Re: Inequivalence of models

[Steve Johnson <***>]

John M.,

 

 

JM: In my opinion (!) the maximum model is the Existence (nature? World?)
hence the 'impossibility' by RR. Subsume? rather "include".
How to construct it? ask God Almighty <G>. I have a narrative on that,
but it is my (logical) approach to substitute the faulty Big Bang fable of
the physical cosmologists. and it goes for an unlimited Multiverse, pretty
far from your electrical or mechanical blueprint-models of a car.

 

SJ: I could not formulate my thoughts before to answer you but now drawing on your comments and those of others I can say that you *can* construct the largest model which does include all of Existence. The only thing is that as you go from the mechanical blue-print to inlclude the road, the wind, the ecosystem you are expanding your definition of car-hood. It is up to you as the observer to impose an arbitrary cut-off to define where the car-hood ends.

 

- Steve

 

John M <***> wrote:

Steve,
interesting train of thoughts. Here is my tuppence worth of idea how to read
'you':

>"How do we test models for non-equivalence?" <
In my wording (I hope not controversial to RR) a 'model' is selected from a
'natural system' or teven the totality by chosen boundaries to control its
content. If the boundaries are not identical, the models - of the same
'maximum model' - are not equivalent.
In your example: both blueprints (models) refer to 'aspects' of a "car" -
which is still a model. (A map, not even a territory). Boundaries: to fit
the more limiting aspect. The "car" still has no 'maximum model' which would
be the natural system with all kinds of material contraptions in it.
(I am lost with the 'maximum model' as RR's impossibility, whether it refers
really to the wholeness?)

"> So according to Rosen we should have all its models
> reducible to one largest one.<
I feel you lost direction: a limited (narrow) model has to be WIDENED ie
increased by more territory allowed (wider boundary restrictions) to get to
a "largest" one. The "large" model is 'reduced' to a smaller one.
By more restrictions to limited aspects. Making a map from (within) the
territory. The detail-models of a simple system are part-views.
To your questions I try my answers (right or wrong):

to 1):
They are TWO different models of the car, selected by different aspects
(boundaries) within the same covering model (car).

to 2):
In my opinion (!) the maximum model is the Existence (nature? World?) hence
the 'impossibility' by RR. Subsume? rather "include".
How to construct it? ask God Almighty . I have a narrative on that, but
it is my (logical) approach to substitute the faulty Big Bang fable of the
physical cosmologists. and it goes for an unlimited Multiverse, pretty far
from your electrical or mechanical blueprint-models of a car.

I did not want to change your way of thinking: I just stated mine.

Cheerz

John M













----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Johnson" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:21 AM
Subject: Inequivalence of models


> According to Rosen's view of complexity a system must
> possess inequivalent models in order to be complex.
>
> This seems to make intuitive sense but I cannot seem
> to figure out what it would mean in practice. Where
> does one model end and the other begin? How do we test
> models for non-equivalence?
>
> For example, let's take a car. It has a mechanical
> blueprint that tells where the wheels attach to the
> transmission, how the engine is attached to the shaft
> etc. The car also has a diagram of its electric wiring
> which is quite different from the mechanic blueprint.
>
> Each of these "models" (mechanical and electric) will
> allow us to formulate hypothesis about the car. So it
> seems that the Modelling Relation commutes.
>
> I would assume that the car is a simple system at
> least as far as its car-ness (or form) is concerned.
> So according to Rosen we should have all its models
> reducible to one largest one. I confess that while I
> think I grasp his mathematical argument in Life Itself
> I have no idea what that means in practice.
>
> So here are my questions:
>
> 1) Are these two models of the car(mechanical and
> electric) really one model? Why or why not? What is
> the criteria that allow us to say that they are two
> different models.
>
> 2) If they are different models, what is the largest
> model that subsumes them? How would one go about
> constructing it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

---

Do you Yahoo!?
 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.