|
This is not my area! However, that's not enough to
stop me from making a few observations....
Isn't it interesting how established science can posit
a question like this, and speculate on whether it's possible to have
something like a single atom universe when there is nothing else to relate the
single atom to.... and then turn around and say that "relational science" is
practically voodoo? Much of the essence of Rosennean Complexity is based
precisely on the importance of the relationships between "things", which
was the conclusion that made my father a target for accusations of
being "unscientific".
Be that as it may, it seems to me that both these
questions are flawed in taking a very human perspective of rate and of scale,
and making predictions based on those unspoken assumptions. A nanosecond is only
short to us. An atom is only small to us.
This is what never made sense to me, as I listened to
my father's tales of why established science was so hostile to his theories:
There is no way to study something in a way divorced of all relationships,
because the object being studied has an undisolveable relationship with the
perspective of the mind studying it. Human perceptsions of time, rate, space,
scale.... all are integral to the process of "study"
itself.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:59
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] [issues]
Sensateness: everywhere or just 'some' wheres?
I'm also cross posting to the Rosen list, as we entered a
discussion about time there...
Just to add to Jamie's
comments:
I did a paper (actually two) in 2000 on the nature of
space-time and information which I believe revealed some interesting
systemic possibilities. These are based on a consideration of what light is
(Einstein admitted at the end of his life that he still didn't know), and what
information is (also poorly defined by science).
For the sake of
argument, lets say "intelligence" (another poorly defined concept) in the most
rudimentary form suggested by James' "one-atom / nanosecond" question, and
"information" might be roughly equated for the purposes of this question (or
at least be equally interesting in this regard). Then we can ask: "can
information exist in such a universe?"
First some brief background: The
paper suggests that space (distance) and time are mutually defined (basic
relativity); there being no other "standard" available for either. That being
the case, the speed of light is clearly the relationship between these
relative measures. We also have no standard for the speed of light, except
that inside local space-time (units calibrated by the apparent speed of
light), we must measure a constant ratio of distance to time. This means,
nowever, that we have no means of ascertaining any absolute scale of space. It
turns out that this reasoning leads to a model where the scale of intrinsic
space-time (and light) is a log relation to observed time, and this
establishes a hyperbolic space time (similar to E.A. Milne's kinematic
relativity) that is fully consistent with special relativity (and general
relativity, although not as commonly calibrated). In such a model, the light
path becomes the means of connecting separate local space-times, and when
graphed properly it looks like a logistic spiral, with no origin.
Now
back to the question: The above cosmology applies to current astronomy quite
well, but also to the idealized case of two objects in space-time. It is not
possible to define a one-atom universe logically, because there would then not
be any reference point to establish or "know" about its existence. It would be
like having "up" without "down." Essentially that means there can be no
information in a one-atom universe, and so knowledge anywhere in that universe
that it can exist. But if there are two objects, the above universal reference
frame is immediately implied, and light becomes not just the conversion
constant between local distance and time measures, but the medium of carrying
information between the two separated local space-times (or objects), so that
they can "know" about each other's existence, and thus have a basis to claim
existence. I think of this as the most primitive act of perception, and
percepts seem to be at least necessary for intelligence.
Perhaps that
is at least a relevant speculation???
John Kineman
James N Rose
wrote:
On another listserv [avoidl] where scientific
and semi-scientific cosmologies are debated,
I wrote the following today (4 Nov 2003).
I cc my posting to this listserv because it is
relevant to properties which are most likely
involved or present in systems generally, and in
complex relationships. Information corresponce
capacity. Within levels of organization, among
nested levels of emerged organization, between
companioned members of organization.
Thank you for reading.
Jamie Rose
====================================================
11/4/03
Jonathan Colvin [avoidl-list] wrote:
Could a universe consisting only of a single atom,
or existing only for nanoseconds be capable of
sustaining intelligence? It seems unlikely. In the
absence of your being able to provide some reasonable
mechanism whereby such an intelligence could have arisen,
rationale carries no weight. We can only extrapolate
>from what we know.
John, all,
So this brings some questions ..
What characteristics are ascribed to 'intelligence'?
In the grand arena, is it reasonable to pinpoint a
condition, state or level of organization where
'intelligence' sudden appears, where before that,
'intelligence' was absent from systems or organizations
in the universe?
In a prosaic venue, are human infants 'intelligent',
or are they unintelligent because we tend to use a
standard of judging which is biased to the 'adult state'
and some arbitrary protocol standard of 'reasoning'?
Is it some sort of human arrogance that strains to
maintain 'intelligence' as some sort of sacrosanct
capacity?
If we are open to 'generalizing' intelligence
isn't 'encounter ~ reasoned response' only a
refined subset of 'encounter ~ response'?, which
is only a refined subset of 'event ~ reaction'?,
which is a subset of 'action ~ reaction'?
A universe consisting of only a single atom or
enduring for only a nanosecond cannot be excluded from
having the capacities mentioned. It's existence -is-,
for however long or of whatever organization, 'sustained
intelligence' .. applicable of and appropriate to its
own form, functionality, or special universe.
James
Ceptual Institute
11/4/03
|