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

[Judith Rosen <***>]

<x-tad-bigger>Hi John M,

How do we know that it isn't a case of "time is a self-evident experience and needs not to be "figured out"-- we invented the concept of change to explain it"?

My take on  it is that change is only possible because of the existence of time; the co-organized nature of space and time in our universe are an integral aspect of the fabric of all things/all existence.  Change is one of the manifestations which make time "visible" to our senses, but change is not a generic thing, such that all change can be said to be "equal". There are other aspects of time, visible because of change: rate and sequence, for example. There are many others. It's not so simple that it can be dismissed as "just a creation of our minds". Many forces in this universe are only visible to our senses in oblique ways, and only under certain circumstances. Air becomes visible to our senses when there is wind, for example. Or when smoke is present. However, I do think that what we know of time is always going to be based on the effects of the complex co-organization of it into the universe--- which may explain why you noticed that "motion has, in space, a time coordinate and, in time, a spatial coordinate."

There is a difference, by the way (this directed more at Jerry Z.), between the treatment of time in relational modeling of systems and the subtraction of time in analytic models (replaced by simplistic substitutions of it). In relational modeling, time is implied-- entailed, if you prefer that term-- by the nature of modeling a process. It's inclusion is automatic, because of the relations specified. In that way, a relational model is both rooted in time AND generally applicable. In contrast, analytic models of processes tend to specify time exactly, based on physical approximations of an oversimplified definition of time( "clock-time" or "speed of light"...). In my view, this makes a model unlikely to be applicable outside of a very small set of highly structured cases (factory floor models of how long it takes to put a car or a computer together, for example). Even in applications such as that, I think they will find the model is too simplistic; the human element is the (complex) wild card.

Judith</x-tad-bigger>



> 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