Friday, January 27, 2006
[148] ß [parallel discussion on
generative methodology (Judith Rosen)
[147] ß [parallel discussion on
generative methodology (Peter Krieg)
ontology without deductive inference
discussion on points made by Paul Werbos à [367]
Communication from Paul Werbos
It is crucial that one may use mathematical methods to understand a system which does not itself use or exhibit "deduction" -- whether one studies an electron or the brain of a mouse. Still, there are those who would define "deduction" in a way that includes the nonverbal flows of images and such in the brain of a mouse, and I wouldn't want to be overly chauvinistic about my use of the word "deduction" here.
I do believe that the physical universe as a whole can be plausibly represented via formal mathematical models, to the best of our knowledge today, and that we are well advised to push such understanding further than we have yet.
========
As for relational representations -- relational representations EITHER at as a function of time, or across all space-time or all existence, certainly are among the important tools. Like derivatives -- they are widely useful, but in many different ways, hard to summarize in a few minutes. They are not an all-encompassing panacea, and work differently in different contexts, but certainly they are important.
I don't see relational structure AS SUCH as addressing "autopoesis," really, at a basic level. They are orthogonal issues, on the whole, in the end, in my view. I would see relational structures as closer to the concrete solid foundations, and "autopoesis" as a fuzzier motivating concept.
There are many other fuzzy motivating concepts, but we do need motivation... there are also somewhat solider motivating concepts, in my view.
But... time runs out...
Best,
Paul