Re: Maps, models, and anticipatory control mechanisms...

[John M <***>]

Judith,
please forgive me when I don't see too much connection between my post and
your rather literary essay around the topic.

BTW: when you wrote: "modeling natural systems" I got mixed up:
is my idea of a "RR-natural system" right as including the 'uncut' model -
connections of a limited model? which makes it beyond our capablities of
handling? In such case your "modeling it" would be the reconstruction of the
original model. Of course we can 'model' it in a zillion aspects, using
other and other connections (originally lost in the framework of the
boundaries we observed). IMO a natural system does not observe boundaries,
it is the (nonexistent) maximum model
(again: does that sound right in Rosenese?)

This wouldalso be the essence (of my last sentence oxymoron):
the universe as "set of everything"  - (meaning the impossibility of  a
maximum model).

Your explanations about maps etc. fits perfectly my distinction of the
reductionist meaning of sets, maps, territorries, - well, also sciences,
systems, organizations, - even entire topics --all as reduced from the
totality (wholeness). And I don't care is people deem my distinctions
practically unusable (at this not even embryonic state of the wholistic
thinking). Maybe in 2-300 years we will know better.

John M

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: Maps, models, and anticipatory control mechanisms...


> In discussing Rosennean Complexity Theory and the ramifications of it,
> particularly in terms of modeling natural systems, the anaology between a
> common "road map" and scientific modeling is beautifully illustrative.The
> function that a "road map" serves for us is exactly the function that a
> "model" of anything is supposed to serve: When you need to know your way
> around somewhere you've never been, the first thing you do is get a map.
> What is "a map", then? In this instance, I would define it as "a model of
a
> new environment", which we attempt to internalize or make a part of our
> thought process-- in much the same way that we create tools which we add
to
> our natural abilities in order to do any job that we are not physically
> equipped by nature for. As such, there is also a "chimerical" aspect, in
the
> Rosennean use of that term, involved in the creation of a map, or the use
of
> a map that someone else created. There are many aspects to this analogy
that
> are important and worth a closer look, I think.
>
> A road map is only as good as its similarity to the environment it is
> supposedly describing. If the map is incorrect, and we don't realize that,
> we're going to run into problems when we try to get our bearings in that
new
> environment. What if we are headed to that environment to achieve some
> particular task? If the map is only a little bit wrong, we may "just" get
> lost. That can either be an inconvenience or life threatening, depending
on
> where and how... But if the map is wrong in some fundamental way, then all
> the tools we bring with us may be completely useless to achieve the task
we
> set out for. What if the map says there are roads and instead there's
ocean?
> Not only is the car useless, but we are completely ill-equipped for our
task
> and obviously would have to abort the whole exercise. There are many ways
> that this scenario could be represented: What if the map says our
> destination is below sea level in a cave and it's actually in the
> stratosphere? Spelunking is a bit different from flying an airplane, etc.
>
> BUT...What if we don't realize that our map is fundamentally wrong? What
if
> we set out and all the details appear to be pretty much where the map
> represented, but, unbeknownst to us,  there are fundamental aspects about
> this map that are not representative of the real environment? As we
proceed
> with our task, using our map as our guide....  Depending on what our task
> is, we could end up with innumerable outcomes. I think it's a guarantee
that
> we will run into "anomalous" side-effects of some sort or many different
> sorts. Some of the potential outcomes could be quite extreme. If you dig
in
> the wrong place, or under the wrong conditions, for example... What if the
> "map" we have is actually the latest research on human brain function and
> our current task, because we are Pediatric brain surgeons, is to remove a
> benign tumor that is big enough to threaten our young patient's life?
>
> Another aspect to this whole map/model idea is that any map is, by virtue
of
> the function it is intended to serve, a tool we create to help prepare
> ourselves for necessities in a later time. As such, it can also be
described
> as an "Anticipatory control mechanism". It allows us to prepare for tasks
> that have not yet become necessary or are not yet in the realm of
> possibility.
>
> I think the road map/model analogy is perfect for illustrating the rather
> pressing fact that it definitely behooves us, as a species, to care about
> accuracy in the creation of "maps", regardless of the function they serve.
> If, for example, you believe the world is flat-- because your map tells
you
> so-- then you may make the assumption that certain things are impossible.
> Logic tells you so. If we don't question the validity of old maps, and do
> our own double-checking, then no matter how good our own logic is, we are
> doomed to run afoul of the built-in inaccuracies of the maps.
>
> This set of thoughts could be developed in many different directions, and
> one of them is the whole issue of what happens when "map-making" becomes
an
> art form and an esteemed profession? What happens when whole industries
are
> created around various modes of making maps? What happens when certain
> map-makers become famous and are awarded prestigious prizes for their
> artistry in making maps? What happens when four generations of one
"family"
> have consistently distinguished themselves in some proprietary "mode" for
> making maps... and have all led very successful, wealthy, exciting lives
> doing so? Could their maps still be wrong?
>
> Judith Rosen
>
> > John Mikes wrote: a set of models is a (bigger) model, a category of
sets
> an even bigger one,
> > a set of categories of sets a still bigger one (and so on) - still
limited
> > models - what I order into reductionism. Just as a map is a model, a
> > territory a wider one, still limited.
> > UNless:
> > we consider the Universe a set of everything - but that would be a
maximum
> > model.
> >
> > John M
> >
>