|
A relational mindset or frame of reference would take into account
that any model or conglomeration of models of a complex system is
incomplete. That means that there will always be causal factors unaccounted for
in the predictions generated by the model/s. At the very least, with no change
in the modeling apparatus, this would generate a realistic caution in trusting
the predictions, which my father stated will become more and more inaccurate
over time (as these unaccounted-for causal factors proliferate and interact--
because they ARE relational). But the new mindset could also help
enormously in creating new models which have fewer of the sorts of flaws that
reductionist approaches generate when applied to complex systems.
For example, with hurricane analysis and predicted storm paths,
etc... (with hurricane Ivan bearing down on Florida, it seems appropriate...)
It's well known that land masses negatively impact hurricane organization as
does cold water. These are relational effects; ones that are
already incorporated into the model even though they may not be recognized
for what they are. Once you think in relational terms, however, you begin to see
other relational effects that need to be incorporated into the models. If a
hurricane passes over a mountain range, let's say, then there will be a
plethora of relational effects on the hurricane... but if the hurricane passes
over a mountain range that is actually a row of actively erupting volcanoes...
there will be different relational effects. Why?
Weather forecasting is already going in this direction, but they
are doing it piecemeal and without awareness of what it all means. The relation
of one thing to another has a causal impact that cannot be explained by either
"thing" on its own. That is the basic truth my father built his work on; the
essence of why organization is so important. If the foundational basis the
weather models were starting from were a relational one, then the gaps in
the pieces could be minimized. We will never be able to predict the
weather with utter certainty because of the nature of complexity
(being non-computable). But we can do far better than the current
reductionist-mechanist generated models are able to do. The same can be said of
medical research and medical models-- in fact, it is one of my main ambitions
(as caretaker of Rosennean Complexity Theory) to put my father's work into
the minds of medical science, one way or another. I will rewrite it, using
medical terminology, if I have to. If "necessity is the mother of invention",
then my little handicapped daughter is plenty inspiration and necessity for my
invention!
Judith
|