Re: Modeling relations and semantics

[John M <***>]

Judith, thanks for your patient/benevolent reply.
(Don't misrepresent my 'patient': it does not imply a
sick person). 
The diagram has identical shapes and arrows for
different items and words which really could be only
followed by studying all the books written on the
controversy. (I mean: to explain in reductionist
language the science of the obsolete readers as
hopefully leading them into the new ideas).
If we stick to the 'written bible' facing the past, we
never get ahead. I tried with 2 RR books and did not
get anywhere, because it was different from what I was
looking for and full of (applied) math which is a nono
in my views. I think I explained already, why.
*
I don't think Carlos has similar problems: he seems to
be well informed about RR and his writings.(Hi,Carlos)

*
I appreciate your generous offer to submit 'my' terms
(Glossary JM?) but I am afraid it would divert from
your line and don't feel it right on this list. As I
said: I arrived to RR-like(!) ideas before I heard
about him and so my connotations are - though for
similar goals - different. I went the route from
'generalities - down', RR from 'details-up' . I took
his nomenclature (mostly) because he used 'better'
words and explanations, however not always matching to
my wording. So I am a heretic and don't want to spread
heresy among the true followers. I do it a lot, anyway
here, sometimes as remarks, mostly by questions asked.
In other lists and in other writings I refer to 'RR' 
ideas whenever I write on concerning topics, I don't
'plagierize'in my  - nor 'distort' in his name.

John M



--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> Well, that's all right, John M. I made an honest
> try. I don't know if 
> Carlos is still in the dark as well, but I don't see
> what could be 
> said any more simply or any clearer.
> 
> However, I will say that it would be to your benefit
> (and everyone 
> else who's trying to understand the work) to read
> the entire chapter 
> on this, and work at it-- because it's bedrock
> stuff. And if his 
> description of the relation between a model and a
> natural system 
> doesn't make sense to you, then you will really be
> lost trying to 
> follow his discussion about the relation between a
> model and a new 
> model-- of the model!
> 
> I see another typo in Life, Itself, though: did
> anyone else catch it? 
> On the left hand side of the diagram, they scrambled
> the letters. 
> They've got "casual"! Sheesh. Columbia University
> Press.
> 
> Judith
> PS: John, if you can come up with a way of
> illustrating the ideas that 
> would help clarify things for you (be it more
> examples or whatever), 
> let me know. OK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: John M
>   To: ***
>   Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 4:32 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Modeling relations and
> semantics
> 
> 
>   Judith,
>   thanks for the diagram - I think it came through
> OK, I
>   saw this dozens of times and never made any sense
> of
>   it. Now that you were kind enough to paste the
> legend
>   underneath, I jumped excitedly on the text and
> read it
>   2-3 times, forcing myself to read it with
>   concentration. Itr still did not make any sense to
> me.
> 
>   The words (I almost learned them ny heart) seem of
> no
>   relevance with the diagram, I still don't know
> what
>   the lines represent and what the difference is
> between
>   an identically drawn model and a natural system (I
>   know - at least I think I know) what it ought to
> mean,
>   but not from the diagram or its legend.
>   I was so glad that after all those years I will
> get an
>   understanding of - what Tim once wrote: "a diagram
> is
>   more meaningful than 1000 words" - alas I got only
> to
>   the 999th word.
>   Is there anybody - without perfect prior knowledge
> -
>   to understand the diagram upon its legend?
>   Even your added explanatory text - which seems so
>   clear does not (really) enlighte...
> 
>   John M
> 
>   --- Judith Rosen <***>
> wrote:
> 
>   SNIP
>   > The 'legend':
>   >
>   > N = the Natural system, F = the Formal system
> (or
>   > supposed "model").
>   > The arrow numbered (1) = the entailment within
> the
>   > natural system
>   > (causal entailment). If we want to make a model
> that
>   > will be of any
>   > use at all in dealing with this natural system,
> we
>   > need to recreate
>   > the causal entailments of that system (sometimes
>   > called the
>   > "entailment structure" or the "entailment
> pattern")
>   > in the formalism
>   > as inferential entailment (represented here by
> (3).
>   > The processes for
>   > doing so are diagrammed by arrows (2) and (4);
>   > encoding and decoding,
>   > respectively. If we can recreate the entailment
> of
>   > the natural system
>   > with sufficient accuracy in our formalism, when
> we
>   > test our formalism
>   > in the final phase... it accurately predicts the
>   > behavior we actually
>   > observe in the natural system. (... and there is
>   > much celebrating!) At
>   > this point, we can call our formalism a MODEL of
> N.
>   > Another way to put
>   > that, using the number labels from this diagram,
> is:
>   > "IF the
>   > information we get via the pathways 2 + 3 + 4 =
> the
>   > information we get
>   > via pathway 1, THEN F is a model of N.
>   >
>   > Note: There is a warning, issued on page 54 (it
>   > actually starts on the
>   > bottom of page 53 and finishes at the top of 54)
>   > about the multiple
>   > different uses of the word "model" by science
> and by
>   > many other fields
>   > outside of science. He stipulates that within
> his
>   > own work, he won't
>   > use the word in inconsistent ways, but he warns
> that
>   > one must
>   > understand his particular definition or else
> nothing
>   > will make sense.
>   > So, if his definitions don't seem to coincide
> with
>   > what you may have
>   > learned elsewhere, then set aside the earlier
>   > definition while you are
>   > studying the ideas in Robert Rosen's work and
> use
>   > his own particular
>   > definition.
>   >
>   > 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.
>   >
>   > Now we are ready to talk about the semantic
>   > elements, and there are
>   > actually quite a few. Looking at the diagram:
> the
>   > processes
>   > represented by the arrows are not actual
> material
>   > "things". Arrows (1)
>   > and (3) represent aspects internal to each of
> the
>   > systems (their...
> 
=== message truncated ===