John J. Kineman wrote:
> John Kineman's attempt to respond to Don Mikulecky:
>
> At 10:32 AM 7/1/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Rosen has shown that relational models can encompass both the Newtonian
> paradigm
> >and these extensions beyond it with equal facility.
> >...One point he insists on is that we are using physical/non-physical in a
> >potentially misleading way. If we allow "organization" (for lack of a better
> > word
> >and to save space) of the type I've been talking about to be considered an
> >integral part of any real system, them possibly we whant our distinction
> to be
> >between the material and non-material, but even that doesn't do it. I
> hope you
> >see the problem: all real systems contain these two aspects in inseperable
> ways.
>
> If by "material" we mean the classical 4-dimensional world we observe, this
> is similar to what I think I'm describing.
>
> >In network thermodynamics we recognize two kinds of "data" constitutive laws
> >relating flows and forces and the network's topology. these are distinct and
> > both necessary for an understanding and modeling of the system.
> >
>
> Help me on this one. It would seem strange to define "data" in terms of
> "laws" and "topology" within a material context, hence such a definition
> would not be general.
notm trying to be general...was trying to give a specific example of those
things
we measure...observables...which usually are what we mean by data.....in an
electrical network these might be current and voltage through and across a
circuit
element. Then there is the way the circuit is connected together.....the
topology
> If we are talking about data forming the bridge
> between material realities and mental realities, then it makes sense to me
> as having something to do with the "topology" of that relationship. The
> law F=ma refers to the mental theoretical (mathematical) relationship
> between quantitative values for force, mass, and accelleration as a way of
> modeling something presumed "real."
yes, but also it was clever construct........produced closure in that
acelleration
was the highest time derivative of the motion necessary to describe the
system...much abstracted from the "real" here too...point masses to represent
planets...etc.
> Neither the law nor the numbers are
> part of nature (from an objective viewpoint), but part of our abstraction
> of it. If, on the other hand, one wishes to model the psychological
> interaction of the scientist as part of the system, then the numbers are
> involved in linking between the material process being observed and the
> mental construct of the observer, and we can say the "data" are part of the
> natural system that includes psychology.
yes..that's the idea I was trying to establish as well
>
>
> Now, using my own arguements against me for a moment, if the quantum level
> is an elementary prototype for the kind of complex psychology normally
> associated with thinking, science, and human-use data, then the concept of
> "data" must also have its primative element in the quantum world. At that
> point, perhaps we would suspect that it is the "glue" that Norm alluded to
> that is involved in determining quantum states. However, at this level I'm
> not convinced that it is meaningful to think of it as "data" which was a
> concept invented to accommodate more baggage, such as theory, experiment,
> thinking, data storage, accuracy, precision, etc. -- all attributes
> associated with organism use (macroscopic perception). At the most
> primative level, the exchange is synonomous with a decision about a single
> state, as in Hammeroff & Penrose's self-collapse theory. As an analogy, is
> a single bit in a computer memory "data." It is necessary to data, but not
> sufficient without additional meanings.
I would say that this is ALWAYS true
> I think an arguement in my favor is
> the inference that quantum states are spread until there is a permanent
> record of an event (state, or state change). That implies that data storage
> is required in the classical realm (i.e., to have macroscopically observed
> states or objects), but not in the un-observed quantum realm (where states
> can define themselves). The state itself is the "data" of this realm. The
> idea that something else transpires to initiate a state change is a
> 'macro-centric' idea. At the most primative level, I think we can only talk
> about "decisions" or "decision events" not "data" and unfortunately, the
> cause remains mysterious, being outside our 4D world. "Data," to my
> understanding, can only exist (i.e., be stored) within the 4D (macroscopic)
> world. Yet the apparent paradox is that for the storage of data to have its
> necessary meaning as data, there must also be a psyche to perceive it as
> such, i.e., to attach its meaning. This is an apparent paradox in our
> reality because we are in the macroscopic world where these things have
> become separated. At the quantum level the event, the storage, and the
> (primative) meaning are one. The meaning is also simple, it is the single
> thought of existence (to the spiritualist, "I am"). Since these things are
> not separate at that level, there is nothing transferred, hence not much
> use for the idea of "data." The same seems evident when dealing with
> non-local quantum phenomena. If data were involved, it would violate the
> speed of light limitation to have correlated non-local events. The
> existence of non-locality phenomena is a demonstration that data are not
> involved, and perhaps that data, event, and decision are not separated at
> that level. Hence the inference of additional dimensions where a "no data
> required" connection can exist. My arguement is that the view I present
> here is a more parsimonious view than presuming there is something called
> "data" that is real and important at the quantum level, or that the concept
> adds anything at that level. The only way I could see combining this view
> with the concept that "data" are the "glue" is if we think of data as the
> hidden dimension implied in non-locality -- but that's an unneccessary
> redefinition of terms that we already have better words for, and it damages
> our understanding of "data" as a macroscopic phenomenon. In the macroscopic
> world, yes, I would agree that "data" can be thought of as the operative
> element involved in perception and the glue between what is perceived and
> the mental state of the observer (including all the semantic meanings about
> chairs, etc.); but that's a pretty common and trivial result. It does not
> get at the "glue" or perhaps the commonality between material and
> non-material nature at the most fundamental level.
Rosen began his deliberations on these matters by grappling with the
"measurement
problem" in quantum mechanics. I see lots of places in what you wrote where he
has addressed issues with some care.
>
>
> >
> >the chair is replete with organization and other attributes which are more
> > central
> >to its chairness than the wood which is easily replaced by steel or plastic
> >without changing it from being a chair
> >
>
> My point is that this is stated from a human perspective only, not a
> general inference about nature. "Being a chair" and being "repleat with
> organization and other attributes" are all observer defined meanings and
> not an inherent part of the natural object, unless we define the system of
> study (the natural object) to be both the chair and a human observer, in
> which case we can speak of it as a chair.
pardon me ...but isn't that true of everything we contemplate?there is no
science
without observers....
> If we define the system of study
> to be the chair and a termite, there is no "chair" in that system, nor many
> of the other organizational attributes we as humans would define.
and we go back to the point I tried to make earlier about the TV set without its
connections
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
> National Geophysical Data Center
> 325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
> Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
> (303) 497-6900 (phone)
> (303) 497-6513 (fax)
> jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
> (303) 497-6513 (fax)
respectfully,
Don Mikulecky