) are incompatible. In the present
context,
> in which we have identified impredicativities with nonfractionabilities,
we
> cannot build nonfractionable systems by purely syntactic means either. We
> must accordingly either invoke semantic elements transcendental to syntax
> (e.g., taking of limits) or (what may perhaps be equivalent) utilizing two
> or more incommensurable time frames."
>
> So all nonfractionable systems, biological or otherwise, seem to embody
this
> notion of differing and incompatible timeframes that Judith described
below.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> > Rosen
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:15 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism
> >
> >
> > I was reading Tim's post, thinking that ... Hmmm, this is too
mathematical
> > for me, it's very much along the lines of my father's way of putting the
> > discussion into equational form and that's where he always lost me. I
> > managed to get
> > A's in algebra (but I didn't enjoy it). So I can't even comment
> > on these ideas. I will leave it for the math brains on the
> > list to discuss.
> >
> > However, I was intrigued with the idea of looking at how symbiosis
differs
> > from parasitism. In a certain sense, it seems to involve time:
> >
> > My father's work was clearly pointing out a unique relationship
> > that complex
> > systems  have with time and that living systems in particular have with
> > time. Not only that time is an integral ingredient of these systems'
> > organization, but that they make use of more than one time scale in
their
> > organization. The "anticipatory model" that they incorporate into their
> > behavior is one of the most interesting things to come out of my
father's
> > research, for me. I am fascinated with how time is so often the critical
> > aspect of how anything develops-- be it something relatively mundane
like
> > traffic flow (The only thing keeping you alive in your car is the
> > fact that
> > TIME separates your car from others, in the place that is called an
> > intersection.
> > All you need is a whisper of clearance (inches, even) at a
> > particular TIME,
> > to navigate
> > safely...).
> >
> > Symbiosis is like parasitism in the fact that one organism
> > takes something it needs from the proximity of the other one, but
> > differs in
> > providing something the other one needs from proximity with it.
> > Maybe all it
> > is that we're seeing is that parasitism has a time lag. This time lag,
> > between taking something from another organism and perhaps providing
> > something useful to the organism may be too long for the second
> > half of the
> > symbiotic equation to be realized. The organism that is being used may
die
> > during the time lag, or
> > the population of the parasite has enough time in the lag to explode
> > (the way it does with a pathogen) and the sheer numbers overwhelm the
> > abilities of the
> > second system to withstand the time lag and it dies.
> >
> >  I suspect, just intuitively, that all instances of symbiosis first
> > developed as parasitism but succeeded because the two organisms
> > were closer
> > in synch with regard to time, and their respective parasitic behaviors
> > either  had an unexprected "up" side which   ameliorated the
> > "down" side, or
> > they didn't siphon off too much too fast and the second organism
> > was able to
> > compensate, and perhaps even exploit some aspect of the first
> > system to its
> > advantage. In fact, looked at in that light, all living systems are
> > parasites in a sense. Symbiosis is a form of mutual parasitism that has
> > balance to it so it endures..
> >
> > With humanity, one aspect of the trouble we are causing is that we are
> > living too fast for the global environment. In order to improve our
> > situation we shall
> > have to use our ability to think and apply it to reality, making
> > whatever changes are called for.  In my opinion, we must rethink all our
> > basics (Food, shelter, maintaining temperature of living space,
> > transportation, etc). As a
> > species, we are still living very much as we were when the
> > environment was,
> > for all intents and purposes, limitless. That was what we evolved
> > in so our
> > internal models are based on that and we continue to exist with
> > (and behave
> > according to)  that internal model. To improve the impact we are having
on
> > the planet, we have several choices:  We can change what we
> > appropriate from
> > the environment (by
> > finding new ways to answer that function--   and by examining what we
> > actually
> > require). Or, we must slow our rate--- exist more in concert with our
> > planet's time scale.  Or we need to decrease our numbers so that we
return
> > to the original situation we evolved in, where there were fewer of us
> > burdening the "host". It's another take on the idea of time-line and
> > optimality. My father did a lot of work on optimality and one of
> > the things
> > he used to say, over and over, is that the rate of something
> > occurring is as
> > important as whatever it is that occurs. In other words, how much time
it
> > takes that system to do something or how fast its time-scale is running
is
> > extremely important.
> >
> > Judith
> > Website address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/