Re: the "(M,R)-System" model, Modeling relations, and semantics

[John M <***>]

Jerry,
your example to Judith:

"Try this experiment.  Replace Judith's "complexity"
and "complex systems" with "mechanical machines" and
you will find no problems. Indeed the steering wheel
is related to tires which can only be understood in
relationship.  Disamount the steerign wheel and put it
on the table.  It steers nothing. By taking automobile
apart, the whole loses its essential property so is
its parts."

reminds me of the legendary king who had the brain of
his philosopher sliced up to find those good ideas. 

You illustrated the perfect 'reductionist thinking' in
cutting the world at the model's limiting boundary and
looking for further connotations. The "steering wheel"
is identified as part of a complexity, with functions,
attached to the rest of the 'car' and the world, both
in functions and ideation. "Take out a part" from its
(complexity) context: it is a piece of metal. Why
would that belong to a natural system where you took
it out from? 

Time? in another discussion I asked for an
identification of time to apply in my struggle how to
figure a timeless (a-temporal) world-system,
especially to apply to "change" without time-concept
involved. 
I received a reply I want to share:
"(JM: "how you figure a 'change' without the time
concept?") 
        Change is a self-evident experience and needs
not to be 'figured' out. We invented the concept of
time to explain it. Change IS the fundamental
variable, not time." (MindBrain list - Dr.d)

Which is exactly how I figured a decade ago the motion
as having in space a time-coordinate and in time a
spatial coordinate. (Motion, as the pysical variant of
change). I just failed to generalize.

John M




--- Jerry Zhu <***> wrote:

truncated