[FRIAM] Murdoch and Trump

[uǝlƃ ☣]

On 1/22/20 1:27 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> */[NST===>] Of course, I value the relation between the logical structure of models and their products, irrespective of what use they might be put to.  Isn’t that mathematics? /*

I'm not that interested in defining math. But it is interesting that you use the word "logical". I'd rather talk about physical models than symbolic models. So, e.g. the wooden ball has no a priori _logical_ structure (without going into yahoo metaphysics). 


> */[NST===>] /* Is a wooden sphere less complex than the Schelling Model?

Yes! At first blush, the Schelling Model needs an implementation (e.g. a computer, a computer program, tinker toys, etc.). The wooden ball comes with its own implementation ... provided by the universe. If you're worried about the person who carved the wooden ball, then we can use a river rock instead.  River rock models baseball. (I swapped out "sphere" for "ball", also to help eliminate your academic issues around "perfect".)

> */[NST===>] I once modeled for a class the fact that if you pet a cat, it arches its back, by nailing a piece of fox fur to aboard and showing them that if you petted the pinned fur, it arched its back.  If true, why is that interesting?  Why EXACTLY is it interesting.  What work is the model doing here?  It seems to me that the Schelling Model has the same kind of impact. /*
> 
> 
> */Years ago, I tried to get a discussion of emergence going on this site using the model of three one by twos, connected with hinges as my model.  I asserted that we did not have to talk about life, or consciousness, or any of the mysteries that we so like to discuss here, in order to get at the fundamental issues in emergence.  All we need three hinges with removable pins and three sticks of wood, and we can be just as confused as we are when we discuss the  “Origins of Life”.  /*

There's nothing interesting we can say about "emergence" or "back arching" that can't also be said about river rock models baseball. All you're doing by using those more complicated examples is muddying the water with dynamism. The elegance of the river rock models baseball example is that, at baseball scales, they're not dynamic. It's much easier to compare the *behavior* of a river rock to the behavior of a baseball, preferably as they sit next to each other on the dining room table.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