Re: Relational "Space"

[Judith Rosen <***>]

The comments out of my father's paper I posted yesterday that were on the
subject of protein folding reminded me of a comment my father made once
about his curiosity over whether time and space "fold" in a similar way. In
other words, that active sites coming together in some conformation is
responsible for phenomena and behavior we see in the natural world and, as
an extension of the natural world, the universe itself.

I don't know if that sets off any new thoughts in the group, but I thought
I'd put it out there, since it came out of my father's "Rosennean" mind!

Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Relational "Space"


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> > Fiscus
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:17 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: explanation for teleportation/entanglement?
> >
> ---snip---
> > Is a relational systems approach a la Rosen and Rashevsky
> > part of any of these discussions? It would seem to me a
> > natural fit. If for example the metric and topological
> > properties of the universe are qualitatively different, it could
> > be that topological or relational properties could help
> > explain dynamics in metric properties (standard, measurable,
> > quantitative, physical aspects of matter, energy, time, space,
> > etc.) that other metric properties themselves cannot explain.
> > Maybe like a blind spot or self-referential limit like trying to
> > look at your own eyeball.
> >
> > A relational "space" in which dynamics of correlations and
> > communication are born, grow, evolve and die at least partly
> > independent of dynamics in a metric space of physical and
> > material dynamics could be a general approach to explaining
> > non-locality and seeming instantaneous/simultaneous events.
> > In a relational space there might be no "distance" between two
> > "particles" - they might occupy the same "coordinates" and be
> > subject to the same relational "environmental context" and
> > thus the same "relational forcing functions". The distance in
> > relational space could be qualitatively different from distance
> > in physical space.
>
> Dan,
>
> I keep being drawn back to this post of yours. I'm still dubious of QM
> nonlocality, but I like your idea as a broader concept. The idea of a
> relational "space" is intriguing. I wonder if "distance in relational
space"
> is perhaps related to 'interaction' between systems? It may not be a
matter
> of continuous degrees of interaction, but something more discontinuous
> (e.g., either two systems interact or not, or perhaps they 1) do not
> interact, 2) interact via environmental relations (e.g., symbiotic), or 3)
> interact by direct relations (e.g., chimerical)), so maybe this would not
be
> a 'continuous' space.
>
> What do you perceive the "relational forcing functions" to be? What comes
to
> my mind are constraints.
>
> Regards,
> Tim