Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Re: James' question:

The three-body-problem could be very instructive, for what you are trying to
find out. It reveals something fundamental about how the universe works, and
has similarities with the dynamics of solar systems and atoms, which places
the issue firmly at the center of how material reality organizes itself.
>From my (non-physics) perspective, it seems to embody the point at which
simple systems and/or forces organize in a complex manner. The reason the
three-body-problem is not computable (unless you play fast and loose with
the initial conditions you feed into the equations) is because relationships
form that physics doesn't see. Two bodies have only their own relationship,
caused by reacting to each other. Outside forces can easily interfere in
that organization. Three bodies, however, not only have the relationship
between each body to each of the others, but the resulting relationships
interact as well. This complexifies the system and also stabilizes it. If
you try and understand the system without the secondary relationship effects
being included into the analysis, all kinds of weird results ensue like
paradoxes, etc.

Mind you, this is all second hand from my father, because physics isn't my
area! But it is the place to look to find the information you want.

Hope this helps,
Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Comparing Rosennean Complexity


> Thank you Judith. Not really.  I was hoping he might
> have cited something that would give a 'tendency
> toward complexity' as the "resultant" of some
> sequentially prior arrangement of conditions or
> factors.   Anything along -that- line?
>
> James
>
> Judith Rosen wrote:
> >
> > > James Rose wrote: Judith, Did your father ever point
> > > to anything that could be identified as a 'fundamental
> > > mechanism or relationship', that generated or educed
> > > the phenomenon of 'tendency toward complexity'?
> >
> > I think "relationship" is the right concept here. He spoke of  "the
three
> > body problem" as being part of what got him going in this direction.
Does
> > that help?
> >
> > Judith