|
Hi, Judith,
I believe (watch the level of my statement) that
ambiguities are no advantages and if they WERE used in the past, they should not
be saved for eternity. We should try to weed out ambiguous words, not strengthen
them into continuing ambiguities. I don't feel like 'the English genius' to find
E. words better fitting in E, but it would be advantageous (I believe - again)
to speak unambiguously rather than confirm the use of loaded
misunderstandable words - with explanations attached.
A system is a topical model, with neglected
further connections.
Even the 'universe' as a 'system' is an early
usage like e.g. the 'total' by Aristotle. Unless... you use universe as a
PHYSICAL system... and not physics as a system in the universe.
You are the righter writer, find better
words!
Happy New Year
John M
PS: I also take exception to a remark of yours
in the precedents below to John K:
">>But a system is not defined by it's
parts, remember?<<
meaning: the function(alitie)s and
effect(ivenes)s are included - - of course of THOSE PARTS we included into the
particular model of that particular system to begin with. Like "complex" (ha ha)
as the antonym for "simple" (to whom?) - JM
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:01
AM
Subject: Re: Is it sure that any
mechanism has a largest model? (LI,8C, p.205)
Hi John (K),
You're right about any natural system that is "a mechanism" being
a fragment because complexity basically proves that "context" is inseparable
from "system" in reality. However, the word system refers to
something, which was described in Life, Itself as (this is from memory, not a
direct quote):"a collection of percepts which, to the self, seem to belong
together". That's already an abstraction based on fragmentation. So any way we
speak of systems is going to be a similar sort of fragmentation--
this goes back to what human consciousness can "know", etc. However, insofar
as we can speak of "complex systems" in the natural world, we can also find
"simple systems" or mechanisms (which is different from "machine", by the
way). My father used to refer to a solar system as a "simple system", for
example.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:58
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Is it sure that
any mechanism has a largest model? (LI,8C, p.205)
Judith,
It is a philosophical question indeed, however
I am inclined to say
there are no whole systems in nature that are
mechanisms. It's sort-of a
word game in a way, because if you did find a
system that you could call
a mechanisms, then I could point out that
your system definition isn't
whole, i.e., isn't complete (its a
fraction). For example, let's
consider a piece of paper as a mechanism
(i.e., a "thing"). This is true
if we restrict our abstractions only to
the physical properties of what
we call the paper. But then I annoyingly
come in and point out that the
paper is part of a paper manufacturing
system and was delivered to the
classroom by a transportation system,
and all involve people and the
natural ecosystem and ultimately the
entire universe. Hence the "piece
of paper" is actually complex, unless
by "piece of paper" we agree we
are referring only to the mechanistic
concept of "piece of paper," that
concept being one in which we can
define separate state-objects in an
extended space and
time.
That's basically what I'm getting at.
JK
Judith Rosen
wrote:
>Hi John K.
>
>I agree with part of this
statement, below, but I have some qualms
>about certain aspects of
it:
>
>John Kineman wrote: The very concept of "mechanism"
presumes a finite
>largest model
>that is therefore a reality,
and yet we also understand any
>mechanistic
>theory to be an
approximation to reality. Both cannot be true. Hence
>either the
entire universe is a mechanism, and there is no complexity,
>or there
are no real mechanisms, all of them are abstractions.
>
>It is
not only "any mechanistic theory" that is an approximation to
>"reality"... all of science would have to be considered the same
way,
>including Rosennean Complexity Theory. Even a concept like
"reality"
>is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? But just because
our
>conception of the universe is an approximate thing, that's no
reason
>to give up on trying to learn about the universe, right? I
don't see
>these things as being mutually
exclusive.
>
>It's important to remember that Complexity in my
father's sense refers
>to organizational aspects. So are there
"mechanisms" in the real
>world? Yes. Is it an abstraction? Yes. But,
so is the concept that we
>refer to as "the real world". Abstraction,
in this case, just means
>"as funneled through the human apparatus"
but since we are all humans
>here (presumably)... it's not a problem.
A mechanism, as defined via
>Rosennean Complexity Theory, is a system
with an organization that is
>not complex. This goes back to what
Mikulecky found impossible to
>grasp: that there can be simple
systems created out of complex
>components. But a system is not
defined by it's parts, remember?
>
>Judith
>
>
>
|