Re: Maximally constrained

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Hi John M.

These are good questions-- the kind that a "yes" or "no" answer would make
LESS clear, without the accompanying reasons why. The easier one to answer
is this one:

> I understand (now) holonomic would be the wholistically unrestricted,
> "natural" view. Is it fair to say?>

"Holonomic" means "unchanging regardless of context". So "wholistically
unrestricted"-- yes, maybe (if I'm understanding what you mean by
"wholistically"). However, that does not really describe any force of
nature.If this is a universe where organization has causal effects not
specified by the parts, themselves... isn't that the same thing as saying it
is context-bound, context-based, at the very least impacted by context? Are
there any forces in the universe that are completely unaffected by context?
The speed of light is supposedly a constant, but it changes in relation to
various contexts. Even Einstein's famous equation Energy=Mass times "C"
(speed of light)squared is not necessarily a "law of nature"; it's just a
guestimate, and it is entirely dependent on context. I couldn't swear to it,
cuz physics isn't my bag, but I would not be surprised to hear that
holonomicity is only possible in limited situations.

In fact, one of the problems with science is that science PRESUMES holonomic
definitions, when that condition (is "holonomicity" a word?) can only be
true in isolation-- and how often are things completely isolated from all
other things that affect them? Well, when you take them apart, I guess. Once
again, physics can MAKE it work! This is why my father said absolute
"objectivity" is a fallacy. When one "thing" is reacting to another "thing",
isn't that a form of subjectivity? Each of those things is absorbing some
aspect of the other (it could be as simple as heat from the sun melting ice)
and making it part of themselves, which is a pretty good definition of
subjectivity, I'd say. It's even more visible in the case of phytoplankton
using energy from the sun to make sugar. In that case, the phytoplankton is
turning a constraint into a benefit. That answers another of your questions;
the one that asked, "What is a constraint?"

When two things are interacting with each other, isn't that another way of
saying they are "constraining" one another? It certainly seems so to me. Any
"thing" that forces a change in another "thing" is acting as a constraint.
It can be said that they constrain each other, in fact. One example would be
language. Words act as non-holonomic constraints on one another. You can
completely make a negative sentiment positive, by how you organize the
words. If someone's behavior is "not inconsistent", that is roughly
equivalent to saying their behavior is "consistent" (although it's dangerous
to forget the lovely idea of "nuance" which is one of the things I love
about language. "Nuances" and "connotations" are fascinating, fun, and a big
pain in the ass, all at the same time. Since English is not your native
tongue, I tend to believe you must have discovered this...)

I still need to answer your third question, about "model-based views", but
I've got an appointment right now, so I'm going to do that later today. I
just wanted you to know I hadn't forgotten.

Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Maximally constrained


> Thanks Judith for the definition. Does that enforce the model-based view?
As

> Now I would like a hint to a 'constrained' system as well. Constrained to
> (from?) what?
> John M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 12:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Maximally constrained
>
>
> > > (HP): How does this new subject alter Rosen's statement that cells are
> at
> > least maximally constrained physical system? That is the only statement
I
> > have a problem with.>
> >
> > As I said before, there is a radical difference between a "maximally
> > constrained system" and a "maximally non-holonomically constrained
> system".
> > Non-holonomic means context dependent. Context dependency doesn't
specify
> > what context we're talking about, it simply implies critical linkages.
The
> > context could be anything from ambient temperatures (meaning temperature
> of
> > the external environment) to an injury causing severe blood loss.
Context
> > might refer to things happening in "real time" or it might refer to
> aspects
> > of the "internal predictive system"... or it might refer to time itself.
> All
> > of these things act as constraints on organism behavior. However, many
of
> > these things give organisms far more "degrees of freedom" than a system
> that
> > is quided by holonomic (unchanging regardless of context) constraints or
> one
> > that doesn't react to anything at all (the theoretical "unconstrained
> > system").
> >
> > Judith
>