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

Re: inertial and gravitational

Judith/Tim,

Some reflections on the topic:

In the November issue of the Scientific American I read an article written by Juan Maldacena entitled; "The Illusion of Gravity: The force of gravity and one of the dimensions of space might be generated out of the peculiar interactions of particles and fields existing in a lower-dimensional realm."

To my mind it is mainly meant to review the attempts of expanding the capability of quantum theory to include gravitational forces thus to be the candidate for a theory for the New Science, including also living systems, i gathered. This article perhaps being a review of the progress on the latest theories of quantum physics, i.e. string/super string theories remains within the boundaries or at the edge of the existing theories advance mostly based on computations as their verifiers. In this connection the author cites that 'anti-de Sitter space turns out to be quite useful in the quest to for quantum theories of spacetime and gravity,... kind of a stack of disks, forming a solid cylinder within which time runs. Hyperbolic space can have more than two spatial dimensions.....In this connection the author brings in the holographic theory in to the picture, mentioning elsewhere that the holographic correspondence is not just a valid new possibility for a quantum theory of gravity. Rather, in a fundamental way, it connects string theory with the theories of quarks and gluons, which are the cornerstones of particle physics...... Unfortunately, we do not yet know of a boundary theory that gives rise to an interior theory that includes exactly the four forces we have in our universe.' He adds: 'So far no example of holographic correspondence has been rigorously proved - mathematics is too difficult. ....Many questions about the holographictheories remain to be answered.'

As I see it, no effort is made to have an open mind and enter into the puzzle with new vision and possibilities. In this connection no mention is made here and almost nowhere to RR's ideas and his promising theories to be tested. I wonder whether some body in this list , for example Tim, could write an article to appear in the same magazine with an attempt to expand the existing closed circle around the quantum theory to give birth to a new science.

I believe, but I cannot defend not being fully conversed with, that Rosen's approach will clear the way for all so as to make concerted efforts and also to help distinguish where to apply which (analytical-versus symbolic/analogical) approach to scientific enquiries, for the good of all and to be of practical help on the way of dealing with the present world issues. Existing science is shrinking the truth (not democratic) but a broadened science will be revealing it (democratic) .

Ayten

On Nov 15, 2005, at 8:41 PM, Judith Rosen wrote:

A great post, Tim. I think you're becoming quite articulate on these matters. A pleasure to read.

I do have one comment that is not a criticism of Tim, but it IS liable to set off the political correctness police (PCP?). However, I can't let it go by without adding my two cents worth. Where Tim wrote:
If one pictures a 3-body system, and the set of state-based equations involved, they requires that one body be considered an inertial system being forced by the other two (gravitational) bodies. So we have drawn a box, as it were, around the first body and said: this is the system, all else (namely, the two other bodies) is the environment of the system. A very tractable problem. But then, this division into system and environment must be repeated for the other two bodies in turn, and all the equations must be solved simultaneously.
 So each body is acting as a thing which can be forced and also a thing which can force something else; but additionally, the things which it can force (i.e., the other two bodies) can force it. So we end up with the impredicativities as Rosen described. Its not that the state-based equations are wrong, but they are limited in what aspects they can model about the three-body system.

The phrase that grabbed me is "It's not that the state-based equations are wrong..."

Now, up front, let me reiterate that I'm not faulting Tim for putting this in a very diplomatic and careful way; it is exactly what I have been advised by many people to do. I can't do it. When I read that phrase, I debated whether I should poke at the sore spot or just let it go and, obviously, I've decided I can't let it go. It's like a splinter that has to come out, even though it hurts, because to leave it in there is to guarantee trouble later. My kids don't like to hear that, when they get a splinter, but it's one of the realities of life in an interactive universe, right?

One of the things that always bothered me about my father's writing was his ultra-careful phrasing, especially in his earlier work, which tends to sometimes confuse people about just exactly what his own point of view was. I've seen people quote him from a passage, whereby he was describing a point of view opposite to his own, yet it was being quoted as if it actually was his own viewpoint. He was sometimes too careful to not "say it like it is" lest he offend and slam minds shut. I can appreciate the reasoning; I even agree up to a point. And I do think he became far more clear and plain speaking in his last two books, which is good, in my view. Of course, it did piss some people off... but then people get pissed off no matter what one says or how one says it. You can't please everyone. That's simply a given.

In this instance, his whole point was that the state-based equations ARE wrong. They are inherently wrong, if our definition of wrong means "does not commute with reality" but they are able to be less wrong in some contexts and more wrong in others. Any single model (even if the system being modeled is a simple system) is a reduction, and will therefore be incomplete. If the system being modeled is a complex system, then even any "largest" set of models will similarly always be a reduction. If any finite set of models is asserted to be an accurate representation of any complex system's entailment pattern, whether based on the concept of states or not, it will be a reduction. This may not be necessarily "bad" as long as we are aware of it, and aware of what it can mean... But, to use a state-based modeling paradigm as THE mode for representation of any complex system is a guarantee of achieving reduction so severe as to be unusable in and of itself to predict accurately the system's behavior. Worse than that; if we are unaware of the critical limitations of the paradigm and use it anyway, the data we generate (including the predictions) will contain all sorts of anomalous information that has nothing whatsoever to teach us about the system being modeled. If we continue, still unaware of this situation, we will incorporate such anomalous information into our knowledge base about the system and perhaps into all sorts of other scientific analysis... and so it goes. To me, that says it's not only "wrong," it's dangerous. Even when modeling simple systems, where the state-based paradigm is somewhat less wrong under certain circumstances, there is still the factor that a simple system is part of a larger universe and there will be interactivity/interaction that cannot be predicted via a state-based paradigm no matter how good one's modeling skills.

