|
Sort of like "The Joy of Rosennean Science"?
I have "The Joy of Cooking" open in front of me... It's a very
comprehensive book, including in-depth information about far more than either
cooking or food. In addition to 29 separate chapters of recipes and food
preparation instructions There are chapters on modes of preserving food,
chapters on nutrition and human physiology, including a calorie/protein counter.
"Citrus fruits are so delightful in and of themselves that it almost seems a
shame to dissect them into their nutritional components." There's a chapter on
entertaining, which has all sorts of lovely tidbits about etiquette and life...
"Never forget that your family is really the most important assembly you ever
entertain." There is a chapter on "How To Shop" for food.... There is a chapter
on various modes of cooking, including extensive subcategories of "types of
heat" and a conversion table for high altitude cooking (water boils at 158
degrees F. at 30,000 feet, and at 212 degrees F. at "sea
level").
In the "Know Your Ingredients" chapter, there is everything from a
discussion about hard water, water softeners, water impurities, water
purification techniques... as well as extensive information about chemistry
(with a "substitutions and equivalents" chart so that if you don't have any
baking soda or brown sugar, you'll still be able to bake the cake and have it
rise, etc.), information about the biology of various yeast species and the
microorganisms responsible for sourdough starter, for cheese, for sour
cream, etc. There's even a section on how to grow culinary herbs, pointing out
that Confucius refused to eat anything that was not in season and how to
properly pick and dry herbs. There's a section about how the weather affects
cooking and a section about measuring. There's a section about metric
conversions (both fluid volume and mass/weight)...
Frankly, this cookbook looks to be a nice,
comprehensive model for a Rosennean Science couterpart, and at the same
time.... way too much work. It tops out at 915 pages. The index is huge! And
it's about COOKING!?
I'll give this some more thought, tomorrow.....
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 6:50
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Rosennean
"Cookbook"
Tim,
It seems to me that there are several aspects to a
good cookbook that
need articulation. One is the tutorial side that shows
where various
kinds of analytics are valuable. The next is the "recipes"
for application.
But, I think, it is larger than that. Any systems
modeling in the large
calls for some sort of framework that guides entry
into the analytics
themselves. Engineers were trained: "when you see this
problem class,
apply that methodology." Sure, doing science is bound
to be more
complex and unyielding to simplification, and I'm not asking
for that.
But, Judith and others have mentioned, here and elsewhere, a
Rosennean
way of "doing science." A proper cookbook would include such
guidance.
At the same time, I repeat my "where's the beef" sentiment.
Aging,
excitation and inhibition, enzyme-substrate recognition, those
sorts of
things are all important. But, there are large problems that I
suspect
this methodology can be applied to, and those are the kinds of
problems
that large segments of the population would best be served by
bringing
Rosennean analytics to rather soon. Recall that Rashevsky was
really
interested in modeling traffic flows. Sounds lame? I don't think
so.
That's a whole class of problems that would serve, by way of analogy,
to
other problems.
Just a few thoughts for the time being.
I'm
sure I'm not alone in a quest for a cookbook.
Jack
Tim Gwinn
wrote:
>Jack,
>
>Relational modeling is one way to
answer certain questions about some
>complex systems. Aloisius' paper
for the first issue of BioTheory describes
>an approach which he notes
"The phenomenological calculus has proven to be
>extremely versatile in
its applicability to various biological, physical,
>and chemical topics:
the list beginning with aging [2], enzyme-substrate
>recognition [3],
(M,R)-systems [4], ...". His 'Categorical System Theory' in
>Rosen's
"Theoretical Biology and Complexity" (1985) provides a broad
formal
>framework for modelling systems.Steve Kercel utilized hyperset
theory to
>model impredicative aspects of Rosennean complex systems.
There are other
>tools, such as activation-inhibition networks. Which
kind(s) of tools are
>needed are going to depend upon the problem at
hand and the question asked
>in regard to that
problem.
>
>What for you would constitute a "recipe" or "cookbook"
of
Rosennean
>complexity?
>
>Regards,
>Tim
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ROSEN Forum
[mailto:*** Behalf Of
Jack
>>Park
>>Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:19
PM
>>To: ***
>>Subject:
Re: Quantum Physics
>>
>>
>>Thank you very much
Ayten.
>>
>>After I posted that, I had a second thought,
which is this. I stated
>>that Rosennean Complexity is "just another
model" among models. What I
>>didn't say was that I strongly believe
it has all the potential to be
>>the next "Newtonian Mechanics" with
which all humankind will grow to
>>ever more powerful understandings
of our universe. I wish I had said
>>that
then.
>>
>>Having said that now, I hold that the word
"potential" is quite
>>important here. I'm awfully inclined to repeat
that famous line:
>>"Where's the beef?"
>>
>>I say
that because, on reflection of years, I really mean *years*
of
>>following discussions about RR's work, only a few people have
actually
>>demonstrated it in practice. Newton got sucked up and
applied
>>immediately, in a very large way and for many different
purposes. Thus
>>far, as memory serves, we have seen the prediction
of telomeres. That's,
>>at once, profound, and valuable. I don't
think it's enough. Most all of
>>the rhetoric I have followed
(and contributed to) has been much closer
>>to "my interpretation is
more right than yours", and that's just
not
>>helpful.
>>
>>On several occasions, I have
asked for a cookbook. Yup. A *cookbook*.
>>Just show me some recipes
and I'll personally take Rosennean Complexity
>>to the moon and
beyond, or at least, that's how I think about it. In my
>>case,
as I have stated elsewhere, I am animated by a personal drive
to
>>understand a cancer that tried to kill me. I won. The way I won
was to
>>build a model of that cancer, look for ways to defeat it,
and then
>>follow those ways. True, several M.D.s were involved --
you need them in
>>order to get the drugs you might require. But, the
therapy was thought
>>through and approved by me before any doctor
got to apply the drugs.
>>
>>I'd like to think that, with
Rosennean Complexity implemented as a
>>massive, online modeling
system, one with which people all over the
>>planet can interact,
learn from, and "teach", we will have the
>>opportunity to solve
massivly complex, and terribly urgent problems,
>>problems we are,
even now, creating. Having said that, I am bracing for
>>the
onslought of laughter and jeers that I "just don't get it."
I
>>probably don't, but that's all I've got at this
time.
>>
>>If I had any admonishment to this tribe, it would
be: "Just give me the
>>damned cookbook and stop
arguing!"
>>
>>Couple more EUROs for the
day.
>>Thanks again,
Ayten.
>>Jack
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
|