ONT Re: Re: Inquiry Into Models
Jon,
As I told you the last times you asked the same question, they are in the
context of Rosen's work. Life Itself is a good source.
see
http://views.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/rosen.htm
for references
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
To: "Organization Complexity Autonomy" <oca@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
Cc: "Arisbe" <arisbe@stderr.org>; "Generic Ontology Group"
<ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: OCA: Re: Inquiry Into Models
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Don Mikulecky wrote (DM):
> Sungchul Ji wrote (SJ):
> Jon Awbrey wrote (JA):
>
> DM: It depends on your definition of causality.
> We use Rosen's interpretation of Aristotle's
> four becauses as our handle on information.
> Then we have to answer yes if the question
> is a "why" question.
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Don,
>
> I am again behind in my homework on this.
> I had collected a batch of books on the
> Aristotelian revival in systems theory,
> but that was before we moved last year
> and I still can't find the box therein.
>
> But I do have my immortal be-Loebed editions near at hand.
> Do you know of specific loci in Aristotle where I could
> delve into his treatment of the "four becauses", as you
> folks understand them, without a long and winding search?
>
> Thanks In Prospecting,
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> SJ: Dear Howard, I have been enjoying and learning a lot from your
passionate
> dialogue with Jon these several weeks, and I hope you will continue.
>
> SJ: For now, I have a question for you. What is the essential difference,
> if any, between the Hertz's and Rosen's theories of modeling? If they
> are different in some essential ways, what was the influence, if any,
> of Hertz's theory on Rosen's?
>
> JA: Sorry to break in -- I am still behind in my homework on Rosen, so I
promise that
> I will quickly retire to the peanut gallery with respect to that side
of the issue --
> but there is a generic component of this question that I have worried
about since
> I first woke up one fine or fuzzy day in one of my old phil or phys or
psy classes
> and started to think seriously about causality, and since I have
already tried to
> air my worries about this several times in this forum already, I feel
entitled to
> keep on pestering folks about it until I arrive at a measure of
satisfaction.
>
> JA: Let me express it, this time around, in the form of a very old
question:
>
> JA: "Does not the effect imply its causes?"
>
> JS: My naive answer would be:
>
> JS: If Y is the effect of X, then one can say that X causes Y,
> according to the common usages of terms, 'effect' and 'cause'
> in English language.
>
> JS: Apparently there are many theories about "cause",
> "causation", or "causality", including regularity
> (or nomological) analysis, counterfactual analysis,
> manipulation analysis, and the probabilistic analysis.
> Probably all of these and more apply to the meaning
> of "causal entailment" that Rosen's modeling diagram
> refers to, but the regularity theory of causation may
> cover most of what Rosen meant by causality.
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
>