Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

[Jack Park <***>]

I agree with the need to consider the impacts on the initial 
conditions.  I am wondering if that is, in fact, how my program works.

Let me explain. Given an initial condition, consider that a node in a 
tree. As process rules fire on those conditions, new nodes are created. 
When several rules fire (several entailments assert their influence), 
branches form in the tree. Each new node becomes the equivalent of a new 
set of initial conditions. We call that an "envisionment".

In some sense, the envisionment-building process -- I call it model 
building -- is not always practical. When Bob Trelease at UCLA was 
growing an envisionment of some behaviors under hyperbaric immunology 
contexts, the program ran all week, right up till the moment the janitor 
unplugged his computer to get a broom into a difficult space. Sigh...

Nevertheless, in some sense, given that each node in a growing model 
represents a fresh set of initial conditions, the totality of the model 
reflects a histories (different histories for each branch in the tree) 
of the various entailments and their effects.

It becomes necessary to inject metarules -- stopping rules -- which 
reflect a modeler's view of when any particular history has sufficiently 
reflected the needs of the model.

When nodes are found to contain the same or similar information as other 
nodes somewhere in the graph, that branch is linked into the other 
(earlier) location in another branch and that history ends. This is 
usually a looping condition.  When we ran this program on the Krebs 
cycle, we discovered cycles which were slightly different from loops; 
the end of a cycle brings more information to the start than the initial 
loop started with. We documented that as cycles and spirals.

Jack

Judith Rosen wrote:

> ** 
> Jack Park wrote: The QP program I wrote deal with expanding on
> initial conditions, but does nothing, afik, to explore the boundary
> conditions except to the extent that it runs out of entailments and
> expands its model no further.
>  
> *What your program didn't include was the impact of each iteration on 
> the "initial conditions". In a complex universe, context impacts 
> change and change impacts context. In essence, the context evolves 
> along with the living systems. The initial conditions change all the 
> way through, so it should never run out of entailments... It's that 
> huge interactive potential again, where organizational changes cause a 
> shift in all relations including those between system and context, and 
> it just keeps going.*
> ** 
> *This is how the development of plant life on Earth could change the 
> atmospheric chemistry, which changed climate, which changed plant 
> life, which continued to change atmospheric chemistry...  (a series of 
> developments humans are actively working to undo...)*
> ** 
> *Judith*