Re: Inequivalence of models

JohnM,

See interposed.

-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of John M
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:17 PM
To: ***
Subject: 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?

TG: I disagree that they cannot be transformed into one another. One would do so by using a larger model, which incorporates both aspects.

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.

TG: You seem to be redefining "equivalent" and "incommensurable" to mean something else.

Q1): is encoding of the same object (model) from different aspects equivalent, or inequivalent? (e.g. Car as vehicle or as investment)

TG: Neither. "Non-equivalence" refers to whether or not two models can be transformed or reduced to one another. As Judith has mentioned many times before, something like a car engine (for example) can be a simple system OR it can be a complex system. It depends entirely on how one defines the system called "car engine". That definition will insinuate the way(s) in which we can interact with that system as defined, and therefore the ways in which the system is modeled, and therefore the set of models for that system, and finally, if that set of models can be transformed or reduced into a largest model, then the system is complex; if not (i.e., there are non-equivalent models in the set of models), then it is a simple system.

As Judith quoted in a 3/25/04 post:

"We are going to relate our capacity to produce independent

encodings[non-equivalent models] of a given natural system with the

complexity of it. Roughly speaking, the more such encodings we can produce,

the more complex we will regard the system. Thus, contrary to traditional

views regarding system complexity, we do not treat complexity as a property

of some particular encoding. Nor is complexity entirely an objective

property of the system, in the sense of being itself a directly perceptible

quality which can be measured by a meter. Rather, complexity pertains at

least as much to us as observers as it does to the system; it reflects our

ability to interact with the system in such a way as to make its qualities

visible to us. Intuitively speaking, if the system is such that we can

interact with it in only a few ways, there will be correspondingly few

distinct encodings we can make of the qualities which we perceive thereby,

and the system will appear to us as a simple system. If the system is such

that we can interact with it in many ways, we will be able to produce

correspondingly many distinct encodings, and we will correspondingly regard

the system as complex." [AS p. 83, ital. orig.]

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.

TG: I don't understand the question.

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?

TG: I invite you to obtain and read Rosen's works. As you have said before, you have not done so. If after that we still disagree, then let us discuss it. But I am not going to defend against criticism of not knowing the words from someone who has not read them.

Regards,

Tim