to contacts in sciences interested in the \u201cphysical world\u201d problem\u2026.<\/p>\n
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? \u00a0 \u00a0I\u2019m thinking it might make it easier if I explain less, rather than more, to get a response to my main question.<\/p>\n
\u2014
\nI observed an effect of how both ecology and economy adopt the physics model, of representing the living things they talk about with formulas.<\/p>\n
a) What about the problem that if life only followed rules it would be quite lifeless.<\/p>\n
The physics model represents living things as machines, is the problem.<\/p>\n
b) By directing our attention to \u201ccontrolling variables\u201d and “numerical relationships” do we lose sight of the liveliness of things operating beyond the rules somehow, that is much more important to us?<\/p>\n
c) What effect does it have that formulas also seem unable to represent:<\/p>\n
d) Addition changes nothing in a formula, but in reality it changes everything. That\u2019s the huge critical error I see in the necessray desing of models as a self-consistent set of rules. \u00a0Don’t most of nature’s interesting systems appear to operate by self-inconsistent rules?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s 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. \u00a0By looking for controlling variables,\u00a0looking directly away from how accumulative change changes things, we seem to entirely loose sight of it.<\/p>\n
e) \u00a0Could we use the opposite of our usual question together with<\/strong><\/em> the our usual question?<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0 That may hold many a surprise, but it’s potentially useful too. \u00a0It may only be available to those who are curious, and<\/p>\n What else can I say to get people to read my writing from that view?<\/p>\n Phil Henshaw ed 2\/13\/12<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" to contacts in sciences interested in the \u201cphysical world\u201d problem\u2026. 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? \u00a0 \u00a0I\u2019m thinking it might make it easier if I explain less, rather than more, to get a response to … Continue reading Something easier to comment on?<\/span> enjoy seeing the liveliness of things beyond the rules.
\n\u2014<\/h3>\n
\nNY NY www.synapse9.com<\/p>\n