http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Assistance-sought-The-meaning-of-constraints-tp6165767p6167257.html
say. Some witty physicist (John Archibald Wheeler,
explanation.
> Does it
> depend on where you measure it? What about at planetary distances?
> Really I am just curious and not attempting to poke or provoke.
> Thank you-
> Victoria
>
>
> [ ps so is my ignorance a constraint or a force, and what changes that?
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Russ Abbott wrote:
>
> > Eric and Lee have nice discussions. The only thing I would add as
> > something of a generalization is that constraints have to do with
> > the structure of something--in Lee's case, the way the hand is
> > structured and how it's held together at the joints and in Eric's
> > case the structure created by the bumpers on the alley. Forces
> > become important when one discusses the expenditure of energy--in
> > Lee's case the use of energy to move the hand given the constraints
> > and in Eric's case the energy that imparted momentum to the ball.
> >
> > One thing that makes this more difficult is that many social (and
> > biological) systems expend energy to maintain structure: a police
> > force is an example as is a government more generally. In Lee's and
> > Eric's examples, we imagine the structures being maintained
> > statically (and indefinitely) by whatever holds the pieces in place.
> > In social and biological organizations many of the structures would
> > fall apart were it not for the continual expenditure of energy.
> >
> > -- Russ Abbott
> > _____________________________________________
> > Professor, Computer Science
> > California State University, Los Angeles
> >
> > Google voice: 747-999-5105
> > blog:
http://russabbott.blogspot.com/> > vita:
http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/> > _____________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:57 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I suspect that outside the context of a specific example, this is
> > not really possible to answer. Throwing your own pet distinction
> > back at you, we need to know what we are trying to explain, so we
> > can avoid slipping levels of analysis. I have not read the author in
> > question, but suspect an example (with slippage) would go something
> > like this:
> >
> > Imagine a child bowling with bumpers. The child causes the ball to
> > roll down the lane, and to hit the pins. The bumpers constrain the
> > path of the ball to be in the direction of the pins. That is, the
> > overall path of the ball is roughly: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\X (our lucky
> > kid rolls a strike), and when asked to explain that macro-movement -
> > the child causes, the bumpers constrain. If that is correct, it is
> > going to be a big problem if we slip our level of analysis to the
> > details of the path of the ball. If, instead of explaining the
> > overall pattern, we ask about a single jag (a single \) then the
> > bumper has a causal roll, in that it applied force to the ball (or
> > redirected force applied to it by the ball). So, what we find from
> > our example is that all "constraints" are "causes" at another level
> > of analysis - which would be terribly confusing if not specified.
> >
> > For a more flippant example: Does my cable TV subscription constrain
> > what I watch, or cause it? When I am flipping through the channels,
> > it constrains it. When I stay on the same channel, whatever is on,
> > it causes it.
> >
> > Another thought: This is the same silly distinction made by people
> > who are not willing to commit fully to epigenetic development. They
> > say things like "genes create the constrains that the environment
> > works within." (The most obvious reason it is silly is because one
> > could just as easily reverse the terms.)
> >
> > Hope something in that helps,
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 01:45 AM, "Nicholas Thompson" <
[hidden email]
> > > wrote:
> > Dear anybody,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I am reviewing a book by a psychologist in which the author makes a
> > distinction between constraints and causes. Now perhaps I am over
> > thinking this, but this distinction seems to parallel one made by
> > Feynman in his famous physics text, where he defines a constraint as
> > a force that does no work. If I have it right, the idea goes like
> > this: If you place a bowling ball on a table the ball neither
> > receives work from gravity nor does the table do any work holding
> > the ball up because the ball does not move, and work is just the
> > movement of mass. Indeed, even if you were to slide the table out
> > and, with great effort, were to hold the ball in the same position
> > for an hour, you wouldn´t be doing any work, either. Similarly, in
> > a ball rolling down an inclined plane, the plane itself does no work
> > because even tho it affects the motion of the ball, its effect is
> > always perpendicular to the motion of the ball and there fore
> > affects its motion neither one way or the either .... i.e., does no
> > work!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now I would leave it at that except that Alicia Juarrero in her book
> > also makes a huge distinction between forces and constraints, one
> > which I think our own Steve Guerin applauds. It is the constraints
> > that make it possible for far-from-equilibrium systems to self
> > organize and do work. Perhaps I can make this work with Feynman´s
> > definition if I think about the dam beside a water wheel, and the
> > water wheel itself, as applying constraints to the water (they do no
> > work themselves) which make it possible for the falling water to do
> > work. Am I still on track, here?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Now Juarrero goes on to make a distinction between between context
> > sensitive and context-free. I have read these passages dozens of
> > times and I just don´t understand this distinction. Can anybody out
> > there explain it to me as to a Very Small Child.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> >
> >
> >
> > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> >
> >
> >
> > Clark University
> >
> >
> >
> >
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >
> >
> >
> >
http://www.cusf.org> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> >
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org> >
> >
> > Eric Charles
> >
> > Professional Student and
> > Assistant Professor of Psychology
> > Penn State University
> > Altoona, PA 16601
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org>
>
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College