[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Inequivalence of models



Tim: fine.
 
Now try to consider this as a criterion of complexity: As SJ wrote, two models of a car (=a non-complex - simple? - model): one the electrical circuitry, the other the mechanical drive system. They can not reduced or transformed into one another so would they 'make' the simple model "car" a complexity?
 
I state that they are "equivalent", since both refer to the SAME one car model, from different aspects. Their equivalency is topical.  In your terms they are incommensurable, because they refer to different parts/functions and have no common platform. They are differently encoded.
 
Q1): is encoding of the same object (model) from different aspects equivalent, or inequivalent? (e.g. Car as vehicle or as investment)
 
Q2): are two encodings within the same object (model) for diverse functions (aspects?) in differently based features inequivalent?  they are incommeasurable because they overlap only in a third kind of view, none of the two can be matched to one-another.
 
Do we understand RR's expressions the right (full extent) way, or do we just extract a kind of meaning that fits our "RR-ean belief system" (ha ha)? In extracted expressions from a longer text - where connotations change and are unusual, there is room for inaccurate (incomplete) meaning-simulations. When RR finished a text for a certain purpose, he was questioned about meanings. Do you think that he explained similarly a context to his li'l girl and to a highly critical minded physicist friend? Do you think that we, with different learned and experiential backgrounds will ever find out what and how he meant a word?
 
There is one professor in all that and unfortunately he is not with us anymore. I try to capture his ways of thinking (not the exact words) and add it to my basis of (Bohm-Rosen-etc.) worldview to arrive at a next step - and call it (my) 'Rosenism'. (Please, Judith, do not excommunicate me for that from the RR-Valhalla. I will never put inadequate words into his writings nor will I expropriate his words as my own ideas).
 
It is a difficult situation, we all think differently. This list or any other free/open minded discussion forum is no Kuran or Talmud Bible Class to learn,  memorize, and recite the judeochrislamic phrases.
 
Cheers
 
John M
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gwinn
To: ***
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Inequivalence of models

JohnM,

I pretty much agree. I don't really like the term "inequivalent" because any two models which are not perfectly identical are obviously 'inequivalent' in some sense(s). But what do we mean by 'inequivalent'? Rosen from AS: "Thus, for us, a system will be complex to the extent that it admits non-equivalent encodings; encodings which cannot be transformed or reduced to one another." [AS p. 322, bold added] So, to me, if we are to speak about complexity in terms of "inequivalence" (or "non-equivalence") of models, then the criterion is that the models "cannot be transformed or reduced to one another". I think the term "incommensurability" captures that criterion economically.
 
Regards,
Tim



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [
mailto:***]On Behalf Of John M
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 11:59 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Inequivalence of models
>
>
> Tim,
> sorry, I sent my reply to Steve before I received this - your one.
> I did not take the engineering view (in wording), but I think the meanings
> are not far away.
>
> One remark on your last lines here:
> I feel 'inequivalent' models are aspectually different,
> commensurability may
> be one characteristic within such. An inequivalent (by meaning!)
> model pair
> does not have to be impredicative (though it can be). The "state-based"
> model-pair (1st time I read this name) is IMO aspect-based limited as well
> (if I understand its meaning right).
> I deem (as you know) the engineering thinking sort of reductionistic.
>
> Otherwise have a good Sunday
>
> John M