Re: causing trouble

[Judith Rosen <***>]

 J.K. wrote: The argument for two models modeling each other
would be the key. That inherently defines an ontology of some kind, i.e.,
it self-defines something.

Most of Quantum Physics doesn't interest me because it doesn't offer much of
value to answer the questions in Biology that my father was interested in.
Since he was able to derive more physics from biology than the other way
around, I tend to be uninclined to delve deeper into Quantum stuff.
Consequently, I won't be able to add much muscle to this ongoing discussion.
However, questions of the kind like the one above DO provoke my imagination
because modeling is key in Rosennean Complexity, both the theory and in
applications. And since the subject line is still "Causing Trouble", I
thought perhaps a little of my own mischief would be apropo.

Two models modeling each other... Why would this define an ontology? Here's
how I'm looking at this: If all they are doing is modeling each other, there
is no creation or self-perpetuation or anything. Furthermore, models, by
their nature, are passive tools. Even the "anticipatory model" within the
organization of living systems may only be "active" insofar as it is part of
the dynamic organization of the system itself. It serves a function for the
system, therefore it is integral to the activity and organization of the
system. But in Quantum issues, there is no concept of function in the
biological sense, so I tend to discount any active participation of a model
in generating what it models.

Secondly, I can easily imagine any number of machines we could make where a
pair of  models model each other. I could draw drawings of it. I could build
them. If they are modeling each other well, then they will be identical. If
they are not modeling each other well, there will be an infinite regress as
the models spiral downward in constant attempts to fix the accuracy.

Self-definition is a whole other realm from this, where the questions of
ontology and epistemology are seperate issues. At least, that's the way it
looks from my perspective.

Judith