Re: Inequivalence of models

[John M <***>]

Dear Jamie,

you also said some time ago:

"A mountain-peak = a chair, because one can sit on it."

I feel you adequately expressed the difference between "as is" and "as we think of it". If we get smarter, we can derive more characteristics to approach the distinction of 'complexity'.

As JuR's quote of RR sais: (My emphasis in bold fonts):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

your words:

"> It is what it is, and must be taken on its own terms.<"

 

I am glad that you could make such good use of my example of the acorn (vs 'blueprints', at the Symposium 1997 Nashua, where you were also present at that outrageous talk about "complexity").

I did not go that deep into its connotations at that time.

 

An acorn, as a matter of fact 'anything' is a complexity, whether at the moment we talk about it we are (can be?) aware of all the connotations needed to deem it so - in congruence with RR's words above. Our ignorance (or a partial model made by us?) does not change a system's 'complexity', even if it makes us consider it (in "that" aspect...) a simple system.

 

John M

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "James N Rose" <***>

To: <***>

Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:15 AM

Subject: Re: Inequivalence of models

> 
Car= mobile container
> 
> 
> an entity may have a majority 
usage (one final cause; transporter)
> 
> but it can also have other 
'final causes' which include
> all possible use/application of the nature 
of its components
> -and- compounded/emerged aspects.
> 
> 
cars have served as 'homes', beds for lovers, ambulances,
> changing 
rooms, delivery rooms & operating rooms, eating rooms 
> 
> it 
can also be thought of as a self-contained self delivery system ..
> which 
eventually drives itself to a recycling center where its
> composition can 
be de-structured for other uses .. having subsequent
> other 'final 
causes'.
> 
> The nature of a systemic theory which goes beyond the 
conventional
> brings just this expansion of relations to our immediate 
awareness.
> 
> The nature of a discussion which rises to the spirit 
of the awarenesses
> inherent in the superior systemic theory also has to 
raise the bar of
> dicussed relations, and keep to the expanded ideal of 
the new comprehension.
> 
> If the effort is to put emerged 
properties back into the box of 
> pre-emerged qualia, that would be quite 
a waste of words.  Relations
> -do exist- between pre-emerged and 
post-emerged qualia, but no amount
> of de-/re- formation of an oak tree 
with 'just make' an acorn.
> 
> No amount of re-wording RRosen will 
produce perfect synchrony with
> Aristotle or any other conventional 
paradigm of science.
> 
> If the attributes 'immediately presenting' 
in an acorn - in the moment
> of its being - is inadequate to express all 
the potentia of a fully
> emerged oak tree, then how can anyone except 
'standard science' verbage
> and thought to be adequate to expressing the 
vision, totality, and
> nuances of a fully expressed and expanded systemic 
theory of process/being?
> 
> It is what it is, and must be taken on 
its own terms.
> 
> Jamie Rose
> Integrity Paradigm
> 
friend in spirit with Robert Rosen
> Jan 19, 2005