Re: Modeling relations and semantics

[Carlos Limarino <***>]

Judith Rosen,

I've read your whole message but I'm afraid I still
retain the same doubts about Rosen's 'modeling
relation' and the notions associated with it. You
wrote:

>All observations are forms of measurement, having
been "encoded" into >perceptions which are based on
sensory input by our various combined powers of
>detecting some of these emanations from the world
around us (the "ambience").
(?)
>These all represent ways of recording information
about an observation-- and it's >worth noting that
each of these ways of encoding will record different
>information-- different aspects of the observation. 

And then,

>The encoding arrow: None of these models tell us how
they were created or >decided upon. In fact, it would
take a lot of detective work to find out and
>sometimes it's just impossible. but it may be
critical information. However, that's >not information
we can get from the model; it has to come from the
modeler/s. >Similarly, no natural system tells us how
to best model it. That is information that >is not in
the natural system. We've developed that on our own,
as a means to an >end; namely to try and learn more
about a system by recreating its entailment >patterns.
"They manifest what Einstein (with Infeld; 1938:33)
once called "free >creations of the human mind," on
which he believed science depends." And so, the
>process of encoding that is used to generate a model
is one that is not entailed by >the system and not
entailed by the model. 
 
So, I have exactly the same problem with Tim Gwinn
definition. Is 'encoding' a measurement or not? If it
is a measurement, the idea they manifest "free
creations of the human mind" (except, in the trivial
sense that the measurement instrument was maybe
manipulated by a human body which we ascribe the
possession of a mind) is very dubious to me.
Otherwise, if encodings are not measurements, I don't
understand what is the use for sentences is like "All
observations are forms of measurements, having been
"encoded" into perceptions" or "and possibly about
other aspects of the measurement mode (the way of
encoding information) which will become an innate
aspect of the measurement itself". 

>Encoding and decoding pertain to science. Science is
a human creation. Do you >see what I'm getting at?
It's not that the encoding and decoding arrows are not
>entailed at all, it's that they are not entailed in
the diagram-- not entailed by >either the system or
the model.

Are you using 'entailed' in some Rosennean notion? I'm
afraid I can't make any clear sense of what
'entailment' means in Rosen's words. I asked Tim Gwinn
about this, but could you give me a definition of
'entailment' in Rosen's terms? To give you an idea, I
don't know how to look at Rosen's diagram in the book
(Life Itself) and say the arrows he labels as
'encoding' and 'decoding' are 'not entailed in the
diagram'. 


>You bet. He most certainly IS suggesting that it
introduces a further semantic >element into the model
or the measurement. It absolutely does. "The
>measurement instrument" and the measurement process,
and the aspects of the >system you have chosen to
measure that will give you a number that you label
>"mass"....., these are ALL semantic elements that are
not part of the system itself. >These tell us as much
about the science involved as they do about the
system. 

I don't know if I understand it in the sense you want
it. If the idea is that the instrument used for
measure a physical quantity is not part of the system
being measured, that seems rather obvious to me, but
I'm afraid I don't see how to relate the metaphysical
idea of the existence of different objects to the idea
that a meter or some other instrument is a semantic
element to a given system, since when I replace m and
v in 'Et=1/2m*v^2' with the same numbers it gives me
the same result, independently how I measured mass or
velocity (and this is assuming Rosen reference to a
system is to what he calls the 'formal' one, if not,
I'm completely lost in what he means in his book). 
So, where the 'semantic element' is being introduced
is a mystery for me. 

As you surely understand, since Rosen said:
"I have been, and remain, entirely committed to the
idea that modeling is the essence of science and the
habitat of all epistemology." 
And the fact he bases controversial claims about the
epistemological status of sciences like physics,
chemistry and molecular biology in his notion of
'modeling relation', I think is very important to
define clearly and rigorous the whole idea in order to
determine if is coherent from a logical point view.


        


        
                
___________________________________________________________ 
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam 
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo 
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar