Posted by
Phil Henshaw-2 on
Apr 26, 2008; 2:21am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Welcome-Jim-tp526087p526118.html
How does that
>
> phil henshaw wrote:
> > Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just
> omitting their
> > living parts, "mind without matter".
> >
> > Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that?
>
> I believe so. At least 1/2 of the solution to any problem lies in a
> good formulation of the problem. And in that sense, being able to
> state
> (as precisely as possible) which closures are maintained in which
> context and which closures are broken in which context, therefore,
> contributes immensely to the solution.
[ph] the requirement is that your model describe new behavior of independent
organisms or communities things you have no information about because they
never occurred before. What's the modeling strategy for that?
> I.e. if the problem is that our modeling methods only capture isolable
> (separable, "linear", analytic, etc.) systems _well_, then we need
> other
> modeling methods to capture holistic ("nonlinear", non-analytic)
> systems. As I understand it, this is the basic conception behind the
> "sustainability movement", somehow capturing or understanding
> externalities and engineering organizations so that their waste is more
> useful to other organizations.
>
> What Rosen tried to do (in my _opinion_) is help us specify what parts
> of our modeling methods are inadequate to the task of capturing certain
> broken closures. I.e. I think he tried to explain _why_ so many of our
> models are so fragile, namely, because they cannot capture the closure
> of efficient cause (agency). That concept requires no mathematics (ala
> category theory). But he tried to communicate the concept using
> mathematics and logic via the discussions of Poincare's
> "impredicativity" and rhetorical vs. causal loops.
[ph] I haven't studied Rosen enough the really know if he's pointing to the
same conflict between living things and machines that I am, but there
clearly is a conflict. Machines are the produce of a self-consistent model
in the mind of the inventor, cities and technologies are complex learning
processes that grow out of their own environments like all other natural
systems..etc.
Phil
>
> So, yes, I think these things can help with our understanding of the
> fragility of _simple_ models ("mechanism" in Rosen's peculiar
> terminology). Even if Rosen's MR-systems or his "closure to efficient
> cause" are inadequate to the task (which I think they _are_), at least
> considering those attempts and how/where they may fail facilitates our
> progress toward other, hopefully more successful, solutions.
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. -- Omar N.
> Bradley
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFIEjtUpVJZMHoGoM8RAt6gAJkB0y2YDBB3/LsFr8i561UrfEPvsgCggAKu
> I8mcbIbWrFljoixYiONhrCg=
> =CxBC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> 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