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

Re: Dynamical Hierarchies

Hi Jamie,

You wrote: What I've been working on is an inter-tier equation - what RR might
have labeled as a formal equation that encapsulates a first-order
activity of entailment (not all of entailment, mind you, simply
its first structure).


I'd be interested in hearing more about this. In particular, I'm curious as to how you categorize the various "orders of entailment". How would you arrive at "first"??? It seems to me that space and time would have to be involved, since we have three-dimensional existence and constant change as defining features of the universe. All causality will have to conform to those initial, universal entailments (--which are themselves relational effects).

But how would you structure "entailment"? I'm very curious.

Jamie R:
I suppose I was in a way asking the quesion as you phrased it: "how he
viewed the nature of relations-- which relations are more impactful
than others and why", but not as much that, as whether he might have
seen then in a potentially collective way (though likely, not) as
the factor-Q that I conjectured

This is an unusual question (if I'm understanding it right). I think RR would answer it somewhat differently than I would, so I'll attempt to give you his point of view, as far as I'm able to intuit it. The "first" relation (most impactful in the general sense) is likely to be the relation connecting context to causality. The outcome of whatever happens in any given interaction is ultimately based, in large part, on THE WAY it happens-- all aspects of context which constrain and specify the interaction. This includes temporal aspects as well, of course. Putting it another way; the effects of any interaction are mainly a consequence of the context-influenced nature of that interaction.

I think of it this way: In human language, we have words like "mitigation"; as in "mitigating circumstances"... or "extenuation" or "justification" or "exacerbate" or "moderate" or "aggravate"... These are all words that refer to the ways in which context can change some specific outcome in relation to what we might otherwise consider to be "the" entailed outcome. James Bond movies are built almost entirely on this premise. He carries all kinds of nifty "context-tweakers" with him, cleverly disguised as wrist watches and fountain pens, etc. So the bad guys set him up in such a way that James is facing "almost certain death"... unaware of the extra contextual entailment leverage he has access to... and it never turns out the way they expect.

Side effects tend to occur when planning processes ignore the potential impact of other contexts besides the few they intended. Consider the following (from http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/scienceline/archives/dec99/dec99.shtm):

<x-tad-smaller>Acousticians and infantry soldiers tell a story of an army marching together, in step, across a bridge. The bridge had a resonant frequency at exactly the cadence of the soldiers' marching. As they marched, each step was amplified by the bridge's ability to resonate. This amplified frequency, in turn re-amplified the bridge's vibrations. Those, in turn, made more motion, as the amplitude (loudness) increased. Soon, the movement of the vibration was so vigorous, that the bridge literally shook itself to pieces, and the army was lost. Today, whenever soldiers are moved across bridges, they are commanded to "break stride" and not march in step as they cross. Resonance can kill!

This was also the case in a recent Memorex commercial. When Ella Fitzgerald hit a certain note, the wine goblet shattered. Why? What they didn't tell you about that commercial was that they had tested the glass (struck it) to determine its resonant frequency. Then, they had Ms. Fitzgerald sing THAT note, and they amplified it until the glass literally shook itself apart. When the glass's vibration exceeded its own tensile strength, it came apart so violently that it looked like the glass exploded. It really didn't matter if the sound source was "Memorex" or not. What mattered was that the amplified pitch had to be at the goblet's resonant frequency. Resonance can cause damage!</x-tad-smaller>

This kind of thing happens all the time and is often shrugged off as an anomaly-- that is, until death and destruction ensues. Anomalies always got my father's attention! He always remembered them as he came across them and had amassed quite a collection in his head-- fodder for some great conversations.

Anyway, I don't know if this is the sort of answer you were looking for? Let me know.

Judith



Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Oct 9, 2005, at 12:26 PM, James N Rose wrote:

Judith

:-) well, the marvelous thing about 'simple questions' is that
any responce always justifies RR's view of existence .. answers
always include notions not originally imagined [causally expected]
by the asker. I.e. there is always more involved than a given
model includes. {you did it to me with your reply, my thoughts
were in one direction and you came back with an equally valid
alternative adjunct} :-)

That relation is important in and of itself, but I'd better leave it
for another time ; along with my intuitive notion to remember to include
it in my equation-building project ... an overarching factor Q .. that
imposes prioritizing and valueweighting .. that redirects or drives
outcomes. This is the big chasm that divides science from reality
as a matter of fact. Scientific inquiry and conclusions look at narrow
windows of activity, and while accurate within such bounds, often fall
victim to 'other factors / other agendas'. And societies that try to
use science and only science as their foundational rationale, will
always be vulnerable when confronted by myths and passions. "Truth"
finds subjective alternatives. anyway, I digress ....

I suppose I was in a way asking the quesion as you phrased it: "how he
viewed the nature of relations-- which relations are more impactful
than others and why", but not as much that, as whether he might have
seen then in a potentially collective way (though likely, not) as
the factor-Q that I conjectured above.

General Systems has long identified templates of performance that show
up in all sorts of diverse fields. And general (math framed) inquiry
over the past hundred or so years has generally done the same thing -
identified action equations that show up everywhere ; the inverse
frequency rule for example, or, statistical formulae.

What I've been working on is an inter-tier equation - what RR might
have labeled as a formal equation that encapsulates a first-order
activity of entailment (not all of entailment, mind you, simply
its first structure). I was simply curious if he played around
with this kind of notion .. mathematicly. A transform that the universe
uses to build the performance heirarchy ... tiered orders of activity.

I would imagine not ... but ... I was hoping to be surprised.

Jamie



Judith Rosen wrote:
James Rose wrote: Did RR generate any specific
equations that identified specific performace
relations - among entailed heirarchies?

Well, Jamie...

He generated a hell of a lot of equations! As for specific
equations for identifying specific performance relations among
entailed hierarchies; I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
For him, "hierarchies" simply were another way to say "relations"
and the word relations was his preference-- in part because
it's NOT specific. The word "hierarchy" was not one he used
routinely because it carries certain connotations that aren't
really conducive to the way he viewed complexity. The root-based
definition of hierarchy, according to my dictionary, is "sacred rule"
and while that may not be the way most people mean it when using
that word, there is a certain rigidity involved in hierarchical
associations; what a certain place in the hierarchy means in
terms of causality or causal effect. It's kind of slippery, really.
I can see a few similarities but somehow I think caution is advised.

In a human hierarchy, for example, like a royal family; birth order
matters. So does gender. It is purely an issue of "luck" and has
nothing to do with local contexts of time, country, need, optimality...
the relation between the "fitness" of the next-in-line for the throne
to the functional requirements of the role of government. So, in this
case, "hierarchy" is completely formalized and the labels matter more
than the actual relational contexts do. That's an imposition of human
mind on the natural scheme of things, which appears to be one of the
hallmarks of our species-- for better and for worse (and we do a whole
bunch of both, it seems to me!).

Ultimately, I suspect you are asking about how he viewed the nature
of relations-- which relations are more impactful than others and why.
Am I getting it?

Judith