|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Comments
You may leave anonymous comments on this page.
On all other pages, you must have registered and be logged in to be ale to leave comments.
Registration Instructions
Click "New Account Signup" in the left-nav under "LOG IN".
Make up a username and type in your email address.
A password will be emailed to you.
You can then change it after you log in.
Comments not dealing with the site's subject matter will be deleted.
Created on 05/07/2009 04:15 PM by jprideaux
Updated on 05/09/2009 08:40 AM by jprideaux
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content.
Simplicity - Cpmplexity
Posted on: 2009-05-11 15:25:22
By: jamikes
|
Edited By: jamikes
On: 2009-05-11 15:29:08
|
>
> I just browsed into your M&R.article with an urge to comment 'something' -
> differently to the usual positions with which I do not agree as indeed(?)
> Rosen-ideas related (however appreciated as good scientific endeavours.).
>
> I feel the term 'complexity' in the writings cover indeed the complicatedness,i.e. un-simplicity, not a
> Rosen-complexity that is
> impredicative, unlimited (in relations), Turing non - emulable and indeed beyond our present capabilities.
> Simplicity is what I call Occamistic: cut shorter your
> model - exclude whatever is not absolutely necessary and > then you find a 'simple' enough system to handle easily.
> (System in this respect is definitely a model-view,
> identifiable and limited to a 'components' inventory.
> I think "Natural System" is used as the beyond modeling
> term, I am not sure "how"?
> if it is topical(ly) restricted then it is a model.
> So are graphs and diagrams. (See my Karl Jaspers Forum
> Article TA62MIK (2003) on Network of Networks.) If you
> can mathematically identify: it is mopdel-view (I doubt
> math accepts unlimited variables and unidentifiable
> functionalities). If it is not utmost vaguery it is
> reductionistic.
> Challenged to write my position in ONE entence, I tried
> some different formulations, one was:
> To abolish scientific reductionism using my own
> reductionism.
>
> I made it easy on myself: I drew the line at retirement
> (1987) for cutting out rigorously the
> conventional (natural) science I worked through 5 decades > and "started to think" complexity, totality, relations.
> Now, after 2 decades I became vague enough not to fall
> back into the conventional (reductionist) science
> figments (like: physical world, 'bio', 'chemistry',
> applied> math, etc.) (I go with David Bohm: numbers are
> human invention). Colleagues still active in the science-> market cannot afford such luxury.
> Hard to cut out the original brainwashing from one's
> daily activity.
> RR wrote his texts for the 'well educated' conventional
> and reductionist scientist audience and used a "for them" > palatable language. Probably he was struggling to find
> the terms expressing HIS developing ideas properly.
> I am.
>
> Jeff, these remarks are not against what YOU do, I have a > considerable appreciation for your efforts to bring RR-
> related ideas into the ballpark of Rosenite (working)
> scientists (engineers!) of a similar kind (on both lists
> and beyond). I may be completely wrong assuming the
> mental trend RR worked himself into, fighting off the
> mathematical biologist in his mind.
> I may be too old to hope for experiencing how
> these 'would-be ideas' will work out in 100 more years.
> During the past almost 100 I saw amazing
> progress in thinking.
>
> John Mikes
Bold TextBold Text
[Reply
]
|
Re: Simplicity - Complexity
Posted on: 2009-05-12 20:09:45
By: jprideaux
|
|
John,
As you know, Rosen's writings have profound philosophical ramifications on many levels. In this website I chose to concentrate on just one concept - closed to efficient cause - from his book Life Itself. My motivations are three-fold
1. I find the concept interesting
2. to see if something could be "done" with it
3. to avoid the the terminology (that causes so many people confusion) that Rosen used to explain his concepts.
In examining the closed-to-efficient-cause concept in isolation I agree that there is the risk of loosing Rosen's original intent. This is why I state on the homepage that I merely am borrowing some ideas from Rosen but the specific definitions and treatments are my own. I don't claim to be able to "get at" everything Rosen wrote about from a study of these diagrams. I only hope to find some interesting things.
Jeff Prideaux
[Reply
]
|
answer this topic
Posted on: 2010-08-08 13:20:40
By: Anonymous
|
|
People all over the world get the loan in different creditors, because that's easy.
[Reply
]
|
No Subject
Posted on: 2010-08-21 21:10:27
By: Anonymous
|
|
replica louis vuitton handbags is attractive in outer appearance and exquisite in inner side. There are flat handles that are adjustable, a removable padded shoulder strap, an address holder which can be stamped with baby or mother’s initials, and a key ring holder. In addition, compared with the traditional diaper bag, lv handbag has more functions, such as a change purse, a board which could print the address of the holders by hot-stamping and the designer adds an extra band on both sides, which could save labor when you carry louis vuitton bag on
张红岩测试
[Reply
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
