Re: Single atom universes, etc.

["John Kineman" <***>]

Hi Judith,

Yes, two "aspects" follow the same logic (I didn't mean mechanical
"things"), and as I suppose you're thinking, "one" thing could have a
relationship with itself, but I'd say only if that relationship
establishes some difference (example below). Then I'd say all of the
above with regard to real systems.

But the discussion has been highly theoretical - i.e., what is the
absolute minimal case (I avoided using the word "simple" on purpose) in
the tradition of constructing a thought problem to elucidate one's basic
assumptions. I've gotten into trouble thinking this way before because
it can be misinterpreted as being partly reductionistic, and I suppose
it is; but it is different from the traditional reductionism. That is
the point i was making. Traditional reduction would be able to imagine a
"thing" by itself. Here, if it doesn't annoy anyone too much to call it
a form of reduction, we are talking about the fundamental concept being
a relationship between two <whatevers>. Even if we can't distinguish two
aspects" in any way other than this one is on this side of the relation
and that one is on the other side; a relation has to have two sides,
that's all I meant by two. So I think we are in agreement except perhaps
for the example each of us has in our head.

The "nothing" universe (another "useless" thought problem?) is actually
a very interesting philosophical case, if we can tolerate it. I was
discussing an example with my wife yesterday, about duality, i.e., you
can't have up without down, in without out, bright without dark, yes
without no, etc. So there's yin and yang, and "everything" implies there
must also be the "void" or "nothing" (we were discussing Hindu concepts
of the formless unity). She said she didn't understand. So I said "point
to something." She did. I said "point to something else." She did. I
then said "OK, that's "something," now what if we took all the
somethings you could point to away, what would remain?" She said
"nothing." I said, "there, you've proven it." Its just a logical
necessity. Then we went on. I said "how many somethings are there?" She
said "many." I said "how many nothings are there." She said "one."
That's the whole-part relationship. Wholes are unities with no
attributes unless we creat somethings for comparison. So a nothing
universe can have a relationship with a something universe (which is
really itself, seen differently), and then we're into the whole kettle
of fish. As I've posted before (sorry for the repeat)  Hindu ontology
begins as "1, 3, many;" skipping 2. Even nothing-something must include
the dash, which is the relationship, so the most basic percept actually
involves 3 aspects; the two aspects being related, and the relationship
itself. Western science threw the relationship out of the model and kept
the idea of things. Then the only models you can create are dynamical
ones, i.e., models that relate the things. But we need models that can
relate relationships too, so they have to be put back into the system.

JJK

Judith Rosen wrote:

> <mailto:***>
> Hi John K.
>
> This discussion is one of the most intriguing on the list so far, in
> my opinion.
>
> One of my father's beliefs was that science and philosophy were
> conjoined. In fact, he felt that all disciplines of thought were
> irretrievably connected. That was one of the things that made him a
> target, but I think common sense proves him right. All areas of human
> thought are connected, and the separations between science and other
> "kinds" of thought or investigation are artificial human distinctions
> that there is no real need to observe.
>
> I understand what you are saying with relational concepts seeming to
> rely on the existence of more than one "thing" to generate those
> relationships.... However, I think I could put together a pretty
> convincing argument that it isn't true. My father did a lot of work in
> "protein folding", most of which I never talked to him about, but the
> idea that a protein folds in such a way that two areas of the same
> protein come into contact with each other, creating a relationship
> that was capable of causing new effects, was a concept that stuck in
> my mind. In much the same way, a universe that was populated with
> "one" could generate infinite relationships: Relationships created
> between different aspects of that one thing with itself. Indeed,
> different aspects of the one thing would have differing relationships
> with the otherwise empty universe as well.
>
> I would further suggest that even a universe with nothing in it, could
> generate infinite relationships with itself in much the same way.
>
> Isn't that what an organism does, in essence? An organism incorporates
> "the universe" into itself (that could be one description of
> metabolism) and is thereby incorporated into the universe (which could
> be one way of describing the relationship embodied in "context
> dependence").
>
> This self-relational, self-referential concept is everywhere in the
> natural (material) world. Relationships are always capable of
> ramifying off into infinity, it's the material things themselves, when
> you divorce them of all relationships, that are limited.
>
> Judith
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Kineman" <*** <mailto:***>>
> To: <*** <mailto:***>>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Single atom universes, etc.
>
> > Judith,
> >
> > Sure, I accept that. Discussing such things is philosophy. But science
> > is based on such concepts. Take, for example, our much maligned
> > Newtonian model. It is based on the concept of infinite reducibility (ad
> > absurdum), to the tiniest particle in a presumed space.  Modern
> > cosmology has a point singularity at the beginning of time - what sense
> > does that make? I think we consider such things to know the origin and
> > limits of a theory or concept. I'm, like you, not at all concerned with
> > one-atom universes (except as you point out, the one we're in).  But the
> > fact that there cannot be a one-atom universe says something about the
> > way I'm trying to describe real things - relationally. In essence it is
> > saying if we are to think that nature is fundamentally relational, then
> > there must be at least two things to relate.
> >
> > The other way it becomes relevant is in considering the nature of
> > perception, or percepts. In the view I was expressing any interaction
> > essentially establishes a relative space-time reference system and
> > creates information about its limited world. That seems to me to have
> > some potential as a basis for modeling perception.
> >
> > Notice, however, that I try to be careful to express these ideas as
> > "views" - one among many ways of looking at or thinking of nature. The
> > important question is indeed as you imply; how does the view then apply
> > to things we experience. But, yea, the limits of any meta-theory become
> > abstract and impractical, and I think we only discuss them so as to know
> > how the theory is constructed - i.e., what does it do at the limits of
> > its applicability? Does it fail in an interesting way? In the case of
> > the relational model (vs the atomistic model) it fails below the level
> > of a primitive relationship, so then, instead of implying questions such
> > as "what happened before time started" or "what is the smallest
> > particle," it implies questions like "what is the relationship between
> > parts (the two-or-more element universe) and wholes?"  To me, being in
> > ecology and thinking about complex environmental and social systems,
> > this philosophical limit is more interesting than the reductionist
> > limit. Knowing that the view is scientific in the domain of describing
> > relationships, and fails philosophically with the question "what are
> > wholes," it seems to be exactly what I want to think about on both
> levels.
> >
> > Does that make sense? I realize it is jumping between science,
> > epistemology, and philosophy.
> >
> > Yours,
> >
> > John K.
> >
> > Judith Rosen wrote:
> >
> > >Right, but..... in this posited, theoretical, one-atom universe, do
> all the
> > >same "rules" apply? Why would they?
> > >
> > >Let's assume for the sake of discussion that they do... Humanity
> doesn't
> > >even know what all of "rules" are. To make predictions about
> something under
> > >these circumstances is an exercise in..... beside-the-point-ness,
> to put it
> > >politely. This is worse than the usual If-Then exercise, this is a What
> > >If-Then exercise. The what-if part is totally sketchy. I could see
> doing
> > >this as a purely imaginative way to play with concepts, but to try
> and apply
> > >science and come up with "real" (useful) answers is a waste of
> energy, don't
> > >you think?
> > >
> > >Looking at it another way, how do we know we aren't already living in a
> > >one-atom universe? What if the thing we have been calling an atom isn't
> > >really an atom? This road leads down to "I think, therefore I am"
> territory.
> > >
> > >Judith
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "John Kineman" <*** <mailto:***>>
> > >To: <*** <mailto:***>>
> > >Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:24 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Single atom universes, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>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:***> <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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>