Re: Howard's challenge

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith, Tim, Jon, et al.,

In my last post I irritated Judith and Tim by my wording, for which I apologize (it was 
not ?willfull?). As a consequence no one responded to my central question that was: What 
happened to the need for multiple complementary models?

Bob and I were in full agreement that one model doesn?t fit all. Bob proposed as a 
measure of complexity the number of inequivalent models necessary for adequate 
understanding of systems. The equivalent concept I used was generalized complementarity. 
Here is the basic idea: We make models to answer specific questions. One model can?t 
answer all questions. The more complex a system, the more questions are needed. That?s 
why we like Aristotle. His causes are simply answers to four different classes of 
questions: What is the house made of? Who built the house? Who designed the house? Why do 
you want a house? One could add more: What is a house? How do houses evolve? Why do 
houses decay?

The point is that the answers are independent of each other. One cannot derive one model 
or one answer from another, nor are the languages in which they are expressed necessarily 
mutually consistent. ?The whole thrust of the old Aristotelian analysis of causation is 
to make manifest that no one mode of causal entailment suffices to understand anything. 
At root, this is because the causal categories do not entail each other.? (Rosen, LI, p. 
132)

Now I don?t believe it is entirely a mischaracterization to say that Rosen and his 
followers as represented on this list are following this principle. I hear a lot of 
objection to, or dismissal of, other models answering other questions about life, 
reductionist questions in particular. There is some grudging acceptance that, well, 
reductionism is not so bad but only if based on or accompanied with Rosenean models. I 
never hear that Rosen?s views are only valuable if accompanied by reductionist models.

I?m trying to get across the idea that modeling complex systems should not be a 
competitive sport. I know it is an easy trap to fall into, egos being what they are, but 
if you try to simply compete with reductionist models or the common sense of the likes of 
von Neumann you have already lost.

I think we need to acknowledge the fact that other people?s models may indeed answer 
their questions. If you want to ask different questions and their models don?t answer 
your questions, you have no reason to criticize their models. The same goes for different 
definitions of the symbols and words, like constraint, complexity, causality, etc., used 
in different models.

Am I getting through to anyone?

Howard



http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/pattee/
http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~rocha/pattee/