Hi Jack,
Yes – thanks for the examples. Indeed they are typically treated as Q2, a dynamical process that influences another dynamical process; but the reason for modeling it as Q3 is just what you said, the case where it is not a direct dynamical causation between the two processes, but instead is informational in nature. It turns on/off or, let’s say ‘constrains’ or ‘enables’ the process (what I meant by ‘regulates’) with some uncertainty. I hear what you are saying about the word “regulate” – a problem because we are used to thinking of everything as a dynamical interaction, and many regulatory mechanisms are familiar to us, like the governor on a lawn mower. In that case it is clear that both are mechanical systems by design, set up to influence each other mechanically. It is a Q2 interaction, not quite the same as a catalyst because it is good enough to model them as a mutual dynamic, i.e., efficient closure. The state of the governor influences the rate of fuel injection which influences the speed of the engine which influences the state of the governor via negative feedback, thus controlling the speed of the engine. A typical dynamic feedback mechanism. I’ll come back to this.
So, it seems that is precisely what you were getting at in saying the catalytic component is independent of the thing it catalyzes – its not a control mechanism that depends on the rate it controls. I’m thinking about that – what relational logic there is that would distinguish what seems to be a one-way effect. However, in the example of the catalytic converter, if high temperature is required there is, in practice, a feedback because the higher catalyzed burning rate raises the temperature and thus both the effectiveness of the catalyst, and perhaps some affect on the catalyst. I am not familiar with what determines the life of the catalytic converter active ingredient – does it degrade, perhaps from the high temperature? I assume it is not consumed at all in the reaction of the burning gasses, but does high temperature resulting from the reaction cause it to decompose and be lost to the environment???? In other words, I think a big difference between a catalytic, formal cause interaction and one that could be put into Q2 as a commensurate dynamical process is how direct the feedback is. I’m working this thought out as I type, so bear with me…..
If I use the holon diagram and think of a pure catalyst, that would be a sub-system occupying Q3, like below, where you can see the two systems A (the catalyzed process) and B (the catalyst) interact informationally through each of their Q3’s. In this case, B provides at least part of the formal cause for A (there can be other similar relations) to enable it to occur. But to do so it must then allow itself to be influenced by system A, also through Q3 formal decoding. This would be the case of “closure to formal cause”. So, if the relational theory holds up, we should be able to find something about the gas reaction in the catalytic converter that creates an environmental influence on the catalyst itself. I don’t know the chemistry involved in that, but my suspicion is that there’s some effect of temperature on the catalyst, shortening its life. It doesn’t have to be the only or even the main effect on the catalyst – which also can have other formal cause influences. Perhaps engineering a good catalyst is a matter of finding something for which this feedback is small compared to the formal cause that defines and maintains the substance normally. Thus is appears to remain stable and last a long time, but not indefinitely?? Does that work?
To the extent that we find a really good material that doesn’t degrade fast, and we can ignore its rate of decomposition as a result of use, then indeed we could model it as a direct causal interaction in Q2. In that case it would appear to be an efficient closure; but the cost of doing that is less precision, and that precision becomes important in non-engineered systems where MTBF could not be extended. In the case of living systems, what seems typical is for this kind of closure to be quite influential in both directions at the organism level (while there are certainly many catalytic reactions that appear to be one-way at the molecular level and are typically modeled as reducible dynamics).
Speculating on the dangers of modeling something as Q3 vs. Q2, I would say there is little danger. There is a set of dynamical equations implied in the catalytic sub-system (B), and a set of dynamical equations implied in the main system (A). The only issue is if these two sets of dynamical equations can be written as one dynamical equation. If we ignore the feedback to the catalyst, and uncertainty as to whether the reaction will actually take place under given conditions, then they can be, and typically are. But if we begin by writing them separately and relating them informationally, we preserve in the analysis the possibility of examining the uncertainty and feedback that might be present — if we are interested in looking at that.
Getting back to the lawn mower, it occurs to me that the uncertainty we find in formal cause interactions is minimized in this case, but instead appears as a time lag – so you can get an oscillation going. That is still in the common time of both system models, so it is still describable by dynamical equations – not yet an impredicative loop. But it is becoming much more sensitive to the environment, to other formal causes, because there are lots of things that can influence the response of each system. Indeed we take advantage of that by introducing a damping effect from some other mechanism. Still we can represent the damping as a mechanical Q2 effect. So, we’ve added three mechanisms in this case, but for the purposes of describing the lawn mower, they are all reducible in Q2. What may not be reducible, either as a practical or theoretical matter, is the effect of the climate – humidity, temperature, aerosols, etc. If only for practical reasons these would require coupling via Q3 with separately written models.
On Dec 18, 2014, at 9:41 PM, Jack Ring <jring7> wrote:
Seems to me these examples point to quadrant 2 rather than 3. Jack
On Dec 18, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Jack Ring <jring7> wrote:John, Thanks for this. I suggest caution regarding any claim of regulation. To the degree that regulation involves force, particularly directed force I think catalyst only influences, not causes or constrains.
The catalytic converter in a motor vehicle includes a passive catalyst that influences chemical reactions unless it becomes covered with other materials. Interestingly, the influence does not occur until the material is heated to a minimum temperature.
A catalytic cracker is one kind of oil refining technology, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/catalytic-cracking.html
In the 1980s the Cat Cracker at Bay St. Louis, MS, was controlled by a Honeywell TDC3000 consisting of 2500 variables and 2500 equations serving 173 control loops (temperature, pressure, flow, etc.) which could vary the relative % of gasoline, diesel, kerosene, oil, grease, etc. per barrel of crude.On Dec 18, 2014, at 4:15 PM, John Jay Kineman <john.kineman> wrote:
Jack,
I added back the distribution so the idea isn’t lost.
Your question:
Good. Now, how does catalyst relate to the four relationals?
I’d say it corresponds, in the most general sense, with formal cause, the upper-left quad in this diag. Its effect is to regulate the dynamics. The contextual constraint on dynamics is a function (and functor, mathematically).
This is the diagram we settled on in Linz at the IFSR Team 6 conversation. We’re drawing a parallel with Participatory Action Research, so using those lables (Plan, Act, Observe, Reflect). But once again, the four quads are archetype causalities/explanations of a system establishing each other cyclically; so the labels can change depending on the system being described. We can add “regulator” or “catalyst” to Q3. Also each quad can be replaced with a self-similar diagram, so its a holarchical view of ‘whole’ relations. The catalyst itself can be a whole system with its own material system. As we discussed, the degree of independence between catalyst (the extent that it is altered by feedbacks) can scale, but in this view, every interaction implies a loop at some level.
<PastedGraphic-1.pdf>
On Dec 18, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Jack Ring <jring7> wrote:
Good. Now, how does catalyst relate to the four relationals?
On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:36 PM, John Jay Kineman <john.kineman> wrote:Yes Jack, that’s what I’m saying. Every system has a catalyst.
JK
On Dec 17, 2014, at 11:09 AM, Jack Ring <jring7> wrote:
John,Suggest you consider The Skillful Facilitator, Roger Schwarz, Jossey-Bass; 2 edition (June 15, 2002)Also, any so-called template for a process that does not provide for learning/evolution of the template, c.f., ISO 15288
In fact, it is hard to find a system that does not contain a catalyst. How do you see the role of temperature in a cornfield?On Dec 17, 2014, at 10:56 AM, John Jay Kineman <John.Kineman> wrote:
I would look to find a social or business example where someone or group introduces a change in a system or institution, without also participating in that change and in some way also being changed.
