after the: Landauer and Bellman critique

[James N Rose <***>]

Judith,

'Antic Sys Sci' .. we got the joke even before your clarification :-).

.. but your jibe at SFe sort of surprised me .. was that your
dad's opinion also?  and what did he think of Herb Simon?

And now I have to ask a question .. which may have already
been topicced here (excuse me if it has) .. did your father ever
think/talk about the memes, math, or language that would
allow one to _transition_ between complexity and simplicity,
between the modelled and the natural, in smooth (formal?)
ways?

That the 'modelled' is a truncation of the 'natural' (a close
approximation, but missing certain qualities) is one thing,
but being able to 'model the truncated/complete' relationship
is either

1) a meta-model itself, and therefore incomplete in its
   ability to render the full nature of 'the natural' in
   its most open and indefinite form

or

2) a relationship which requires .. in it's being a 'natural'
   one .. a shared commensurate set of memes and qualia ..
   common to -both- and which would allow whole-to-the-point-
   of-nothing-being-excluded aspects, -- with a useful set of
   symbols to identify and converse 'with total inlcusiveness'
   -- about those aspects.

   In other words (and this is the one track of concept/reality
   exploration I am foremost committed to), can there exist an
   invented/contrived -model- which is strong enough to _identify_
   and actively use -all- of the qualia of 'natural' which are
   ostensibly not really present in any given 'model of -natural-'?

   Reduxed in math potential:  can there exist a math term -in the model-
   (translatable in all its specifics [model->natural AND natural->model])
   so that computations can be done .. moving between the two types of
   'reality' .. without losing any information or at least bookmarked so
   that temporarily set-aside information is not lost (merely held in a
   side or stasis state) .. and being able to retrieve the information
   in the next stage of a calculation or transform .. or when going back
   to the 'other frame of reference'?

   Did your father ever consider this/these possibilities?

James Rose