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

[Ionel <***>]

Hi, Tim:

A brief, and very much to the point/ appropriate response through a quote
from yesterday's posting by Dr. Howard Pattee:

>>I do claim that the need for inequivalent complementary models for
adequate understanding of complex systems is couched in terms of what Rosen
believed and expressed.

Howard >>>


Regards,
Ionel

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 22:27:26 -0400, Tim Gwinn <***> wrote:

>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".)