John M.
I read your questions. I can't say I understand what you're asking well
enough to attempt an answer, though. You have a gift for making language do
things I never thought it could do! It's like watching the Cirque de Soleil.
My intuition is that you find all of science reductionist in a sense, and my
father would agree with that. But human limitations force us to do our
learning and investigations in manageable pieces-- we can't just absorb the
whole truth from the universe by laying on of hands or some other psychic
method. I'm not upset about it... Would learning like that be any fun?
Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Relational "Space"
> Judith, thanks for the reply.
>
> I am not sure whether (but mainly: how) can one have it both ways:
> thinking in reductionist logic and speaking RR-complexity?
> Allow me please to interject some remarks below.
> John M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Relational "Space"
>
>
> > The "space between" the physical parts of a complex system are part of
the
> > organization of that system.
> [JM]:
> 1. If it 'is part of the system' why is it 'between' parts of the system'?
>
> 2. Putting 1. aside: "space" between parts is a reductionistic imaging of
> the model we construct about the system. Physical (quanti) measurements
> support such connotations, but are they true? There is no such thing as a
> molecule, and electron, a nucleus, they are quantized metaphors based on
> explanations upon 'nth' level notions of "measurements and calculations"
> by
> imagined 'meanings' of incomplete observations, incomplete explanations.
> We see (explain) certain behavior and assign an image that *in our present
> logic* - 'could' - perform it, then it goes into the Valhalla of Scinece
as
> a fact.
> After 10,000 consecutive published calculations, 15 generations of so
> brainwashed college graduates, tenure professors and Nobel prize winners
> it means 'bad manners' to question it. The worst thing is: these figments
> are
> effectively usable in practical technologies. Models sent man onto the
Moon.
> >
> > 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?
> [JM]:
> Do they, indeed?
> Suppose, they do (for argument's sake). Do you have any assurance that
our
> so-far epistemic enrichment made us discover what and why those
> (hypothetically empty) spaces are looking to us as 'empty spaces'? As I
> mentioned, D. Bohm applied conventional physics to calculate an incredible
> energy-content for an empiest of all spaces (absolute vacuum). He did that
> reductionistically. Did he (could he) take inventory of such (calculable)
> energy content? No. (It was calculation upon calculation upon calculation
> upon....)
> Nor can I (and I don't even know what 'energy' would be and don't even
> believe its being there if it had a meaning).
> >
> > 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.
> [JM]:
> Please re-read the first paragraph of my post above. We cannot take a
> position in
> RR-complexity and argue it in reductionist (physical?) sciences.
> >
> > Judith
> [JM]: John M
> >
> > 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