[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: what are "internal predictive models"?



John K. and all,
 
You know fatigue has set in when you look at the sentence; "Let's say we have a non-organismic complex system..." and do a double take because at first it seemed to read: "Let's say we have a non-orgasmic complex system..."
 
I'll take a stab at answering this more intelligently tomorrow!
 
Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 4:06 PM
Subject: [ROSEN] what are "internal predictive models"?

> Let me try a story I just thought of: related to this topic:
>
> Let's say we have a non-organismic complex system. We all agree that we
> can create a scientific model of it, and that our science can be
> imagined in terms of a modeling relation. Our first attempt is a
> mechanical model ala Newton. It works up to a point, but has a limit
> beyond with behaviors appear random and uncertain, i.e., unpredictable.
> We can at most get a statistical description with a bounded uncertainty
> term. This is quantum mechanics. We then try a different way of
> conceptualizing the system. We think of it as a Rosen modeling relation
> between a realized component, from which one could observe states of so
> inclined, and a formal component that appears to be rather abstract in
> what it is or does except that it contains some kind of functional
> definition. This view now explains why we get uncertainty in the other
> view - the relationship between the realizations and their associated
> functions is not a perfect 1:1 correspondence. If it were, we could do
> with the Newtonian model.  By using this form of analysis we understand
> more about the physical system, but it is also not a complete
> description. If we do want to talk about states, we should probably use
> the Newtonian model with uncertainty. Now what good is the relational
> view in this case?? It allows why questions to have answers, which the
> Newtonian view does not.
>
> In this story, what we put into the "FS" box as an imagined aspect of
> the complex system may be something as developed as a human mind, if we
> are describing a human, or as primitive as a functional possibility, say
> in the quantum world. It is not what we put into this box and attribute
> to nature that makes the system complex or anticipatory; it is the
> relationship between this functional component and its realization in
> nature that does so. Hence anticipatory behavior can occur in quantum
> phenomena, as we indeed observe that it does.
>