Re: causing trouble

[John M <***>]

How about a model of a process (Function)? (reductionistically cutting
the dynamism into selected boundaries, omitting possible other
occurrences) - is it a STATIC VIEW of a dynamic model?
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: causing trouble


> 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