|
----- Original Message -----
From: Judith
Rosen
To: ***
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 11:01
PM
Subject: Fw: Could you give me your
analysis of this?
Dear Judith,
first many thanks for your parenthetical clarification: "...completely characterizes" the M-R (metabolism-repair) process,
..."
since it still
haunts me: when is it Modelling Relation.
I think one
point was not clear in your intro (maybe only to me):
PS: Incidentally,
there was also a question about whether it is still useful to create computer
models of living processes if my father's assertion that "complex systems are
not computable" holds true. I think it is important to point out that my father
talked about this in nearly all his books, at great length. And he
concluded that it IS still valuable, still useful, even ESSENTIAL to model
complex systems as long as our models of complex systems are
constructed with a relational mindset-- regardless of the mode we use. A
relational mindset at the very least ensures that we never mistake the model for
the system.
that the
(computer) model of "complex systems" stands really for - of "models of complex
systems". If we think of reductionist limited models to begin with, as those -
called 'complex systems'- to be algorithmicized, the whole thing does not
make reasonable sense.
Your last
sentence in the quote ("relational mindset" still fuzzing in my mind) may point
to what I just said. So the algorithm would not be about the (non-computable)
natural system, rather about an essentially chosen limited model of it
fitting the topic in question. I was
not quite
following Louis analysis, I have the feeling that he also restricts the
'model-system' ' into a 'model of the system'.
Does this - what
I wrote - exceed the limits of a reasonable mind?
John
M |