Sign Relations

[Jon Awbrey]

Joe and All,

I always have trouble deciding whether to start with the genus and
drive down to the species or else to start with concrete examples
and follow Sisyphus up Mt. Abstraction.

Soon after I made my 3rd try at grad school, this time in Systems Engineering,
I was trying to explain sign relations to my advisor and he — being the very
model of a modern major engineer — asked me to give a single simple concrete
example, as simple as possible without being trivial, and this is the example
I came up with:

• Inquiry Driven Systems • Sign Relations : A Primer
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_:_Part_1#Sign_Relations_:_A_Primer

Regards,

Jon

--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Very interesting as usual.  My initial response to the Primer was remembering a statement from my Grandmother:

  "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

Human beings need formal methods to support their limited natural ability in mathematics and logic.

Human beings use computers to help with the application of formal methods.

However, formal methods may be developed that have no connection to current empirical experience.

Computers may completely overwhelm humans with vast amounts of data that humans cannot process.

Computational methods (that have no logical connection to empirical evidence) may be applied to produce vast amounts of information that no one can validate.

We are now at the stage of believing the authority.  

What motivates the authority?  Power, position, wealth?

These types of formal systems may well be correct, but have no valid application in reality.

Some of these formal systems may even mask the empirical behavior at great cost to the individuals that apply these methods.

Your work on generic inquiry has components very similar to Warfield's work in generic design.

Warfield's work was more focused on the activity of system design. 

Warfield's Quad and Tapestry structures are very similar to your descriptions. 

Mary and I are now working a context of formal truth, value truth and factual truth.

Value truth is used to "validate" any given formal truth in the context of any given factual truth.

That is a way you can determine if the "figures" were produced by a liar.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsubscribe...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

[Jon Awbrey]

Systems Science and Structural Modeling Groups,

Getting back to sign relations, here's a more compact and
self-contained article that starts from scratch and covers
much of the same material:

• Sign Relations at InterSciWiki
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Sign_relation

• Sign Relations at Wikiversity
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Sign_relation

Folks already registered with any Wikipedia system site
may find it convenient to use the article talk pages at
Wikiversity for additional discussion.

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

More great material. 

Your statement:

  "This makes it difficult to interpret either one of the partitions or equivalence relations on the syntactic domain as corresponding to any sort of objective structure or invariant reality, independent of the individual interpreter's point of view."

Seems to indicate that only single, individual interpreter's points of view can be considered.

When a system is so large that no one person can understand the complete system, then a group of individuals must be aggregated into an individual interpreter that is comprised of a large number of people.

The development of this aggregated interpreter, from a large group of individuals, is one of the functions of Interactive Management.

Further it seems to indicate that individual interpreter's points of view may not be compared.

Every point of view is true.  There are no liar's.

It seems like there should be some validity test besides the Darwin Test, but who knows?

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsubscribe...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

More great material. 

Your statement:

  "This makes it difficult to interpret either one of the partitions or equivalence relations on the syntactic domain as corresponding to any sort of objective structure or invariant reality, independent of the individual interpreter's point of view."

Seems to indicate that only single, individual interpreter's points of view can be considered.

When a system is so large that no one person can understand the complete system, then a group of individuals must be aggregated into an individual interpreter that is comprised of a large number of people.

The development of this aggregated interpreter, from a large group of individuals, is one of the functions of Interactive Management.

Further it seems to indicate that individual interpreter's points of view may not be compared.

Every point of view is true.  There are no liar's.

It seems like there should be some validity test besides the Darwin Test, but who knows?

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

  

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Jon Awbrey <jaw...@att.net> wrote:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsubscribe...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.