Re: Inconsistency, natural vs formal

[John M <***>]

Dear Dan,
I try to visualize 'happenings' in a (RR-sense) haphazardous -meanaing
extended as a 'natural system' to all wholeness beyond the model-cuts -
processes (some may call them chances), within the (more) feasible ways
(see: bifurcations which I abhor). In other words: 'everything' happens but
the existing natural situation favors some ways. Impedes others. Then from
the "happened" ones some fit the (wider) circumstances, (in evolution they
call it: survive, as 'fit') and become part of the world-process. The
further process is building on such base, so in hindsight we may observe a
'purpose', an 'anticipation' in the "choice" of the surviving variants for
them.
I think this is a feasible description (in my views) of one type of RR's
anticipatory idea.

IMO nothing is indetermined in (my) completely deterministic nature, even
less "fighting" 'i' with 'i' as you suggested. WE don't know all determining
factors and their operations. We have a limited vue and this is why we think
in models.

I tried to eliminate the mystical 'agencies' and conscious(?) changes.
Comments?

Just a crude trial to verbalize what I think.

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Inconsistency, natural vs formal


Howard,

Thanks a lot. Very helpful.

Re: this:

DF: What if these hard to model "things" are
precisely that, even on purpose or by design or for
survival needs - ambiguous, indeterminate,
uncertain, unpredictable?

HP: What do you mean “on purpose”? Whose purpose?


I guess I mean could these features be integral to
the origin of agency, purpose, function, intention,
abilities to choose, intelligence, modeling,
meaning, value, etc.?

Or could life and agency be closely related to an
amplification or compounding of indeterminancies
that are inherent even in non-living systems? Like
a fundamental way in which something can be chosen
to stand for something else or be "used" as a symbol
or model for something else, be both the same and
different, as in some lifelike purpose such as
survival or persistence. Or that perhaps life arose
in a process that was able to "fight indeterminacy
with indeterminacy", or not being able to beat
indeterminacy managed to join it, to accept it, or
to harness it, to go it one better...

None of these ways of rephrasing my question seems
much better or right for what I have in mind. I'll
keep trying...

Dan



Howard Pattee wrote:

>Dan,
>
>You ask:
>What about indeterminate or uncertain or ambiguous? Can't a
>natural system have/be these? And if so, aren't these in essence
>indistinguishable from inconsistentcy?
>
>HP: A natural system in QT is thought be objectively indeterminate, but I
would say that uncertain and ambiguous more often refer to our models, not
what is modeled. This is a matter of usage. The dictionary says inconsistent
means incompatible, self-contradictory, not in agreement. I don’t think
indeterminate or ambiguous imply this.
>
>Dan: Is it possible that this unmodelability is both formal and natural?
>Does the "problem" we hit with complexity and complementarity
>reflect a real aspect of nature?
>
>HP: All we know, all we can know, is whether our models are in conformity
in some sense with our experience, as in the modeling commutation relation.
I believe Hertz: “For our purpose it is not necessary that they [our models]
should be in conformity with the [real] things in any other respect
whatever. As a matter of fact, we do not know, nor have we any means of
knowing, whether our conception of things [our models] are in conformity
with them [reality] in any other than this one fundamental respect.”
>
>Could it also be that this natural indeterminacy, ambiguity, wiggle room
(if it is real) is fundamentally involved in making the hard to model
features, like life, what they are?
>
>HP: In physics, especially quantum theory, I think that is the case.
>
>What if these hard to model "things" are precisely that, even on purpose or
by design or for survival needs - ambiguous, indeterminate, uncertain,
unpredictable?
>
>HP: What do you mean “on purpose”? Whose purpose?
>
>Dan: And maybe the converse is likewise antithetical to life - to be
modelable or determinate or certain or predictable in an inherently
uncertain
>environment could be the surest way to fail, the guaranteed way
>not to be able to adapt, anticipate, deal with utter surprise and
>true novelty and still survive and thrive.
>
>HP: Of course evolution would not work if models were “certain” if you mean
error-free. Models are never exact or certain. They are always just
approximations to reality and to survive we must continually adapt by
changing our models.
>
>“In so far as the propositions of mathematics are certain they do not apply
to reality; and in so far as they apply to reality they are not certain.”
[Einstein]
>
>Howard
>
>