Discussion of Rosen's Modeling Relationships

There are lots of questions to raise about what modeling means, perhaps summarized saying: "Complex natural systems are made with working parts that are NOT of the same design, using a PL of relationships between disconnected and incompatible things, as the basis for reality." Models, however are sets of rules of one design.

@Jessie, I wonder about statements you made elsewhere in this graph about Rosen's modeling relation, if taken deeper, don't already offer hints. In some sense, you summarize that well when you say "Complex natural systems are made with working parts that are NOT of the same design, using a PL of relationships between disconnected and incompatible things, as the basis for reality."

Aspects of your question are entailed in Rosen's writings, especially in his book Life Itself. A sort-of naive guess is that he would talk first not of those "parts", but rather would put emphasis on relations. His mentor, Rashevsky, in a paper Topology and Life, told the story about our ability to tease open a living cell and count all the parts, but then the cell is not alive anymore and we are clueless why that is so. It was Rashevsky who coined the term Relational Biology, from which Rosen's work emerged.
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
An Open Source Pattern Language (re)generative of Commons
General Patterns & Use Cases - Of theory/Of nature
Rosen Models for Translating the Design Patterns of Nature
Discussion of Rosen's Modeling Relationships
I agree with @jackpark here that what @jessiehensh
Jack's question of where "emergence" fits in Pattern Language
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (5)
+Citations (1)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip