[Martin Taylor 970225 1550]
Bill Powers (970224.1135 MST)]
Martin, I have no recollection at all of this:
>What we agreed was to try to avoid the use of the
>term "model" in both cases, and replace it with terms like simulacrum
>or internal replica, on the one hand, and mould or inverse on the other.I said I was going to use the term "simulation".
You are right. I should not have said "agreed", since it was my agreement
with what I thought you had said you intended, not a mutual agreement on
terminology:
That is all I agreed to; I left the uses of "model" up to you, since you
seemed to insist on using it to mean a lot of different things.
Maybe you remember [Martin Taylor 970131 12:30]:
+I have been using the term "model" to indicate any representation from
+which an appropriately constructed analyst could recover the form of
+what was modelled, not in the narrower sense of something that looks
+like what is modelled.
+...
+But I stand by what I said, in the important sense that the environment
+determines the range of structures and parameter values that yield functioning
+control structures, and the fact that a particular control structure
+functions can be used to delimit the range of environment within which
+it resides. Whether we use "model" or "simulation" or "replica" or
+"inverse analogue" is important for communication. Of that list, I think
+"inverse analogue" may be the most suited to a HPCT structure, as a mould
+fits its casting, whereas "replica" may best suit the system that produces
+output that stabilized the pseudo-CEV in a replica world, in the hope that
+the real CEV in the outer world will thereby be stabilized.
ยทยทยท
+
+So perhaps we should entirely eschew obfuscation, and not use "model" at
+all. It will be hard for me, and, as you have said, you also slip.
If you like
you can use it to mean simulacrum
(= simulation)
or replica
(= simulation)
or mould or inverse
(= inverse analogue)
or
perceptual function or output function or reference signal or anything you
like; it no longer has any technical meaning, by my understanding of the
agreement.
Those things are not of the same nature as a model, in the sense of that
from which a copy of an original can be reconstructed with more or less
fidelity. Any of them could, in principle, contain or be the result of
using a model, but they could not be models in either the sense of
simulation or the sense of inverse analogue.
Simulation, however, does. Not "simulacrum" or "replica" but
"simulation." That's the only term to which I respectfully lay claim.
I wasn't actually trying to introduce new terms. I was trying to point out
that we had (I had on my side, and you had on your side) agreed not to use
the word "model" where "simulation" or "inverse analogue" was intended.
Simulacrum and replica seemed to me also to make the point, as did "mould"
and "inverse", under appropriate circumstances.
Rick was using a "simulation", not an "inverse analogue" in his sinusoidal
tracking experiment that he chooses to call a demonstration of "two-level
control."
Martin