Re: causing trouble

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

I agree with you, Judith. Models are passive - and they are not even
'models' of anything until someone or something outside the model brings
them into an encoding/decoding relationship with an object system of which
they are intended to be a model. The encoding/decoding in an MR is not
entailed by, or within, the MR itself [Essay p. 159].

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:00 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: causing trouble
>
>
>  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