>Reply to Don:
>
>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
Limited?! I dissagree. The implications of the relative expansion go quite
far. One idea that I thought should have been obvious is that we can view
the universe as static and that matter is shrinking! What happens to the
big bang? There are other physical implications that are not as obvious.
There are other areas that are indirectly related to space/time and mass as
well. Virtually all of our technology depends to a greater or lesser degree
on what these these three units represent. This discussion and its
implications could not take place without some kind of understanding of how
you can use these three units. I would think you'd find this interesting.
These minutia should be an implicit component of the larger contexts of
something like an anticipatory system. Don't you think?
>>
>
>Well, not really if we want to integrate these ideas with physics, which I
>think is essential.
Or as a testing ground for the modeling relation.
>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.
Yes. Execelent!
>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.
And precission (and lots of it) is something we use to judge the
utility/validity of a physical theory.
Regards
Jack Martinelli