Re: Recursion & Reflection

Re: Joel Isaacson
At: https://hermes.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1011&L=cybcom&F=&S=&P=5431
|
| The important things right now, I think, is to agree that, in biology:
|
| (1) recursive processes abound and are crucial;
| (2) that these recursive processes have base cases that anchor them;
| (3) that base cases are likely at the sensory-level;
| (4) that distinction-making operations drive the recursive processes;

We know realities (territories like "living things") in the medium
of our representations (maps, models, programs, simulacra, theories).
Recursiveness is a property of the representation, due to the fact that
it serves economy in many applications to limit ourselves to a particular
class of models, those that "make infinite use of finite means".  We cannot
say for certain whether that property transfers to the reality being modeled.
My guess would be that realities are always far weirder than are dreamt of in
our representations, but that doesn't mean we can afford to abandon our images.
If I rephrase (1) to say that "recursive models are abundantly useful", then OK.

Jon Awbrey

-- 

inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey