glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote: >> >>> Why does a law have to be simpler? > Modeling, traditionally, consists of taking one concrete thing, > in all its particular gory detail, and studying it side-by-side with > some other concrete thing, in all its gory detail. Both things, the > model and its referent are replete with the messy details of concrete > existence, yet we can use one to learn about the other, no compression > or simplification needed. > These inferences can only be made about the compared properties of the two things. What is compared is not everything, often times is hard to measure, and usually is hypothesis driven -- all simplifications. Put another way, to have a concrete thing in all of its gory detail, does not mean you have any idea what is important to measure from it, or whether what is relevant even CAN be measured non-intrusively given its working form. It is a matter of inquiry in the form of science, empathy, intuition, or your favorite thing to make guesses about what to measure.
In the case of life, "A law has to be simpler than what it explains." because the precise processes of living things living are too complex to directly grok (again, in full detail). Minimally, living things involve billions of components that interact in non-linear ways. Marcus ============================================================ 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
