On 04/21/2014 06:01 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the implications of the article,
Heh, I don't agree with _any_ of it. But that's OK. I'm so disagreeable I enjoy disagreement!
I am not sure that the issue is complexity(1) or complexity(2) but perhaps there is a component of it. I am not even sure if it is idealism or simplicity(1) that is at work against us, but rather the same old tired models... by introducing a different one, even with a similar level of simplicity and idealism, something qualitatively new happens. If the newly introduced mental model is juxtaposed with the old one(s) in just the right way, I contend that entirely new perspectives are offered... not *by* the new model alone but some higher dimensional *implied* model that at least admits the old one(s) and the new one...
You're channeling Robert Rosen, I think (except he always seems so arrogantly sure of himself in his writings -- so if you're a medium for his spirit, you're an Impure One[*]). The only thing I find seriously appealing about Rosen's works was his marker for complexity, which is (basically) that if something requires an infinite number of (inadequate) models in order for it to be well-modeled, then that thing is complex.
I use that marker as the basis for my argument in favor of parallax modeling. But whether a referent is _actually_ complex or only practically complex is irrelevant because parallax works in either case ... at least for agnostics like me who don't really care that much about the Truth, as long as our objectives are achieved.
[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_an_Impure_Thinker -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
