Re: Modeling relations and semantics

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

John,  Reality, I mean, is universe in general.  John
Locke refers reality to qualities.  According to
Locke, the power that generate ideas in us is called
qaulities. Locke differentiate primary qaulities and
secondary qaulities.  Primary qaulites belong to
reality that generate secondary qaulities that are
worlds exposed to our senses(external-causal laws and
interal-forms, where Kant refer to percept and concept
respectively).  The world of science (I add theory
that studies forms or symbolic aspects) is the world
of sense which are the secondary qualities geneated by
primary qualities.

We build models based on our expereince (which
includes percepts and concepts) to simulate primary
qualties as what Kant describes transcendental
transformation.  Our senses are based on our sense
organs not on the mode of exteranl stimulations.  Our
sense organs are unable to have truth knowledge of
reality.

Jantsch different three levels of physics, classic
physics (points, trajectories, and forces),
thermodyanmics(behavior of large populations on the
macroscopic) and dissipative structures (the
complexity of microscopic and simplicithy of
macroscopic).  The first level is temporal-spacial
symmetric, the second level breaks temporal symmetric
and the third further break spacial symmetry.
Statistical is the essential characteristics of second
and third levels.  Any living systems be it social or
biological are evolved beyond dissipative structures
and are controld by dynamic laws and cybernetic
controls described as Pattee's semantic closure. (also
von Neuman, Popper and Wittgenstein)

Any models (of life) that do not consider
tempo-spacial symmetric breakings are at the levels of
classific physics as Janstch defines. 

Wittgenstein is the last name casted on the stone in
Western philosophy. To my belief all scientists should
read Wittgenstein. I am not supprised that today's
scientific community is not philosophical.  Augustine
first and Quina later had rubbed philosophy off
science and merge it into religion.  Duddas and Occam
separate philosophy from religion that marks the end
of scholarticism and paved the way into renneissance.
Since then religion, philosophy, and science remain
separate.  I imagine that about two hundred years
later, phiolosophy will remarry science and the
religion will become history  of human knowledge
completely.  

Pattee has significant contributions in explaining
life. I wish he can join the discussion that really
motivates me to talk here.

Best wishes

Jerry Zhu








--- John M <***> wrote:

> Jerry, I tried to follow your post and found some
> indicators of the meaning you apply to your words:
> "Most of real world are statistical." 
> In my terms (!) STATISTICAL means: to regard a
> limited
> model and count the items we identify in our pattern
> definition as 'similar' among the (closed?) number
> of
> cases included in that model. Your sentence
> definitely
> means YOUR 'reality' as restricted to such model. A
> 'natural system' (as I use RR's term) is unlimited
> and
> refers to (my) reality, to which we have NO ACCESS
> but
> to the accessible portion through the mind's (1st
> person) interpretation, eo ipso a subjective
> virtuality 
> instead of "objective reality" we so proudly like to
> say. Your "real world" is the model you identify.
> And
> I believe this is what the 'big names' also had in
> mind. 
> (Pattee might have had an impredicative totality in
> his mind...) What "reality" are YOU talking about?
> *
> Wittgenstein did not do Rosenesque modeling. 
> ">Philosophy shows
> > us what is in common between reality and models.<
> We (humanity I mean, over the past millennia) chose
> "models" as cut-offs (topically, functionally, in
> any
> boundarizable terms - "bad grammar"?<G>) from the
> totality we perceived in our mind as interpreted
> from
> the who-knows-what in nature's wholeness (reality?)
> -
> the portion we accessed by our little feeble mind. 
> That is 'in common'. Any better ideas? (Religions
> may
> have).
> 
> John M
>  
> 
> 
> --- Jerry Zhu <***> wrote:
> 
> > John, I have some issues with the diagram also.
> > 
> > As Judith already mentioned earlier that causal
> laws
> > alone only represent a narrow scope of reality or
> > real
> > world. Most of real world are statistical. As
> > Pattee,
> > Polanyi and others pointed dural control of living
> > systems: matter aspects and symbol aspects. 
> > Considering natural systems as under control of
> > causal
> > laws alone has ignored another half in most part
> of
> > real worlds we are dealing with.  
> > 
> > A phiolosphicall issue in modeling, according to
> > Wittgenstein, is that reality does not express
> > itself
> > by means of models brought to it, rather reality
> > expresses itself through models by means of what
> is
> > in
> > common between the models and reality.  That what
> > has
> > common between models and reality can not be said
> in
> > models (that is science and theory).  What can not
> > be
> > said can be shown.  Everything said in philosophy
> > becomes part of science or theory.  Philosophy
> shows
> > us what is in common between reality and models.
> > Everyhing said in philosophy is a bad grammer.
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> 
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com