|
Tim,
your typo was not even observed: I could not
read it the wrong way
at all. You have replied too fast - maybe
irritated. Sorry. In your
1st interposition
your advise the same solution which I wrote
later on only :
( ...they overlap only in a third kind of view,
...). See below.
2nd interpos.:
That may be true, I considered a common sense
(quali) meaning.
3rd (long) interpos.:
'Non-Equivalence' refers IMO only to "not
reducible/transformable into each other". The 'whether' is confusing.
I believe your _expression_ fits my 'model' term
("one defines"):
"It depends
entirely on how one defines the system called "car engine".
If one defines it
precisely, it can be only a simple system = a model, - IMO. If one defines
it as being impredicative, then the other kind steps in, but this is not the
case with the car-engine. (Typo
corrected.)
Judith's 3/25/04 quote escaped me, however
re-reading it I suspect that this was written in a special context:
the nature of a system/organization cannot
depend on 'how good we are in OUR capabilities to interact/encode/etc., a
system is not of a different nature to you or to the janitor of the dump.
I include those defining (lmiting)
potential characteristics into judging a 'model' as simple, or complex, which at
the appropriate time are not even discovered. It is not an "I forgot" or "I am
creative" game. That would exempt the simple/complex distinction from any
rigirous examination.
4th insert (not understand the
question):
It refers to a car-model encoded as
a mechanical blueprint vs. as an electrical circuitry. By themselves
they are not equivalent, only included (reduced? you prefer?) into an
overlapping third model, as written above.
5th insert:
then you know that I tried to read RR' books and
could not comprehend it (no glossary or terminology to help, sometimes a math
formula which I could not follow, explaining a term). I am not in his bio-base,
not in his math, this is why I rely on you guys to interpret his ideas. If that
seems burdensome, I will reduce my participation on the list - mind you: not
"leave" the list just post less.
Thanks for you patience and help so
far
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:37
PM
Subject: Re: Inequivalence of
models
JohnM,
See
interposed.
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
|