Re: Single atom universes, etc.

["John Kineman" <***>]

Judith and all,

Yes, what you say is certainly true - the human relativism of perceputal
scales. However, there does seem to be a n observationally repeatable
common reality "out there" marching along to the same tune that we are,
which makes some sort of sense given that we evolved with it all. So, I
accept that there is a shared local space-time (or at least a useful
formulation of one) that is not "just human perception" as perhaps
Berkeley would have it, even if internal ways of calibrating it are
radically different. But the question is how that came about in a
relational universe (which I think it is fundamentally, Rosen critics
notwithstanding). It then seems much easier to explain a shared
space-time starting with Rosen complexity (simplification of the
complex) than to explain Rosen complexity starting with a shared
space-time. Thus Rosen's view of complexity would be a meta-theory with
respect to space-time, i.e., more general and explanatory. I think this
is all consistent with what we've all been generally saying, but it
raises the stakes with regard to the critics. Physicists in particular
won't easily make room for different ontologies. I don't think we should
worry about that beyond making vallient attempts to bridge between the
different views. That is very philosophically defensible as "real
science," by the way; whereas positivistic myopia is not, a fact that
has been fairly well documented even if it isn't popular. I sense that
RR had a gread deal of trouble with this throughout his career, which he
shouldn't have in a proper scientific ethic. He is a hero for toughing
it out and any defensiveness (or reclusiveness) that may have crept in
as a result is entirely understandable, I think.

JJK

Judith Rosen wrote:

> 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 -----
>     From: John Kineman <mailto:***>
>     To: *** <mailto:***>
>     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
>>
>>
>>
>>