Re: Single atom universes, etc.

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:47 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Single atom universes, etc.
>
>
--snip--
>
> It was the lack of referents in the theoretical "universe with a
> single atom
> in it" that my resistance was about, by the way. Anything we think we can
> infer about such a universe is likely to be an "optical illusion" of the
> mind's eye, much like mathematics creates under specialized and artificial
> circumstances.


It was just this kind of consideration that led me to conclude that any
study of "time" was one that could only be done in vivo, so to speak. It
necessarily involved observing a relationship between a material clock
system and the material system under study - an impredicativity relating
comprehension of the smaller system to comprehension of a larger, more
inclusive system; a situation akin to the QM measurement problem. Otherwise,
it seemed one would be engaging in the "illusions" you mention.


> Similarly, when studying a dynamical system,  it is common sense that any
> relationship between two parts-- that has observable effects-- means that
> the relationship is an integral "part" of the system. It has to
> be given the
> same weight in study as the two parts themselves or there is
> little hope of
> true understanding. Is it just because I was raised by Robert
> Rosen that all
> this seems OBVIOUS to me? Why does science have such constipation
> over it???
>
> Judith

I think it is hard for science because such relationships appear,
observationally, to follow as an _effect_ of the parts. Hence, it becomes
natural to consider that the parts must be _causal_ in  this regard.
Therefore, it seems reasonable by this view to conclude that the parts are
genotype and the relationships mere phenotype, mere behavioral expressions
of the underlying parts. It then follows that a complete understanding of
the genotype (the causal) will reveal all the information relating to the
corresponding phenotype (the effects). So it is that the nature and
properties of an "active site" is generally considered, at least in
principle, deducible from the protein's primary structure.

Also, there is, I think, a basic and innate human tendency to consider
corporeal or tangible entities as generally being real, and incorporeal
entities as generally being fabrications of the mind. No wonder, then, that
those who would consider relationships, as incorporeals, as being "things"
in the material world on an equal footing with corporeal "things", would be
looked at with suspicion and skepticism.

Regards,
Tim