Re: Comparing Rosennean Complexity

[James N Rose <***>]

Judith, replying to yours, copied below,


The closest I can come to this is a comment a friend of mine,
Dan Demyda, made back in 1974 when I was explaining my concepts
to him.  He said, "Oh, I get it now, the important part of
'creation' didn't happen with the 'first particle' or thing,
but with the second and the third and more."  So yes, Judith,
I do appreciate the importance and instructiveness of the
pithily pointed topic: the three-body-problem.

A "universe" comprised of a single entity, or even a
handful of entities, might as well not even exist.
Extended/extensive 'relevance' or relations are limited
or non-existant there.  No 'complexity', or at best some
stunted version of it, there.

But this still does not answer or obviate "how material
reality organizes", to use your phrase; what are the
-specifiable- qualia of the most depictable 'primitives',
which qualia in turn generate the relations -and- the presumed
'tendency toward complexity'.

I've just finished reading Stephen Gould's "Full House".
He argued -very- cogently for complexity happening -but-
as a small side effect of more pervasive non-complexity
anti-complexity activities rampant throughout the universe.

He basically says that complex systems are a very tiny
off-branch that is self impressed with its own existence,
and has over-writ the phenomenon of itself onto the rest
of the universe, as if the totality of the universe had/has
but one goal: to get as complex as possible; to create
complexity on a grand scale.

I've spoken to many adept darwinists the past few years,
and many if not most of them have voiced the same sentiment.

I myself an am alternate-road person.  Complexity - whether
minor performance branch or major one - is still a presented
phenomenon .. which must have a generative ontology behind it.
To explore the deepest reachest of that causal stream forces
us to look into the kinds of fundamental regions such as the
three-body-problem, but from my perspective, calls for
rather explicit identification of the properties and relations
which, when engaged or extrapolated, will -definitively-
produce complex activity and performances and systems.
For reasons in their ultimate "primitiveness".

As example, I suggest in the realm of material entities the
relation of the compound di-hydrogen, H-sub2.  Two protons
orbited by a single electron.  A 'special case' three-body-problem.

Here, by all conventional standards, the two hydrogen atoms
are 'more complex' than if they were independent nuclei
free floating through space.  The electron 'binds' the
degrees of freedom of the protons, synchronizes their
performances, complexes the atoms into a new qualia: molecule.

You may or may not agree, but this is my formulation
of the relation-primitive for all 'complexity' - even
the grand scale version of it your father championed.

However, even that is 'not enough'.  For the relation
primitive is only exampled by that depiction, and
doesn't identify for us where in the heart of the
structure of timespace, this 'fundamental' of relations
exists, what factors are the first-forms, which only -later-
express as agents/relations that bind and coordinate
'performances' (of being).  My question went toward asking
if your father identified the prime-qualia of 'complexity'
somewhere in the deepest most original aspects or factors
of existence.

Did he ever go there, in discussions, conversations, writings?
He may not have, but that's what I was hoping to find out from
you.  I don't mean to show that up as some deficiency on his
part, or an omission - it's a damned tough notion to identify,
let alone achieve any propositions for.

My other question about his thoughts would otherwise go to
asking what he thought of Godel's incompleteness theorems. !?

Can you cite any comments for me on that topic?

Thanks Judith,

James




Judith Rosen wrote:
>
> 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
>