At 11:01 AM 2/17/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Don Mikulecky replies:
>
>The idea that a concept of time requires motion (space) is rather limited and
> off
>the point, don't you think?
>Don
>
Well, not really if we want to integrate these ideas with physics, which I
think is essential. The idea that space and time are mutually defining
seems very much an implication of Rosen's theories as well as one of the
problems in physics (it can be stated many ways, but it boils down to this:
In some wierd way, space and time may actually be the same thing, viewed
from different frames of reference). I know that gets pretty far "out
there" for many practical scientists in non-physical fields, but it becomes
inescapable at the edges of physical theories, and that's where I think
psyche is.
Rosen discusses the necessity of "final cause" and refers to "causal
temporal loops." This completely violates our rigid concepts of space and
time and has been fatally objectionable in science for this reason. Rosen
also challenges the definition of spatial objectivity. These are not
independent phenomena. It is not possible to have "space" without "time"
and vice versa. They are defined in terms of each other. I think
considering this example, i.e, definition of the physical world, could be a
good way for many to grasp the magnitude of what Rosen is proposing. For
those who are not comfortable with discussing physics, it is important
still to know that what we see when we look out the window is adequately
explainable in a classical/mechanical view where physics gained its
strength, but physics has also shown that this is a scale-dependent
perspective that does not hold universally, even for the physical world.
Why should we expect it to hold for psychological phenomena and life?
I think Rosen's view can help resolve (philosophically and maybe
mathematically) some of the great physical paradoxes, such as space-time
causality, quantum phenomena, and the cosmic big-bang. I don't claim to be
able to formulate that resolution myself, but on a philosophical level,
from my limited exposure to physics and ecology, and a good helping of
creative thought, I can see how it might fit. Another thing I don't know,
and what Rosen says he didn't know, is if his relational model can be
turned into something predictive. I think it can be in some general ways;
like thermodynamics can predict entropy, but not the precise motions of
particles, which involve measures in a differently constructed view.
-----------------------------------------------
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)