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

Re: The value of Rosennean Complexity, applied...

Tim,

Your example of functions cutting across multiple structures is an example
of the first structure-function diagram that you disagreed with. As I have
argued before, that's how it works when you have a modeling relation that
is complex. The two sides of the relationship have multiple possibilities -
as demonstrated in the flying maps animation. The point is that happens in
the other direction too. If you have a defined function and ask how to
realize it, you would get multiple possibilities on the left. Now, yes,
those realizations would be whole systems as Rosen described them ("Natural
System"), not just structures, but they can be uniquely identified and
labeled by their structure, which is what we all do in practice. A simple
example is a spoon (it is in reality a natural system as Rosen said, but
here we identify it by its structure). It can function for many things -
eating ice cream, opening cans, toys, etc. Now take a related function -
eating ice cream. How many structures (which are also natural systems,
otherwise we could not find their structures) are there that would match
the function of eating ice cream? Spoon is one, but there are many others.
This is how you apply the theory. Don't get hung up on the word "structure"
- it is a label derived from a particular modeling perspective (mechanism)
and the diagram is an analysis or how one model relates to another. You
have to attach it to something when you apply it. I assure you this is
entirely Rosennean.

While it is true that the "modeling relation" itself describes a relation
between whole natural systems (not just their structure) and models
(without structure), that needs to be understood as an analytical division.
Any analysis, as we know, is an approximation. So the modeling relation
itself is an approximation to the real situation. That is why each side
requires some interpretation in practice. In practice we relate parts of
systems necessarily because we cannot represent the whole. For example, a
scientific model does not exist without a structure, even though the
"formal system" side of the diagram suggests that we consider just its
formal aspect. A scientific model, at the very least, requires a brain, so
in that case you would have to say that "formal system" is wrong or that it
is synnonymous with "natural system" and then you have natural system
relating to natural system (which is the philosophical reality, not the
analysis).  We have discussed elsewhere at length how the modeling relation
can apply to relations between models. "Structure" is a particular model of
a natural system. So you have two cases: one where you think of the
relation as between whole natural systems, and the other where you think of
it as between models. Both are valid. The later is the practical application.

So, I would have to say that the relation I've drawn is quite valid and
useful - but it is a distinction we have not agreed on before. The case
against it should be made with examples and logic, not just a series of
quotes which then have to be extracted from their own contexts. These are
the ideas themselves, in practice.

Thanks for the correction to Alfred! I had in my head that Alexander was
wrong but didn't remember to check it.

JJK

At 09:53 PM 3/13/04 -0500, you wrote:
JohnK,

Thanks for the link to the presentation. I have a couple of remarks. First,
I would disagree with the diagram on Slide 2, comparing structure and
function. There is not necessarily a correlation between structure and
function, such that one would have a modeling relationship between the
physical structural organization and a model of functional organization. To
use an example from Rosen, metabolism, as a function, cuts across myriad
structures in an organism.

On Slide #4: I believe the name is "Alfred Korzybski", not "Alexander
Korzybsky". Also, Korzybski had a concept about language and "maps" as being
"self-reflexive", which I think may akin to what you are describing in that
slide, and might possibly be useful. (I haven't read Korzybski for a long
time, so I'm kinda hazy on that.)

I really liked the animation in Slide #6, with all the maps flying across.
:)  In your text on #6, you say "the best we can hope for is to have a way
to relate the many maps needed to describe a complex reality...". I think
you bring up a central problem: the problem with a complex system is that
the many models are incommensurable. If we could relate them formally,
algorithmically, we could have a single "largest model". But, we can't do
that. Even using the planar maps analogy from Rosen for switching between
multiple dynamical models (a kind of "data-driven" process) as a way to
relate simple models for the system, I think we still cannot (or, at least,
don't yet know how to) relate the noncomputable (e.g., relational) models to
that picture.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:51 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: The value of Rosennean Complexity, applied...
>
>
> Sory for all these versions trying to get it right. You can also go to
> www.nexial.org/Rosen and get an index of the two files.
>
> -------------------
>
> Well, even the .pdf didn't make it throught the size filter, so you have
> to go to the URL to see these slides. I put it there in powerpoint and
> in .pdf so you can read the words more ealisy in the pdf but still see
> the animations in powerpoint.
>
> ------------------
> Hi all, this didn't get through the size filter because of the
> powerpoint attachement. I produced it as a pdf so you can read the
> words. The powerpoint is located at:
> www.nexial.org/Rosen/mapping_complexity.ppt
>
> just go there and open it or download it, then you can see the
> animations in the slide show format.
>
> -----------------------
>
> Tim & list,
>
> Its amazing how close these comments by Tim are to my own thinking. Take
> a look at the powerpoint slides in the attachment. I extracted these
> from a recent talk to USGS. It was how I decided to communicate the idea
> of complexity to a group of GIS people who are used to making maps that
> they consider rather definite representations of reality. Please excuse
> some of the liberal application of the modeling relation idea for the
> purposes of communication. I believe the relation can be constructed in
> many ways, depending on how one defines a system, so the variants of the
> idea I hope are philosophically acceptable. In any case, it told a good
> story that I think many in the room of 150 people heard. There were two
> main points. One was that "functions are real" - see the example of the
> US-Mexico border. The second was just the same as what Tim says here, we
> can start thinking about the entire modeling (or mapping) enterprise in
> a different way. Instead of cranking out definitive representations of
> things we design for adaptability and multiplicity, and then make the
> system conform to the many different ways one may need to represent the
> system. This would directly support Holling's adaptive management
> strategy too. So, much of what I'm promoting these days is "adaptive
> mapping."
>
> Note: I couldn't get the file size down any more in the attachment it is
> 3.5MB so it might take some time to download if you don't have a
> fast line.
>
>