It computes now :) Thanks and the best of the new year to you too, John. Jack
Jack: I call reductionistic when a view selects certain characteristics from the total (and mostly incomprehensible) wholeness and formulates a topical or otherwise limited (as I call it - after RR - IMO) a "model". I referred to the chosen circumstances you considered in your 'airplanes'-talk. I did not want to spell out all this, because it may 'irritate' some members. So I want to add in a hurry: I find such reductionism useful, fruitful, as I mentioned it many times, on many lists, (even before Judith confirmed such opinion of RR) and the ways how it enriched our cognitive inventory into the ongoing sciences and especially technology. It (Red) is not applicable if we want to develop a general understanding with no paradoxes, givens, axioms or quantized (=applied math) restrictions.
Have a good 2005 and don't be ashamed for your showing 'slip'.
John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Park" <***> To: <***> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 1:20 PM Subject: Re: simulation vs. mimesis
Thanks John,
But, dense as I am, the notion that "we" are showing our "reductionistic slip" doesn't compute.
Jack
John M wrote:
Jack, and how about 'that' model airplane built in size just to study the
design
of the movement-fitting hangars? No accelerational drag, no gravity. And how about those size-imitating small replicas with the paper-slips
to be
used in the wind-channel for aerodynamic studies? And how about the matchbox equivalent collectors' items? We constructed an extracted abstraction - so destructive to the total
view!
Our reductionistic slip is showing. (to your 'other' post): How 'bout speaking of "model", not 'model-airplain' or 'airplane-model'? These hyphenated double meanings are wrong (e.g. a hyphenated American
is a
non-American living in the US). Your computer program of an airplane may
be
a model, just not including the construction materials. A limited airplane<G>. (JP:"...A model airplane, hell, look at what I just said! "model"
airplane.
In every sense of the word, my model airplanes are real airplanes. They actually do what all airplanes do (we're not talking about those plastic ones that break if you toss them), except, maybe, carry people or serious cargo. They still interact with their environment in every sense of the ways in which the big behemoths do. They just don't do so in precisely the same way, scale effects again.... and so on")
John M
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Park" <***> To: <***> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 2:24 PM Subject: Re: simulation vs. mimesis
Hah! Mails crossed in the ether.
I took on an amplification of your statements with yet another rant. Now, it would seem that my rant wasn't necessary; what you say here suggests that it's all a matter of degree to which you wish to, um, model something. I take it, then, that, given these new constraints, what you said, and what I challenged, didn't really apply.
Maybe we need to precisify our statements here.
Jack
Judith Rosen wrote:
Jack Park wrote: From my, possibly naive, Rosennean view, it seems to me that the entailment structures map to each other. ** *Once again, it matters what you want "the model" to do. If you want a rough commutativity between the real airplane and the model such that thrust plus wingshape, plus ? equals, whatever... then you have a modeling relation. I was thinking about the kinds of things like pilot inside airplane, small moving parts in engine and flammable fueltanks
on
board, passengers and luggage and the exigencies of how to balance all that such that you can still become airborne and remain stable, the density of atmosphere at whatever altitude the plane is supposed to
fly,
how to compensate for thin atmosphere inside the cabin, what safeties are in place for various weather conditions, etc... none of which are engineered into the toy airplane. It's different, contextually. It models some aspects of airplane flight, but simulates others. How's
that?!*
** *Judith*
----- Original Message ----- *From:* Jack Park <mailto:***> *To:* *** <mailto:***> *Sent:* Friday, December 31, 2004 1:28 PM *Subject:* Re: [ROSEN] simulation vs. mimesis
Model airplanes of the radio-control type. I own those. Judith
said:
<quote> The causal entailments of an airplane (which constitute the "guts" of an airplane's functionality) are not present in the model... </quote>
Say what?
Let me enumerate my view of the functionalities of an airplane, be
it a
model or one you climb in and fly (I built those too). They are: overcoming drag forces overcoming gravitational forces
Now, in my, possibly naive, Rosennean view, drag forces are
entailed
by
a body moving through a fluid, such as air; gravitational forces
are
entailed by the mass that is the airplane, whether model or "real".
Drag entails thrust. Thrust entails a thrust-producing device, be
it
a
propeller-with-engine, or jet or rocket, (or rubberband slingshot, as in some models). Lift entails lifting devices, typically called
"wings",
which are known to have airfoil shapes which entail pressure differences between the upper and lower surfaces, those pressure differences entailed by the motion of air over the surface, whether that motion
is
the air moving over the surface or the surface moving within a mass
of
air. It's all relative, I suppose.
So, building a model airplane (mine are mostly gliders, some with gas or electric moters to launch them to appropriate altitudes), I install wings, tail feathers, and motors, plus electronics and servos for controls. That all adds weight, so, again, gravity is entailed, and lift is required. Moving that mass around in air entails drag, requiring thrust. Some thrust can be provided by a propulsive force, and some
can
come out of a vector analysis of the forces entailed by a wing
moving
through an air mass while descending (gliding).
From my, possibly naive, Rosennean view, it seems to me that the entailment structures map to each other. The primary differences
being
those related to scale effects, known as Reynolds number effects;
that
is to say, the lift-to-drag polars of a model will not be anything
near
as "good" as they are with a "real" airplane.
So, how can you say <quote> However, even there I would suggest that the reasons why the toy airplane is able to fly are mostly not the same as the reasons the
real
airplane is able to fly. The entailment structures don't commute very well. </quote>
Inquiring minds want to know... Jack
Judith Rosen wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Howard Pattee <mailto:***> > *To:* *** <mailto:***>
<mailto:***>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 31, 2004 2:43 PM > *Subject:* Re: [ROSEN] simulation vs. mimesis > > Judith, > > I have to side with Tim. A model airplane has the basic
causal
> entailments > of an airplane. It flies. A simulator doesn't. This is an important > distinction. > > Howard