Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast"

[John Kineman <***>]

Hi John M.
You raise a topic that I have and will come back to many times. The idea
of a "Rosennean model" -- is there such a thing?

Here's how I look at it.

RR's statement that there isn't a largest model means there can by no
complete model that can capture all aspects of a complex system. It does
not say there can be no useful models.  Mechanistic models are one
example of both statements. I accept this argument fully, based on the
explanation he provided in convincing detail and with considerable
emphasis and repetition.

I also belive there is a kind of model that is not mechanistic in its
foundation, which describes certain aspects of systems that are
different than what mechanistic models can describe. These look a lot
like Rosen modeling relationships themselves, and they describe the
natural relationship between functional specifications (models) and
their realization in material systems. Such models can indeed tell us
something important about nature, particularly biology, because they
represent an aspect of nature that is excluded by mechanistic models.
Their incompleteness, in part, is in excluding the mechanistic model. We
gain understanding of certain relational aspects, but need to go to
mechanistic models for representing non-relational aspects. Hence in my
work, for examepe, it is necessary to consider both kinds of models,
recognizing that neither is a complete descriptions, and the most likely
even the two kinds of models taken together will not provide a complete
description. For the present, however, adding the relational model is
such a major step toward a more complete view of nature that for present
working purposes, this addition gives us our best available concept of
completeness.

John K.

John M wrote:

> Jack,
> what kind of "model" do you want to call "Rosennean"?
> A "maximum model" it can't be, a 'limited model" is stuff
> for reductionist un-wholly (excuse the pun) views.
> I don't call a "Rosennean model" an oximoron, but close.
> Maybe, if you craft according to the MR, you may end up
> with a "model" that refers to more than a reductionistic
> cut-off, I mean: a topical view within set boundaries, but
> aren't we playing with the word "model" just to please(!)
> the general audience (= average hostile scientists)?
>
> I may have misunderstood the problem and assign your
> "Rosennean" to imply "R. complexity" - impredicative
> and 'Turing non-computable'? IMO RR wrote his books with such length and
> circumlocution to make his ideas compatible to those who are on a different
> track. I am more pragmatic and don't care for understanding by those in the
> opposite camp.
>
> Then again, I am neither a biologist nor a mathematician.
> Cheers
> John Mikes
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Park" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 10:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast"
>
>
>
>
> > My response would be a simple question:
> >
> > What steps must I take to craft a Rosennean model using their data and
> > anything else I might need, such that I gain the ability to study their
> > results with a different model than the one(s) they presumably applied
> > to get those results?
> >
> > Jack

--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved