Re: Time/Life/Science

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Hi Judith,

The concepts that show up in our models as "dynamics" and "time" certainly
have some kinds of referents in the material world. At this moment, I don't
know of a preferable alternative way to characterize those referents.To be
honest, I had not thought in deep detail about this topic, until I read your
first post in this thread. It was only then that I began to consider that
perhaps the problems in trying to characterize complex systems in single or
commensurable "timeframes" were symptomatic that "time" as a framework
element was inadequate. But "time" is also inevitably tied to a framework of
"space". So, to me, it seems that the whole schema needs to be revamped. So,
I have only just now begun thinking about what other, more complete, ways of
modeling the material world referents for "dynamics" and "time" might be.
Wish I had a better answer. :(

In regards to sticking with the spacetime framework, and therefore
investigating the dimension in that conceptual framework called "time", I
think what your father said in AS pretty well covered it. And I think that
his discussion of time, covering two pages (50-51), shows that "time", as a
concept, is a fairly impoverished concept. As a result, I don't think that
pursuing the concept of "time" itself in any more detail will reveal much
more about its referents in the material world, anymore than investigating
algorithms will reveal more about non-algorithmic complex system.

However, just as breakdowns in syntactic algorithm (such as Godelian
statements) can help investigate complex systems, it may be that breakdowns
in temporal sequencing (such as incommensurable timeframes) might help
illuminate the referents to "time" and "dynamics". But, on the other hand,
since "time" is about labels applied to other percepts, and the relations of
those labels and percepts, it may well be that "time" does not have as its
referents in material reality anything that is especially fundamental.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 8:10 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Time/Life/Science
>
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I see what you are saying. But I'm looking at this from a different
> direction: The truth is that anything that comes out of human
> consciousness
> is going to be a limited and inadequate description of material reality.
> That's the given that gets forgotten in a lot of "hard science".
> My father's
> all-time best remark on that subject: "There is nothing more
> abstract than a
> measurement." We've already talked about the limitations of
> language (which
> are also an expression of human consciousness) to convey information from
> one mind to another. But since we can't be other than what we are, namely
> flawed and limited material systems, if we're going to discuss a concept
> like TIME, we have to do it within this admittedly inadequate set of
> parameters.
>
> That being so, what I wonder is how would you describe the
> phenomenon that I
> call TIME. You seem to know what I mean when I refer to it, and you've
> pointed out several areas where human perceptions of it may be inadequate,
> but now that you've said what it isn't, I'm curious to know what you think
> "it" is.What is space/time/other; what is this aspect to the universe and
> all the things in it-- that we are seeing the influence of in dynamical
> systems and even more so in living systems?
>
> Thanks,
> Jude
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Time/Life/Science
>
> > As I see it, "dynamical" is a term which is based in the language of a
> > 3-dimensional space + 1-dimension of time conceptual framework. So, from
> > within this conceptual framework, "dynamical" is indeed about changes
> along
> > both dimensions of space and time.
>
> > My feeling is that this conceptual framework is inadequate in a way akin
> to
> > which the Newtonian framework for physics is inadequate for
> representation
> > of complex systems. My thought is that any 3+1 conceptual framework -
> > including Einsteinian - will be inadequate as a conceptual modeling
> > framework for what we call "dynamical" processes in the material world.
>
> > From this view, "dynamical" is a limited concept. It is limited by the
> > notion of state. This notion of state in turn rests on conceptually
> dividing
> > the world into "space"+"time". I suggest that this concept, although as
> > commonsensical as Newtonian physics, is not thereby a true and complete
> > representation of the material world. I believe it is incomplete, and
> cannot
> > be made complete by any amount of enhancements or modifications.
>
> > I think that this kind of thinking is mistaking the formal
> concept for the
> > reality. We model the world in 3+1 spacetime frameworks, and we
> then begin
> > to think that the material world _actually_is_ this 3+1
> framework, and so
> > "time" is also a real thing.
> >