[FRIAM] models

Fri Dec 9 14:11:04 EST 2022

The use of the word "theory" in mathematics is different than in other
realms.  For example group theory and measure theory are, to
mathematicians, self contained systems of axioms and theorems.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022, 11:50 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Following a common thread between EricS' and SteveS' responses, I'm
> compelled to say that "model" is a useless term and we should find any and
> every reason to *stop* using it. I've found "analog" to be a more useful
> term. To EricS' point, an analog is something outside our selves. And to
> SteveS' point, it refines one's intention down to a more manageable subset
> of whatever some other might be trying to say. (And it further addresses
> the maps we call analogies and [ptouie] metaphors.) It's not objective, of
> course. But it's better than the nonsensical mess whatever yahoo might mean
> when they use the useless word "model".
>
> As for "theory", my own arbitrary interactions with that word imply that a
> theory is nothing but a collection of hypo-theses. The extent to which the
> theses are more than hypo then tells us the extent to which the "theory" is
> operationally reliable (thanks for that phrase, Eric). The composition of
> theses into a theory isn't trivial. Again, in my limited and arbitrary
> experience, people vary a great deal in the extent to which they consider
> the ways one thesis can be combined with another. If composition of theses
> into theory is *not* explicitly considered, the result is garbage, even if
> you're composing hyper-theses. c.f. my prior screeds on the unjustified
> dominance of *consistency* as fundamental to theoretical coherence, almost
> totally ignoring completeness.
>
> <story> At a recent conference, a friend presented knowledge graphs (KGs)
> as a way to organize "facts" (actually just cryptically justified
> sentences). We'd intended for me to give my arching presentation couching
> KGs in the larger space of computation, data lakes, warehousing, etc. But
> my friend had to talk first because we were late and he had a hard time
> wall. At the end of his talk (without the context I intended to paint), an
> audience member asked a "question": 'How is this any different than what we
> used to do in the '60s, writing ideas on index cards and laying them out on
> the floor? That's a KG!' My friend gave a polite and professional answer
> ... way more polite than how I would have answered. >8^D You've been
> warned. Do not invite me to your cocktail party.
>
> Then I gave my talk, wherein I explained how multigraphs might resolve the
> apparent contradiction between data (lakes) and knowledge (lakes). Nobody
> asked me any questions. [crickets] But the moderator targeted the audience
> member who asked my friend that "question" with: 'Surely you have some
> thoughts.' The audience member replied with 'No. There was a lot of clarity
> there.' WTF does that mean? [sigh]
> </story>
>
> On 12/8/22 18:44, Prof David West wrote:
> > I missed this morning's vFriam, but had I attended I would have raised
> the following questions for discussions. Perhaps the list will indulge me.
> >
> > The central question: is there a difference between a 'model' of
> something and a 'theory' of something?
> >
> > To me: a model is a representation of a subset of what we know about
> something; a theory is the complete body of knowledge.
> >
> > In my book-in-development I talk about how to create a shared theory by
> having people come together and tell stories about their domain. The
> telling of stories creates a shared theory of the domain (or some subset of
> it that is of immediate concern) that continues to exist—in the
> participant's heads. While the story telling proceeds two graphics are
> generated: one with the stories themselves (as 'index cards') and relations
> among stories, e.g., story a extends story b, story c provides an
> alternative case for a, x is a revision of a, etc.; and two, a Gestalt Map
> that shows objects as bubbles and connecting lines as relations among those
> objects.
> >
> > Those on the other side of the debate contend that these are models,
> just like the models they typically use in software development..
> >
> > I say they are not, they are merely a form of 'external memory' a
> collection of evocative triggers whose sole purpose is to prompt a 'recall
> to mind' of the actual stories that were told involving those objects or
> those relations. The Gestalt Map, in my mind, represents nothing and could
> not—as is assumed about all other models—convey information to anyone who
> had not participated in the story telling session.
> >
> > Specific questions:
> > 1- Is the Wheel of Life mandala, (attached) a model of Tibetan Buddhist
> Cosmology? Or, does it merely serve the purpose of recalling to mind  the
> stories that a Tibetan would have heard about the world and how it works.
> > 2- Is a card catalog (forgive me, I am old) a model of a library, or
> even of its collection?
> > 3- Are the Dewey Decimal or the Library of Congress numbering systems,
> models of human knowledge?
> > 4- Is it correct to say that Quantum Physics has a superlative model,
> but no theory? (The dictum to, "to shut up and compute" seems to support an
> affirmative answer to this question.
> > 5- is a metaphor a model?
> >
> > For a short time, Model Driven Development garnered attention in
> software development: The idea was you could build a complete, accurate,
> and unambiguous model of a domain, then use a series of formal transforms
> (ala mathematics) to generate executable code. No one, outside of academia,
> believes this much anymore, but, in less drastic form, dominates all of
> software development and has nearly from the beginning, e.g., CASE and
> Rationale's 'round-trip-engineering'.
> >
> > I am writing about what might be called Theory-Driven Development and it
> is important that I be able to explain the difference between theory and
> model.
> >
> > Thanks for any thoughts any of you might have.
>
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20221209/09b274db/attachment.html>