[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Time as a context: The true nature of "relativity"...



On a related note to Steve Johnson's post about menstrual cycles and lunar cycles:
 
One of the things that fascinates me about how contexts get encoded into living systems' organization is that the very fact that these things INTERACT, or relate to each other, is also encoded! That's the only explanation that makes sense in analyzing the entraining of the menstrual cycles of women who are in close proximity. It's the only explanation that makes sense of the co-evolution of various plants with the main pollinators for each species. It's the only explanation that makes sense of social behavior... The interactivity (or the "relational effect") is what defines context dependence, what drives the potential, what creates infinity in complex organization. This is why complex systems are inherently non-computable. So that innate potential for interaction and resultant change of context is encoded. We see it in heart cells that beat independently until they interact with each other, whereupon they synchronize. The ability to send and receive information, regardless of what kind it is (hormonal, chemical, visual, auditory, electrical, etc), is evidence that this interactivity is yet another aspect of the information encoded into our ourganization-- or, as my father referred to that; "our internal predictive models".
 
This relational effect is the very same interactivity that Physics currently disallows as a form of subjectivity or teleology, yet it is also at the root of Einstein's discoveries. What does "relativity" mean? If you need to know where something is in relation to another thing, before you can understand it, then isn't that admitting that there is "information" in that relationship?
 
Judith