Thus spake Owen Densmore circa 10/10/2009 11:47 AM: > To FRIAM: how would you answer this question by Dennett: "Are centers of > gravity in your ontology?" .. i.e. are they "real", do they "exist"?
My answer is: "Yes, centers of gravity are real." But I qualify it with "as real as anything else we _use_ as the basis for action." Everything we _do_ is real and any thing that effects and affects that _doing_ is real. So, because we use centers of gravity to, say, build bridges, centers of gravity are real. However, because emergent properties are totally useless (except as sorcerous rhetorical babble), they are not real. When/if someone answers Robert's question, i.e. shows us a practical _use_ for the label, then it still won't be real; but it'll be much closer. You actually -- act-ually, same root word as "active" and "actor" -- you actually have to use some thing for that thing to be actual/real. A merely hypothetical claim that some thing _could_ be used is inadequate. Centers of gravity are actually used; they effect and affect actions (act-ions). To be clear about my stance, nothing just is. Reality (if we have to use the concept) consists entirely of actions, processes, verbs. There need be no nouns. Hence, unless a hypothetical noun participates directly in a verb, we're free to ignore it because it doesn't matter. It is inactive and, hence, unreal. Centers of gravity are useful and used. Hence, they exist. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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
