Paulo Garrido wrote:
> Norman K. McPhail wrote:
>
> > I would be most interested in getting your comments on Don
> > Mikulecky's
> > article entitled: LIFE, COMPLEXITY AND THE EDGE OF CHAOS:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > If I understand it correctly, their view is that to understand
> > such a
> > system, one needs to view it from at least two points of view.
> > More
> > important, these multiple views yield a model of the complex
> > system that
> > can not be derived from or understood in terms of the other
> > models of
> > the same complex system. So what you have is a definition of a
> > complex
> > system that says it is at once the same as and yet differs from
> > itself.
> >
>
> If I understand correctly this Rosen's insight, I can propose a
> formal account for it (I dont know if I am repeating Rosen). It is
> a property of complex systems (Don Mickulecky will prefer probably
> the term 'organisms')
all organisms are complex systems...not all complex systems are
organismall real systems are complex
> which is revealed at the domain of the
> models we can build for them.
models can be complex or simple mechanisms
>
>
> Among models it stands a relation of 'derivability' or of
> 'understandbility' which is an order relation.
> Then to say that for some systems it is possible to build a model
> from which al the others may be derived (a LUB or GLB), is the
> same as asserting that the set of models forms a lattice under the
> derivability relation.
> Then to say that for some systems one needs to view them from at
> least two points of view (or models), is the same as asserting
> that the set of models can not form a lattice, under the
> derivability relation (there is no LUB nor GLB).
yes...stated otherwise....mechanisms have a "largest model" from which
all others may be derived.complex systems do not
>
>
> Then one could arrive to the following temptative formal
> distinction for machines and organisms:
> 'machines' - systems that accept a set of models with a
> (semi-)lattice structure.
> 'organisms' - systems that do not accept a set of models with a
> (semi-)lattice structure
>
> The next question would be to know if Logic can give an account of
> organisms under this definition. First to show that there are two
> (consistent?) logical systems which are irreducible under
> (consistent?) abduction. Then to show that they may be interpreted
> to the same entity. I dont know enough of Logic to be able to
> answer.
>
> Paulo Garrido
Don