-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
phil henshaw sy at synapse9.com Tue Dec 11 13:34:36 EST 2007:
> What I actually find to be the rewarding part of it, though breaking
> the theoretical boundaries to allow the indefinable things outside
> our models into the discussion is quite necessary, is to then develop
> confidence with exploring them.
>
> [...]
>
> Human designs have long tended to be abstractions 'in a box', like
> equations, and machines, which have no capability themselves of
> exploring or adapting to their environments. _If_ people are paying
> attention models evolve by people making new ones. When you look to
> see why that is you find it is achieved by building the box and
> essentially defining whatever is outside the structures of models
> away. It introduces bias. Learning to do the opposite, exploring
> the complex world around our models, and asking other questions,
> needs the aid of methods though.
>
> [...]
>
> I also, for measuring total environmental impacts, use the tried and
> true way to look outside any box... "follow the money". Some people
> are even responding to how very effective it is as a measure!
>
> gtg
>
> Do you have theory or method for visualizing or exploring the stuff
> outside the box?
To some extent, yes. A complete method requires 2 sub-methods:
construction and evaluation. My construction method is still just mine
and I haven't made any (public) attempts to formalize or communicate it.
And, one can make a reasonable argument (based on critical rationalism)
that construction should NOT be rigorous or formalized. Indeed, we
accept any model, irregardless of its source or structure.
But our evaluation method, which is more formalized, imposes 4 basic
requirements for modeling any given "functional unit":
R1: co-simulation of 3 models:
M1: a synthetic model,
M2: a reference/pedigreed model, and
M3: a data model
R2: inter-aspect influences are discrete
R3: models are designed to be transpersonal
R4: well-defined similarity measure(s)
In the most degenerate case, we end up exploring the behaviors _between_
the three models. Each model type has its flaws (the shape of the
"box", what's left out, bugs or artifacts within, etc.); but, requiring
that they are fundamentally different types of models _forces_ the
modeler to explore the stuff outside each of the three boxes.
I can say a lot more; but, I'll stop there and await criticism.
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
I have the heart of a child. I keep it in a jar on my shelf. -- Robert Bloch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHXy0yZeB+vOTnLkoRAi+3AJ9PtvxMGXe18a/rZ/Kl9AjyhxuU7ACfVRyC
rGFzgWaMOw4Lbgf6dUgplbw=
=T3qH
-----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
