.......
>> Yet I believe we need to account for the objective character of the
>> space-time world in terms that are not just individually referenced, but
>> shared by all observers. That shared view is incontrovertable; so what
>> accounts for its relative permanence?
>
>That is if we are all at the same place and traceling at the same speed.
Don't
>forget relativistic effects on time.
>
Yes, that is further evidence of the relative nature of the time/space
measure, however it does not exceed the boundaries of object definition at
speeds below light. The Lorentz formulas are exact transformations that
detail how the space-time objects will look at different speeds. They
remain "objects" in the transformation except at the point singularity
where v=C. It is only at that point where object definition breaks down
(dt=0). But that point definitely exists in considering things like the big
bang and the event horizon of black holes. That's what I mean by cosmic
scales. And the same problem occurs at sub-atomic scales; we loose object
definition (space-time indeterminism). Furthermore, analogous behavior
seems to occur in the psyche. These are the only places I know of where the
problem becomes obvious (except now in laboratory experiments with
Bose-Einstein matter). Many assume (implicitly) that the first two are
related because they both fall within the traditional perview of physics. I
assume they are all three (and perhaps all four) related, at least as a
starting point for thinking about it. I'm also starting to appreciate that
Rosen's relational model can be applied to all these situations
successfully; hence I think it may constitute a good general theory.
>> We need to see how the shared
>> objective "reality" is derived from the ultimately subjective one Rosen was
>> constructing.
>
>Rosen doesn't "construct" a set of ideas about time. He merely notes our
>limitations.
I was refering to his construction of "relational biology" and the modeling
relation as a new way to view reality which does not inherit the mechanical
assumptions, yet can explain them. It thus may serve as a good general theory.
>In the broader sense, he also deals with the myth of objectvity, showing
that > it is indeed a myth. He then confronts us with a joice: limit
science to the
>pseudo-objective or discard the subject/object boundary we try to maintain.
>
Yes, I fully agree. Just a minor quibble about presentation though: I think
we can say that Rosen shows the limits of the objective view. It is
unnecessary to call it a "myth" in all cases (except to call attention to
the important exceptions). The objective/Newtonian view is a quite good
model for classical systems and we will not abandon it when describing
perceptual objects such as moving bodies (cars, rocks, planets, golf balls,
etc.) or in predicting material structures (as in engineering and most of
physics). There is no conflict on that ground where the two views give
equivalent predictions (The argument is analogous to saying that we do not
need to use the relativistic Lorentz equations at speeds significantly
below C). I think we're both far more concerned with the greater value of
Rosen's more general theory in those cases where mechanism and objective
assumptions break down and do not adequately describe reality, e.g.,
psyche, life/complexity, conscioiusness, mental activity, etc. I think it
must also have significant if not profound implications for extremes of the
objective world as well; sub-atomic and cosmic scales.
-----------------------------------------------
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)