|
Hi, Judith,
Quote from your post:
"that simple systems are computable and have a "largest complete
model" into which all others will reduce."
I have (language?) problems here. I don't
believe in "simple systems" only in 'simple system models'. We use the
'car' as a good vehicle for such discussions. A car is a car is a car - wrong.
A car is only a car if we cut the model we
assign to this distinction at the boundaries we consider for "a car". Otherwise
the system representing that model as well, is an unlimitedly interconnected
feature, from its submicrosco[pic, economical, ewsthetic, mythical,
(you name it) associations (in connected
networks) all the way to the energy we receive from the sun and beyond.
A "car" is a complexity. Our limited model is
simple.
As simple as that.<G>
So a car has NO largest model. Only the limited
model has some boundaries within which we feel happy. The "simple car".
In our well established reductionistic thinking.
Is that what we want to perpetuate?
You emphasize the computable simple models.
"...within it".
*
JR:
"Complex systems, on the other hand, have an infinite set of
models, without ever exhausting all the information possible. Because there is
no "largest complete model"... "
Would you like to set up a singularity with no
connections outside its boundaries, what you can deem "a simple system"? A
nirvana?
becuase if not, EVERYTHING is a complexity and
you can stop the connectivities only by exercising reductionism: selecting the
extent of your observation. When you say "single model" that means a
reductionistic limited (cut) model of something that does not 'end' at those
boundaries.
I for one do not want to study Rosenism
restricted to reductionist models. Not even 'complex (closed) models' as they
say. This is why I like better to say wholeness if I can. and I leave
reductionist inequivalency to the engineers.
I think you simplified the simlicity while we
realized the complexity of complexity. (Sorry, if I see a pun...)
Then you wrote:
and each model will then "reduce to" (fit into) that
sum/largest model.
Sorry again, my non-IndoEuropean Hungarian
linguistic stomach does not digest such meaning of reduction into
increasing. I feel a 'reduction' makes something smaller, not into wider and
more comprehensive. Not even as a word-flower. But my Inglis is poor.
Fit into is OK, refers to a larger compartment
from which it was reduced. Not vice versa. I mean: the nonexistent largest
model.
John Mikes
|