Re: Operational Closure

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Howard,

As you know, velocity and acceleration are both temporal derivatives (first
and second derivative, respectively) of position. In a general state-based
paradigm, there are an infinite number of temporal derivatives of position,
and each of these is equally independent of position.[LI 91] As Rosen
described in Chapter 4 "The Concept of State" in LI, the truncation of this
infinite number of derivatives to only two in the Newtonian state-based
paradigm is the result of Newton's Second Law. This truncation is an
artefactual restriction on the description of state, which eliminates higher
order temporal derivates, confines state description to position and
velocity, removes the second temporal derivative as part of the state
description and reassigns it to be a function of impressed forces "F" of the
environment of the system.[LI 93-95]

I therefore see no reason to call acceleration more important or fundamental
than velocity since the role and nature of acceleration (in the Newtonian
paradigm) rests entirely on an artefactually constrained state-based
formalism. For that matter, state-based formalisms represent but one kind of
formalism, so I see no reason to call any given term in any given formalism
as more important or fundamental than any other term in any other formalism.
I think that kind of preferentiality has fostered much of the almost offhand
dismissal of relational model formalisms by the scientific community.

Finally, I would question the notion of "importance" of an observable as
being one that "is more objective" or that "enters universal laws of motion
with the least dependence on the state (positions and motions, and even
biases and opinions) of individual observers." This immediately brings to
mind that such a requirement for objectivity and context-independence is a
hallmark of a universe of simple systems.

Regards,
Tim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> Pattee
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 9:03 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Operational Closure
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Apparently we do agree that there is "something out there" that
> corresponds to our model. The problem seemsto be how we speak
> about what is out there without confusion.
>
> The only issue where there is apparent disagreement is on
> deciding what observables we should choose as important. In my
> view, and also I believe in Rosen's view, this choice of the
> important observables it crucial in forming a model. For example,
> I think for physical models, acceleration is more important (or
> more fundamental, if you prefer) than velocity.
>
> Howard