OK, it is too much for email, but please look at http://69.195.124.95/~nexialor/relational-science
That will seem confusing, but there are pages and posts where I try to make it more understandable. Initially it is not intuitive to Western trained minds.
I will refer to R-theory. I coined the name so that I could refer to it and not claim it as everyone’s ‘relational theory’ and also to reference it to Robert Rosen, on who’s ideas it is based, without losing the distinction between his work and my attempted extensions.
Note there is “relationalism” in cosmology that may be quite different.
In R-theory, a relation is mathematically a ‘functor’ (category theory). That is actually an information relation between two categories, but in this theory the two categories are measurable existence and niche potential. I use the word ‘niche’ in the ecological sense — I am a physical scientist / ecologist. But I’m applying the niche concept generally. It is a non-local specification for the existence of something – an adaptive / selective “contextual” potential in nature. It could be the Akashic field, or Tiller’s mirror reality, or the quantum void. It could be higher dimensions in space-time theory beyond 3S-1T. In fact I have a cosmology based on a direct mirror of 3S into an imaginary number domain where T remains imaginary in both mirror realities but ends up being dual scale (log relation). That simple trick actually works. So it is a relational cosmology.
The relation is also pretty much exactly what is described in the Upanishads of India – between “existence” and “non-existence”. But the later is to be understood as an existence without attributes, a non-measurable existence while our sensory world is an existence with attributes – the domain of measurement. We tend to refer to the opposite as “non-local” because measurement systems are what confer locality. So any measurement system must be non-local, and anything responsible for realization of local phenomena must be non-local.
The non-local is analogous to mental. It has potentials for realizing events and its potentials are built on prior events. Its like a memory or a model. Good candidate for concepts of mind, but I think consciousness is more than this – it is the whole relation.
The structure of the R-theory holon is a circular causality involving all four of Aristotle’s causes, but linked in a closed hierarchical loop, not an open hierarchy as Western science took it. I have many drawings of it, but this is the simplest and closest to Rosen’s ‘modeling relation’. Note that the modeling relation is a description of science, so if applied as a general picture of nature’s basic holographic unity, it says nature is modeling itself. The relations in the diagram are “decoding” and “encoding” which are functors between the mirror domains of a Natural System and a Formal System. You can get the idea of holographic structure when you realize that, if this is true, it is a “natural system” itself, so the box on the left can be written in the same way. So can the one on the right. Each box at one holarchical level is half of a modeling relation. Then the halves can connect in an infinite variety of holons at many scales. The result is an analytical method to decompose whole systems in terms of whole systems. I also have reasons to think this “whole” system would be associated with consciousness. It is a happening, becoming and expressing. This diagram is pure Rosen, except that I added the labels for Aristotle’s causes. When you do that, you get a holon with four causal quadrants that appears in many studies.
So here’s the R-theory holon. It appears in the six traditions mentioned here, plus the 5000 year old Indus Valley “three headed” bull, which I think represented the same idea:
Your last question — they are instances of organization. You can replace any of the four quadrant arrows above with another holon, and so it is a holistic construction/deconstruction. Its in a sense a reduction to wholes instead of a reduction to material parts. I think it is what we need to explain psi phenomena. note that the upper right quadrant looks a lot like karmic feedback from karmic actions in the lower left.
If you don’t mind, I’ll post this reply to the relational science BLOG
John
On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:38 AM, Andrew Lohrey <andrew.lohrey> wrote:
I am interested in relational science.
Can you say what constitutes a relation?
Are they local or non-local, mental or physical?
Do relations have agency and if so what is its nature?
Are relations innocent by-products of forms or the agents of organisation?Andrew
On 21/02/2014, at 3:27 PM, John Jay Kineman wrote:
I’ve been working on something that seems similar, called R-theory. It is mathematically expressed in category theory. the “organization” you call Enformism may be similar to the R-theory holon.
Kineman, J.J. (2011) Relational Science: A Synthesis. Axiomathes, 21, 393437.__._,_.___
Reply to sender Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (36) VISIT YOUR GROUP
Privacy Unsubscribe Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___
Dr. John J. Kineman
Senior Research Scientist
Coop. Inst. for Res. in the Env. Sciences
UCB 216, University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado 80309
john.kineman@coloradoedu
303-443-7544
“Always do right: It will gratify some people and astonish the rest” — Samuel Clemens
2 Responses to SSE Physics and the relationship of consciousness to observation