Re: Relational "Space"

[Judith Rosen <***>]

The "space between" the physical parts of a complex system are part of the
organization of that system. In other words, the space between the parts is
every bit as integral to the organization as the parts themselves. This, for
me, begs the question; Why do those spaces form, and in that particular way?
I suspect it has something to do with the relationships within the system,
between the parts and/or between the relationships. The distance of
electrons around a nucleus of an atom is specified by the positive and
negative electrical charges, etc. So the space says something about the
parts, themselves. But perhaps there's more to it than that. If space and
time are somehow related, as in Einstein's 'space-time continuum', then I
don't see it can be possible for space-time, in that sense, to be
'nothingness'. The habitual human view of space is that it's empty, mostly.
If we look at it from the perspective of the space in complex systems, then
space takes on a whole new categorization potential. I think that human
habits creep in to how we evaluate things without our even being aware of
it, sometimes, no matter how careful we try to be about maintaining a
different perspective.

Judith

John M. wrote:

> Funy!
> If it is NOT empty, there must be something "in between" WITHIN the
> boundaries of the complexity - eo ipso PART of it. In other words:
> COMPONENTS we don't usually recognize as such. It MUST belong to
> the complexity (system) so it is not INTERSTITIAL space.
> Could you elaborate on such view?


> >Judith Rosen wrote: It's an interesting point you bring up in your post,
but the first line of
> > it: 'Would it be a proper paraphrasing' of my closing question...--
> > unfortunately the answer is no. There was an essential set of ideas
> missing
> > from your paraphrase. What I was asking had to do with the space between
> the
> > parts of a complex system, not emptiness. My point was that the space
> > between is not empty.
> >
> > Judith
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John M" <***>
> > To: <***>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Relational "Space"
> >
> >
> > > Judith,
> > >
> > > would it be a proper paraphrasing of your closing question:
> > > "What is emptiness full of?"
> > > David Bohm calculated in proper physical terms that 1 ccm
> > > of absolute vacuum contains 10^120 times the energy of the
> > > combined material content of the universe. ..
> > > With the example of my version to the old problem:
> > > is the glass half full or half empty? I say: the glass is too big -
> > > I have to respond to your question that space is a rather
> > > reductionist organizing feature in our (human) view of the
> > > universe and we do no favor by pushing it beyond human reason.
> > >
> > > John M
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> > > To: <***>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:44 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Relational "Space"
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regarding Tim's comment, below:
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
> > > > > On the other hand, since by definition we cannot directly perceive
> > this
> > > > > primary structure, then is there strong reason to even postulate
its
> > > > > existence?
> > > >
> > > > The ancient Greeks came up with a theory of atomic structure long
> before
> > > > humanity achieved the level of technology to verify that atoms were,
> > > indeed,
> > > > the building blocks of all matter.They postulated that either matter
> was
> > > > infinitely divisible or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then there had to
be
> a
> > > > "smallest system" that couldn't be fractured and still be what
matter
> is
> > > > made of. It's no surprise that my father had to go all the way back
to
> > > > Aristotle to find the kind of analogies with which to anchor his
> > > theoretical
> > > > framework. The fact that the kind of organization in the atom is
also
> > seen
> > > > in systems of all types (like biological systems' organization), all
> > sizes
> > > > (galaxies,etc.) would suggest that the "primary structure" is a
> version
> > of
> > > > something we see in front of us all the time.
> > > >
> > > > One question this raises for me: The space between the parts of an
> > intact
> > > > system is not "empty". What is that space, then?
> > > >
> > > > It's hard to shake off the habits of a lifetime in the way we look
at
> > > > things. My father had a knack for looking at familiar things
> > > "differently",
> > > > on purpose, just to see how different perspectives could affect his
> > > > perception of what he was observing.
> > > >
> > > > Judith