Re: causing trouble

[John Kineman <***>]

Tim et al.

There are numerous examples of how models are not passive, but have
causal effects on natural systems. It is RR's major point and if it were
not intended this way he would not have written so extensively and
strongly about "internal predictive models" IN organisms. If they don't
do anything there, why bother with them? Without causal effect from
models, there is nothing at all to the theory other than a different
color we can apply to the painting of nature.

JJK

Tim Gwinn wrote:

> 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

--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved