Someone was frequently searching for this page a couple years ago, under the same name, "Something easier to comment on?", after it was moved to my current Journal, Reading Nature's Signals

.... where it can also now be commented on... ed. 6/19/16

Posted on  Posted in Natural systems, Scientific theory

to contacts in sciences interested in the “physical world” problem….

In the list below, it would help me a lot to know where you were stopped; was it at a, b, c, d or e?    I’m thinking it might make it easier if I explain less, rather than more, to get a response to my main question.

I observed an effect of how both ecology and economy adopt the physics model, of representing the living things they talk about with formulas.

a) What about the problem that if life only followed rules it would be quite lifeless.

The physics model represents living things as machines, is the problem.

b) By directing our attention to “controlling variables” and “numerical relationships” do we lose sight of the liveliness of things operating beyond the rules somehow, that is much more important to us?

c) What effect does it have that formulas also seem unable to represent:

d) Addition changes nothing in a formula, but in reality it changes everything. That’s the huge critical error I see in the necessary design of models as a self-consistent set of rules.  Don’t most of nature’s interesting systems appear to operate by self-inconsistent rules?

Models represent a learning world as changeless. The main benefit of fixing that is learning to see the liveliness of things, a joy of the mind.

It’s also useful to see how the liveliness of things keeps rewriting their apparent formulas. Learning to see the liveliness of things seems to rest mostly on looking for it, just for the pleasure.  By looking for controlling variables, looking directly away from how accumulative change changes things, we seem to entirely loose sight of it.

e)  Could we use the opposite of our usual question together with the our usual question?

It would help one see and study our society is designed to push its success with growing additions to our use of the earth is also destabilizing our own networks for stabilizing things.   That may hold many a surprise, but it’s potentially useful too.  It may only be available to those who are curious, and

enjoy seeing the liveliness of things beyond the rules.

What else can I say to get people to read my writing from that view?

Phil Henshaw

ed 2/13/12