-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Phil Henshaw wrote: > I think I may have been mistakenly half serious in my above > comment... A consistent reality is always complex enough to have > multiple points of view that are really inconsistent only in the > projections, like top view and side view are hoplessly contradictory > unless your realize you're looking at a physical object and not just > some interesting projected 2d display. It does confuse that we seem > to need to look at real systems with simplifying projections that > look different from each other. The answer as to which 2D > projection is the correct one is what seems most confusing.
Ahhh. Sorry. I tend to be a bit flippant sometimes. You're making a very good point, here. I can't tell you how many times I've argued with biological modelers... well, actually many people from many different domains ... where they seem hooked on the idea that there can only be 1 true model of some referent. My most heated was with a guy who claimed that model selectors (e.g. AIC) that rely on a posited "perfect" or "optimal" model can actually help one get at the true generator of whatever data set is being examined. It took a lot of verbage on my part to draw a detailed enough picture for him to understand that the data were taken by a method that presumed a model (because all observation requires a model and all models require observations). And the best a selector can do is find that occult model by which the data was collected. Compounding the problem is that multiple data sets can _claim_ to be observations on the same system; but since the experimental protocol is always subtly different, it makes it difficult even to triangulate toward _the_ one true system (or description of the system). Hence, it's wisest just to toss the idea of "truth" out the window completely (except while praying or dredging up whatever personal motivation you need to keep spinning the hamster wheel) and maintain explicit adherence to your concrete objectives during each particular project/task. > When I said "wouldn't it be wise", I certainly meant it loosely, and > your interpretation is entirely appropriate. I'm only concerned > that the general discussions of otherwise competent thinking people > in no way appear to contemplate easing off on the exponential (% > adding) accleration of ever more complex change until we do actually > do 'hit the wall' and completely loose control of the shock waves of > multiplying repercussions. It's generally better to turn the wheel > before hitting the wall. Not all steering would be good steering, > naturally, but you don't need to have all knowledge to have useful > clues and uncertainty, and things that are 100% certain are useful > clues. It's better than no clue at all anyway. Well, in general, I'm conservative. And I agree that, from a conservative perspective, if one _must_ change without any specific knowledge of what to change, the best change is to ratchet back on your actions. I.e. do less of everything. But, there's no convincing reason to believe that ratcheting back on our burn rate will have a positive effect. An added complication is that most _people_, including those who profess themselves to be defenders of our current biosphere, are greedy and self-interested above any other trait. Even the ones that don't realize that their words and actions are greedy and self-interested are usually just trying to engineer/coerce the world into being more friendly to them and their ilk. For example, those who would have us stop burning fossil fuels in order to keep the environment comfortable for humans. They _say_ they care about life, the planet, whatever. But what they really want is to preserve their current way of life at the top of the food chain. Hence any argument they offer has that bias and must be reformulated in order to determine the real value of whatever action they suggest. > yep, always with a grain of salt. Supreme confidence that there is > nothing to know wouldn't seem to fit that principle though.... It's not that there's nothing to know. It's just that there's no real separation between blind action and wise action. Wisdom, intelligence, etc. are all ascribed _after_ one has taken their actions and proven successful in some sense. Prior to the success, active people are often labeled quacks or wackos. The ultimately unsuccessful wackos stay classified as wackos. The ultimately successful wackos are re-classified into geniuses. The point is that we are what we _do_, not what we think. And if my actions cause people pain, then those people will call me a name associated with that pain. E.g. If I'm an Enron executive and I get busted, they call me a criminal. If I'm a self-aggrandizing biological idealist ... ? We see this developing now in farmers chopping down trees to farm for bio-fuel, the corn shortage in the face of using corn to produce ethanol, the German beer price increases, etc. These are not bad ideas. But, the ultimate consequences determine the value-classification. An individual farmer cannot wisely decide (based on his thoughts) whether chopping down a few trees to farm the land is good or bad. p.s. In case nobody notices, my ultimate _point_ in this dialog is that simulation (particularly via concrete modeling methods like ABM) is _necessary_ to wisdom. These systems are not analytic/separable (and functional relationships within them are not analytical soluble). They must be examined using simulation. And to this topic of sustainability, until we see some concrete, detailed, not-toy, not-abstract models showing how a particular condition X leads to a particular condition Y, it's all just mumbo-jumbo. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -- Goethe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGgvliZeB+vOTnLkoRApFEAKCxEGDnvrEFJjDWfuA17hvUHvW6mwCcCeCj xo9sR/qiBWQOQ9zG+65RF7w= =WDJP -----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
