The question arises from how using self-consistent models for physical systems full of undefined parts forces us to leave the undefined parts out of the model, as for the individual behavior of any natural system.
There is a kind of 'common physics' displayed by the users of mismatched models and subjects of this type. The environmental movement spent 30 years developing ways to turn agricultural land into fuel before they found out that someone else was already using the same land for something else. It tipped a balance in a natural system and triggered a world food crisis we're beginning to see can't be solved by increasing the food supply. The whole idea had been to correct the harm being done to the earth by other people who had made almost exactly the same mistake by over using our energy supplies in the first place. The environmentalists used a massive network of activists and decades of well funded governmental and industrial research, and they all failed to ask what in nature the new land use might run into. To me it looks like they were using a simple self-consistent model for their purpose and never questioned whether it contained living things that might react in an unexpected way not represented in their model. If you don't 'see the life' you don't get wonder what it'll do when you interfere with it. That's what always seems to be the problem. We don't know how independent things will react when we run into them, importantly because we have a habit of using models that conceal the presence of the things that'll get in our way. Self-consistent models represent environments very well, just omitting their living parts, "mind without matter". Would any of the things you guys suggested fix that? Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: www.synapse9.com in the last 200 years the amount of change that once needed a century of thought now takes just five weeks > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:02 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] recap on Rosen > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > > phil henshaw wrote: > >> Can a self-consistent model have independently behaving parts, like > >> environments do? > >> > > If the independently behaving parts don't have some underlying common > > physics (e.g. they could in principle become different from time to > time > > according to some simple rules, but generally are the same), then > there > > will be so many degrees of freedom from the independently behaving > parts > > that arguments about why a system does what it does will be > > quantitatively as good as any other. > > I don't think that's quite true. It's close to true, but not quite > true. [grin] > > Even if the parts don't have a common, underlying physics > (Truth/Reality), as long as they can interact _somehow_ and if they > interact a lot (highly connected), then a common "physics" may cohere > after a time so that a forcing structure limits the degrees of freedom. > > In such a case (perhaps physical symmetry breaking is one example?), > some arguments about why a system does what it does will be more > accurate and precise than others, namely the ones that capture the > emergent "physics". > > This could be true even if the "physics" that emerges is completely > abstracted from the original medium of interaction (the actual > physics). > Ultimately, whether such a "ladder of abstraction" is _completely_ > closed or not is a matter of faith or philosophy. Is there a bottom > turtle or not? > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to > fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFIEQNnpVJZMHoGoM8RAl+TAJ46LnSihLOL4dwjNfXY+9zTCdtU+ACfXVPn > QTbC887A1yQK0MhaH5IqBew= > =UD39 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
