Re: Daisyworld / N-body

["John M" <***>]

Tim, here is my idea from my stubborn ignorance on the contents of your and
Victor's learned posts about Gaia, the anticipator.
I liked Lovelock's Daisy-s (I read it ~15 years ago) and it gave me a strong
credit for Gaia. With the other (your) side I confess: I glanced only
briefly in the 'Anticipatories' and could not swallow it.
Then I reconsidered it some 6 times and found that "AHA", I only consider
time a (reductionist?) crutch to our understanding the world, (I had sweats
to think up concepts in a timeless vision), so "anticipatory" and
"postsipatory" are only differences in a timed view. Just like cause and
effect. I made my peace with RR's anticipatorialism by putting aside the
concept as a time-related view where some feedback-informations are visioned
as 'earlier' events. Not too practical, but it gave me the peace of mind. Of
course I may have completely misunderstood RR.

The Gaian feedback-series I consider as the same, but perfectly followable.
If I look at it without the timing factor, I am right in the middle of
anticipation (also without timing).
Don't forget that in my narrative the universe is a timeless fulguration and
only in the inside do we identify time and space for our comfort.

So I resign from this topic with anticipation of a good resolution between
the two of you. Then I may know which part of the agreement to join.

Best regards

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: Daisyworld / N-body


> Hi Viktor,
>
> Welcome to the list!
>
> I admit I am not at all familiar with ecosystem modeling, or Daisyworld
> specifically. So I looked up a few webpages, and I agree - the Daisyworld
> model does have alot of similarities to the approach I suggested.
>
> The only notable difference seems to be that the Daisyworld approach is
> based on (from what little I read) it being a "feedback control system"
> which implies it is based on a mechanistic or "reactive paradigm", as
Rosen
> called it in AS. So, there are changes in the daisy populations in
response
> to changes in temperature, which is in turn in response to changes in
> albedo, which is in turn in response to changes in daisy populations, etc.
>
> On the other hand, an N-body system, as a Rosennean complex system, can be
> viewed from an anticipatory paradigm.The latter paradigm includes the
notion
> of internal predictive models, rather than mechanistic feedback controls.
>
> I suppose the question is whether the biosphere is more authentically
> modeled in the reactive paradigm or the anticipatory paradigm. If the
> latter, then it would seem to indicate that ecosystem models would have to
> be rethought, and considered in terms of what those internal predictive
> models might be like and how they would operate on the ecosystem, rather
> than in terms of how part A of the ecosystem reacts mechanistically to
part
> B, etc.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of slovak
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:31 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: ROSEN Digest - 22 Sep 2003 to 23 Sep 2003 (#2003-73)
> >
> >
> > 0Tim,
> >
> > what you write about reminds me of Lovelock's writings and the
> > Gaia theory, especially his Daisyworld model.  Basically, the
> > Daisyworld model is a very simple way to show how flowers could,
> > for example, control the mean global temperature (I hope I
> > remember this right, it has been a while).  I think one book
> > where he describes it is "Ages of Gaia".
> > I also remember Mikulecky saying somewhere how Gaia fits the
> > Rosean definition of life.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Viktor
> >
> >
>