Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

I'm gonna paraphrase, and I'm not going to draw any neat fucking pictures or get all Janet & John style about analysis of complex systems.

A model (mathematical) defines a system as static. It may not be static, in fact it never is is it ? You are in a way trying to take the non-linearities out of the thing, make em linear, or close to it. Sooo... then you can produce proper usable matrices, inputs to outputs, to you know, get something out of it in an analysable sense. Seen ?

Models have regions of legitimacy. As in, within these regions the non-linear nasties have limited effect. Outside of the regions these annoying bastards become too much 'woah..woah.. wtf is it doing.. help me.. help me' for your model to be in anyway valid, or taken seriously by grown ups.

You can, of course use seperate models for different regions and you could build a nice consistent plane to link em together, ideally. BUT, you do need to be able to measure (er,, create sometimes) a region parameter.

now, what we're dealing with in this case is a model that is definitely non-deterministic, non-linear, recursive and adaptive like a bastard. In fact the regions themselves, in terms of their scope (in a legitimate sense) is actually part, if not all, of the outcome variables of the model. So.. its shifting, always, constantly, like some twisted fucked up manifold that goes into spasms everytime you cough near one of its inputs.

Edit : this extrapolation/identification of the problem is based entirely on my own nightmares modelling complex systems. I personally havent actually dealt with the problems of Quantum Mechanics I'm assuming the problems they have are the same. So yeah, I could be horribly incorrect.

Close ? Outstandingly so yes mate.

A couple of things though, just for clarification. Your point 4 is correct, though its a classification issue. Yes it is valid to use more than one model, however what I was saying is a model (as in a singular one) can have many regions that are incompatible (in a sense) with each other IF you have a parameter (or parameters) that define the regions, and you can use these parameter(s) to identify/weight contributions and correlations (er.. integrate, kinda) that maintain a valid, calculatable, relationship between your inputs and outputs. What is know > to what happens/predicated, in short, the fundamental proof of the model. Ummm... but yes, you can argue that these regions are effectively different models, I have no problem with that, but I'm a terribly laissez-faire kinda guy.

Point 6. Well obviously. But thats not what I'm getting at. What I'm trying to get accross is that there are a lot of things that will forever remain theoretical. also,the methods available to us in analytical terms (modelling so as to analyse something) can as you correctly state be so woolly (when dealing with non-deterministic, non-linear, recursively-adaptive systems) as to be of questionable worth.

I'm just trying to get accross a glimpse at the problems, hopefully so that people 'get' that science doesn't always have the righteous unreproachable stance. All of theoretical science completely accepts this. What I see, increasingly, thanks to Dawkins, is lots of people with no clue bigging up science (and mathematics) ability to find the 'truth' above all other approaches. Other approaches being both theological, and more importantly philosophical.

Yes, this is where we may differ, and where I also differ from many who do actually understand the problems I'm stating (or trying to). That to me, the method of modelling and analysis in such a 'scientific' (ergo, mathematical) sense is not actually better, or arguably best practice in general. Those that argue it is feel they are allowed to shit on anyone who suggests an alternative so called non-scientifc approach. To me, that is horribly missing the point because ermm.. Maths itself is made of many regions, and there are no links between the regions, or even defined parameters for the regions scope, (fields of mathematics as it were) so they have no fucking right really to challenge any alternatives... Do you get it ? I'm really struggling to explain it, but there is something John Cage said about music which to me says it very eloquently..

"If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical
and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience."

Do you think science can extend itself beyond the current limits and be a useful tool in these respects?

I use the word 'breed' in the vernacular. Slang. Nothing more.