Jim Rutt discussion with Bonnitta Roy

The transcript is here. I appreciated the discussion of soil experiments in different environments, that each niche has its own requirements, that there is no one soil solution for all of them.

This though extends to our modeling, in that when we draw a boundary something gets left out. Hence there is no one model that covers all the bases. It behooves us to do meta-analyses of which models fit best under which conditions, how each fills in some the gaps of the others.

Which of course relates to the discussion about boundaries, how they are semi-permeable, allowing for both an cohesive entity yet how it communicates and shares with its environment and other entities. Investigating those spaces between is a study in itself.

One question I have though is when Bonnie talks about the whole and no boundary, the entire developmental field. How could we possibly ever know (or feel, whatever) such a whole? The very notion of a field implies it too has boundaries. The discussion of the computronium made it clear that we cannot fathom its entirety, that we have to limit our knowledge to models that focus on bits and pieces.

Which of course related to the discussion of the universe, noting there were a multitude of them, each with their own laws of physics, etc. Again, fields with boundaries that perhaps we can come to know at least some of its attributes and laws. But what of those semi-permeable boundaries, those spaces between universes, do they interact? It does make for interesting sci-fi, but what about the science of that?

In line with my comments above I'm reminded of Bruce Alderman's paper on generative enclosures in Integral Review. And as to the generative space between that allows a meta-analysis/synthesis of models, see this Edwards et al piece.