Re: Modern Physics, Newtonian Paradigm, and the notion of State

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Hi Ionel,

Adding the following thoughts to my prior response to this post....

>From my perspective, I draw a distinction between Rosen's relational models
(in his view of relational models in "Life Itself"), and the attempts at
*realization* of such models. I consider that these relational models do sit
in an entirely different formal universe of discourse (for lack of a better
phrase) from the Newtonian-paradigm formal universe of discourse; it is a
formal universe of discourse where "systems are assigned no states, no
environments, and there is no recursion".

Generating a physical realization *from* these relational models is the
conundrum. Certainly, it would seem likely (or at least, it seemed likely to
him back then (1964, 1971, 1973) that the process of realization must
include some way to interpret/translate/map from these models to some kind
of state-based model(s) which would tell us, among other things, how to
physically put the parts together. I see Rosen's attempts at realization of
these relational models, whether via sequential machine models or via
kinetic models, as attempts at interpretation/translation/mapping from the
universe of state-less atemporal relational models into the universe of
state-based models.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Ionel
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 5:33 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Modern Physics, Newtonian Paradigm, and the notion of State
>
>
> Hi, Tim:
>
> I'd go along with most of your comments about (M,R)-systems, but there are
> some important facts that are running contrary to your sentence cited
> below, if I understood your argumentation correctly:
>
> >>These functional relational models are in an entirely different formal
> universe of discourse than a formal universe of discourse built around
> spatiotemporal relations.>> It is, metaphorically speaking, like
> a parallel
> formal universe - a rather alien one to the one in which we are used to
> doing physics in. >>....Of course, the opposite is also true: these
> relational models have abstracted away state information entirely - they
> have "thrown away the physics".) >>
>
> ---------------
> FACTS: Both in 1971 and 1973, Robert published in BMB two substantial
> papers in which he developed dynamic representations of (M,R)-systems that
> appear to be aimed at linking the Abstract (M,R)-systems approach to the
> physical representation of such systems in terms of kinetic or dynamics
> eqs.,etc,  e.g. attempting to avoid to "throw away the physics", such as
> the dynamics in terms of states and state-spaces. It is clear
> that Roberts'
> states are not quantum states.
> -------------
> Regards,
>
> Ionel
>
> ...>>In TQFT, the relations represented are still between spatiotemporal
> quantum states: the encoding has gone from the natural system to a
> spatiotemporal encoding and then to a topological one. In Rosen's
> relational models, the encoding goes directly from the natural system to
> the functional relational model. This allows for representations of
> organizational qualities that cannot be encoded into the spatiotemporal
> encodings of the Newtonian paradigm. (Of course, the opposite is
> also true:
> these relational models have abstracted away state information entirely -
> they have "thrown away the physics".)