|
Tim, let me erase all your long post (it DOES
make good sense however) and quote ONE LINE of you quoting RR, which causes IMO
the most misunderstanding - even controversy - against all the Rosenesque idea
(True, however in the RR sense):
"A system is called complex if it has a nonsimulable
model." [EL 306]
"The rest of the world" speaks, theorizes.
calculates about "complex systems" as the ominous complicated,
hard-to-decipher constructs, MOSTLY consisting only of the RR's "simple" ones.
No "nonsimulables" included.
Would it be reasonable to add to the quoted text
"According to the RR terminology" or something similar?
Now a question to your conclusion: is a "model
of a system" an abstraction of it, or an extension which includes the system? In
the first case it is reductionistically a part of a reductionist model, ie. the
system, while in the second sense it does not make sense (going
into the undefined natural connections). Model
up or down?
Could you give a SHORT explanation?
JohnM ----- Original Message -----
|