|
Dear Steve,
I think in your ambitious hope you still have to
reserve a place in your constructing the 'largest model' for those items that so
far have not been discovered. Even if your "can" - as you said.
Epistemic enrichment is still feasible within
nature.
Best
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:11
AM
Subject: Re: Inequivalence of
models
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.
|