Glen, Excellent! If they're honestly derived from physical things, like network maps, say, every model is going to be both a 'bad' model and a helpful one. The principle comes to this complex statement, yes, but I think also to a simple one that to understand anything you need multiple measures. A measure is a sort of simplistic model.
You could say, "He's 6'1"." and have a model of a person that has some helpful and some bad features. Measure is informative, but it's also a reductive projection of only one dimension or set of relationships from the subject. It's like taking Lincoln's quip "A tree is best measured when it is down" and turning it backwards, to say 'it takes many kinds of measure to begin getting the whole picture'... The hard part seems to be to take the first dark step to accepting there might be a shape of another form that the measures are missing (like the whole tree or person). It means looking for how to best extend and complete your image based on the limited cast of the measures at hand. Interpolation gone wild?? Free form projection perhaps?? Sort of... You just gotta do something to make sense of the larger continuities that develop in natural complex systems. What I think we can see clearly is that our measures and models are highly incomplete. Phil > > OK. I hope this is the last time I have to break the > threading. My upgrade is stalled; so my exim4 should work > fine for now. [grin] > > Phil on Thu Nov 29 at 11:46:09 EST 2007 wrote: > > Sure, while not discarding too much, and we should still > keep the word > > 'falsified'. False theories, say like those of Freud or > Lamarck, the > > flat earth or idealized determinism, can offer fruitful ground for > > asking what made them so compelling. > > > > ...does this go anywhere you think? > > Well, going back to your original objection to my use of the > word "any", I think it does go somewhere. My statement was > that any actual (a.k.a. realized, "real"... whatever word you > use) system can be projected onto any ordering (or any > measure in general). The resulting projection may be a gross > distortion of the system or a relatively accurate representation. > > My point was simply that multiple models are necessary. But, > taking your point that even gross distortions are useful for > learning, we might posit that not only are multiple models > necessary, but the _distribution_ of those models must have a > certain character. E.g. perhaps really "bad" models _must_ > be included in order to understand the system. I'd say that > "goes somewhere". > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over > and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of > catapult the propaganda. -- George W. Bush > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHV0cgZeB+vOTnLkoRAujNAJ9RsNyeitlPOxKtq4fYL+2CqtHL5wCfehg9 > gZMEtsP8SvOR9pMFYD64774= > =0UeV > -----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
