Re: causing trouble, active/passive

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Arghh - typo: that should say "So, I agree with you that models are NOT
separable from a modeler".
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Tim
> Gwinn
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:35 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: causing trouble, active/passive
>
>
> 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
> >