-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels on 12/11/2007 06:53 PM:
> Sure, if you manage to invent two entirely new ways of looking at a
> problem [the data collection plan/model and a design for a synthetic
> model]. Theoretical frameworks rarely come out of thin air -- new
> models come from extensions and tweaks to a reference model, and the
> finite gestalt of a scientific community. That's inevitable, I think,
> unless you happen to have a topic for study that has very rich set of
> data available (that wasn't collected motivated by some hypothesis).
But you don't need a new theoretical framework for a model to be
fundamentally different from another model. As we've seen on this list
alone, there are already a wide variety of theoretical frameworks that
are _never_ directly compared. For the most part, I think this is
because people prematurely decide that two frameworks are incommensurate
and that it doesn't make sense to target the same referent with models
in the two frameworks.
A great example is hybrid (discrete + continuous) systems. For some
reason, we feel the need to call such systems "hybrid" even though
they're not really that difficult to combine. The trick is that the
_theoretical_ tools used to reason about them are different. But, we
can pull together lots of different things and run them in co-simulation
without requiring theoretical commensurability.
Likewise, analogs come from the weirdest places. For example, we can
compare the models for the "meter"; the metal rod is fundamentally
different from the distance light travels in a vacuum. These are
fundamentally different models of the meter. Another example is an RC
plane versus a balsa wood plane as models of a life size plane. The
models are fundamentally different. All that's required is a common
aspect ("lift").
Granted, when multi-modeling becomes standard practice, we will
(probably) eventually consolidate our model construction methods, which
will constrain such model construction (all rooted in physics no doubt).
And _then_ it will be reasonable to say that the various models are NOT
fundamentally different. But right now, in the immature modeling and
simulation discipline we have, any two models are very likely to be very
different. In fact, part of our purpose in publishing our functional
unit representation method is to help push for the development of
multi-modeling methodology so that we can make models with
incommensurate structure phenomenally more commensurate through aspects
and co-simulation. The idea being to construct/select populations of
structures to find those that best generate the targeted behavior.
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
The assertion that our ego consists of protein molecules seems to me one
of the most ridiculous ever made. -- Kurt Gödel.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHX/VtZeB+vOTnLkoRAogNAJ9Nr/fvLcINJ90VTSnXFW/3SCHBdgCcDuMM
aufG3PUvc5WnEvMYFVhenfk=
=OkEa
-----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
