Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Dear Jack, Tim, all interested,

Being an architecturally/anthropologically minded civil engineer myself, I
go along with your (both) following prescriptions.

>From Jack's post: "That's a whole class of problems that would serve, by way
of analogy, to other problems."

>From Tim's post: "At this point, I think its a matter of posing the specific
problem or question, seeing if any the existing tools are adequate or
appropriate, and
if not, then having to do the pioneer work of devising new tools and
approaches."

Intuitionally sensing, I believe, we should pursue both with faith.

It is interesting to see how many things are now coming together. This
morning I was reading Aloisius' paper -Section 3- appeared in the Rosennean
Biotheory Journal (still being shaped though) where he takes the "space" as
something of more than three dimensions and "time" is of more than one
dimension.

Thus the 'Spacetime' as a single entity remains to be perceived from a
higher level where the two harmoniously merges.

He concludes his paper by quoting a passage from the Hamilton's book (1835)
'Algebra as the Science of Pure Time':

"..the subject matter of algebraic science is the abstract notion of time;
diversed of, or not yet clothed with, any actual knowledge which we may
possess of the real Event of History, or any conception which we may frame
of Cause and Effect in Nature; but involving, what indeed it cannot be
divested of, the thought of possible Succession, or of pure, ideal
Progression".

At this point, it may be right to support  of finding new ways to
harmoniously merge geometrical tools with algebraic tools where the
qualitative proofs are considered at least with an equal weight with the
quantitative ones, in effect in practical terms this may mean learning from
individual and collective experiences and relying on consensus as
qualitative proofs. Moreover,  in making decisions and choices, it may imply
even giving higher weight to intution rather than to intellect.

In the same Journal, my paper (Section 5), if I've been successful in
fulfilling my intention, defends more the importance of shape in conveying
the content rather than the matter and thus demonstrates how time's arrow
functions multi-dimensionally etc.. In effect, within the section
'Conclusion' also in support of Rosennean thinking it says " ... while
rational models fit well to simple/closed systems, they cannot deal with the
subtleties of complex/open systems. What is needed are relational models.
This takes us outside the sphere of rational mathematical functions to look
for new mathematics of complexity with new type of functions and forms such
as complex geometric patterns, which represent the systems' dynamic
properties." These thoughts are presented in three contexts: the relevant
historical background; conceptual review; a few practical examples.

At present I am reading a book entitled " The Next Fifty Years: Science in
the First Half of the Twenty-First Century", edited by John Brockman,
Vintage Books 2002. Among the articles (25) the ones by Ian stewart on The
Mathematics of 2050; Stuart kauffman's What is Life?; Cosmological
Challenges by Martin Rees;  Geoffrey Miller's The Science of Subtlety and
many others  are particularly relevant to our theme. Many of you may have
read it already, as it appeared 2-3 years ago.

I guess I, in the meantime, did some publicity for  the Rosennean Journal as
well, though it is not yet fully ready, but growing satisfactorily. I hope
it works well and continues towards a commonly shared objective. I should,
taking this opportunity, congradulate Judith for her zeal and incessant good
quality work.

My best,
Ayten


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Park" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>