Furthermore, he contended that even simple systems involve relational interaction that may be critical for understanding the behavior of the system. For example; to use a state-based paradigm is to pretend that time can be stopped-- that all systems are "static" (as in "not changing") within a single state space. It is just asking for side effects to design a simple system using only state-based modeling, if the system is going to be existing in a complex universe... and how can one possibly avoid THAT? Thus, bridges which are engineered to be solid and strong and last for centuries can be torn apart by a single army marching across it, if the marching cadence happens to be the same frequency as the resonant frequency of the bridge material. That's a side effect of relational interaction in a complex universe, and it has to do with information added to the bridge by the interaction of (1.) The army... (2.) marching... (3.) over time... (4.) interacting (in a particular set of relations) with... (5.) the resonant frequency of the bridge, among other things.

It was by following this paradigm backward through the history of science, to its roots, that RR was able to see the fundamental inapplicability of it. This is precisely why physics cannot answer foundational questions in biology. It is part and parcel of the machine metaphor/the reductionist paradigm/universe as clockwork/etc. That's not to say we can't do useful work with these tools, created from that paradigm... but just because the tools and techniques can be useful in certain limited circumstances doesn't change the fact that it's fundamentally wrong, and I think that needs to be stated with a bit more force. If it provokes people, then perhaps it SHOULD. You know what I mean?

Judith


Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Nov 14, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Tim Gwinn wrote:

David,
 
Just kinda jumping in here, regarding “inertial” and “gravitational”. This refers to the dualistic properties of a thing (such as a particle) as being something which can be pushed, and as being something which can push something else, respectively. In state-based physics this dualism is codified in the system/environment dualism. A system S (such as a particle) has assigned to it a position and the first derivative of position (i.e., velocity). But the second derivative, acceleration, is represented by F=ma, so that a=F/m. But F, force, is not part of the system S; instead, F comes from elsewhere – it is impressed on S from the environment.
 
This dualism has served us well for the most part, allowing a great deal of physics to be done. However, when a system (rather than a system and its environment) involves both inertial and gravitational aspects simultaneously, we find the limits of this approach. Thus, on EL p. 109:
 
“But even here, this stops being true once we try to interpret, or realize, Newtonian impressed forces as arising from the gravitation of other particles; that is, as soon as we put our particle into a bigger system of particles. Roughly, when we do this, we are allowing that impressed force to be determined (at least in part) by the particle itself. The particle is now (phenotypically) behaving in a “field of force” that it participates in generating. Although a classical particle is forbidden from (gravitationally) pushing itself when it is alone, adding other particles allows it to push things that can push it. The resultant impredicativities, which in fact plague all field theories of particle-based forces, arise as soon as we try to identify inertia (phenotype) with gravitation (genotype) independent of any larger context.
            This is why, for instance one cannot solve a three-body problem reductionistically, by solving two-body and one-body problems.”[ital. orig.]
 
If one pictures a 3-body system, and the set of state-based equations involved, they requires that one body be considered an inertial system being forced by the other two (gravitational) bodies. So we have drawn a box, as it were, around the first body and said: this is the system, all else (namely, the two other bodies) is the environment of the system. A very tractable problem. But then, this division into system and environment must be repeated for the other two bodies in turn, and all the equations must be solved simultaneously.
 
So each body is acting as a thing which can be forced and also a thing which can force something else; but additionally, the things which it can force (i.e., the other two bodies) can force it. So we end up with the impredicativities as Rosen described. Its not that the state-based equations are wrong, but they are limited in what aspects they can model about the three-body system. And if we break the system apart reductionistically, then we lose the relationship of a body pushing on other bodies which push on it. To model these impredicative relationships requires a non-state-based model. Such a model will describe the relationships between those simultaneous forcings, and those forcings are of course in the category of efficient cause, thus in your quote from Rosen: “This can be expressed as a shift from concerns with material causations of behavior, manifested in state sets, to formal and efficient causations.”
 
The inertial/gravitational distinction also shows up with the (M,R)-system model, which is concerned with relationships between efficient causes, rather than with the material causes (the molecules, etc.) being forced.
 
Regards,
Tim
 
 
 
<x-tad-smaller> </x-tad-smaller>

<x-tad-smaller>From:</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller> ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** </x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>On Behalf Of </x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller>David Macy</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>Sent:</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller> Saturday, November 12, 2005 1:23 PM</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>To:</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller> ***</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller>Subject:</x-tad-smaller><x-tad-smaller> Re: formal cause and time</x-tad-smaller>
 
-snip-
 
  In Robert Rosen's book Essays on Life Itself in chapter one there is a section entitled: What is this "New Physics"?  In it Robert says the following...
 
Most significant, I feel, will be the shifting of attention from exclusively inertial (or structural) concepts to gravitational aspects.  This can be expressed as a shift from concerns with material causations of behavior, manifested in state sets, to formal and effecient causations.
 
So I was just trying to get a jump on things, if you know what I mean.  I am still not clear about how RR uses the terms inertial and gravitational.  He seems to be talking to physicists when he uses these terms, and I'm not a physicist.
<x-tad-smaller>-snip-</x-tad-smaller>
<x-tad-smaller> </x-tad-smaller>