Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
On the limits of the OWL standard à [184]
Reading material [1]
Reading material [2]
Reading material [3]
Summary of the discussion up to this point à [186]
On ontological modeling of expression
The metaphor between gene, cell and social
expression à [217]
On Formal verses Natural systems à [206]
Comments by Paul Werbos on [218]
Comment
by Judith Rosen à [219]
Extended
comment by Paul Prueitt à [221]
Hi, Paul!
A lot of what Peter refers to is actually more related to www.webos.com/reality.htm -- the physics stuff.
Oodles of Hamiltonians and time. Perhaps we can have a conversation.
I have heard "holonomic" used in control theory at times and maybe that's what Peter referring to... but some of his words remind me more about local gauge invariance. I carefully avoid taking sides on that just now, but certain that is implied in the "next step" discussion, since it is a major feature of the
standard model (EWT+QCD).
I don't see any esoterics there, good work!!
I'm not hung up on semantics, so long as there is some basic understanding....
In control, I mainly remember "nonholonomic" as stuff like trying to get to a point in 3D when you only have two degrees of freedom to play with, as in rotating a sphere. But I don't use the word a lot myself.
Local gauge invariance in physics is not my term -- but I do use it a lot, because it's extremely important. In a sense, it implies an arbitrariness or an infinite set of degrees of freedom in how we can label physical states, equivalently...but it is generally assumed that a set of force field states is meaningful without any attached semantics whether local gauge theory applies or not.
But I guess you could call it "semantics" when we need to attach some kind of measurement methodology, to predict how states in this objective universe do map into what we see when we live inside that universe. Regardless of how big and strange it may be.
Best,
Paul Werbos