Re: causing trouble, active/passive

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Dan,

I would like to rescind my use of the term "passive". That term is too vague
to be helpful I think, outside of Judith's original use of it.

A model is an entirely context-dependent entity. Removed from its particular
modelling relation context, a model - say a mathematical model, for
example - is just an equation or formula. The modelling relation is a
semantic structure: fractionate it, and the role of 'model' no longer
exists.

So, I agree with you that models are separable from a modeler, and that a
modeler does not have to be human: many (all?) organisms have internal
predictive models they utilize as modelers.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Daniel
> A. Fiscus
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 4:31 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: causing trouble, active/passive
>
>
> I agree with John K. in the general feeling/thought that
> models, modeling, modeling relation are active and maybe
> even more active than physical/material factors in the
> sense of creative. We could say that for physical/material
> dynamics we have the 1st and 2nd laws that cover conservation
> of energy/mass and decay of energy quality, but we have no
> law yet for creation or growth of energy quality. I think
> this is where the relational/topological principles may be
> the most causally active and the most important. It links
> to them being ontic as well.
>
> Also I don't see models as separable from a modeler ever,
> but I also don't think a modeler has to be human or even
> alive necessarily.
>
> Some hunches,
>
> Dan
>