PART 1 — Modeling Before and After the Computer
3-minute read
What is modeling?
A map is not the territory it represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.
— Alfred Korzybski 1
What is modeling? Defined as simply as possible, modeling is the making of a map. But a map is not so simple a thing. Often a not-so-simple thing is better understood by defining what it is not, and Alfred Korzybski, philosopher-scientist and a primary developer of the field of general semantics, gives us a clue when he says a “map is not the territory…”.
What he explains with this statement is the difference between belief and reality, where belief (the perception of everything) is a mental model, our version of reality, our map. Reality (everything perceived) is the thing being mapped. No two people carry the same belief system (the same model of the universe) in their head, thus no one carries a model that is the same as the universe in reality. We are finite creatures. As such, grasping the infinite world in its fullness is beyond anyone’s cognitive ability. So we mentally model a Universe, incomplete by definition, to suit our sense of order and our place within it.
In this sense, everyone is a model maker.
But what if someone could carry a mental model that is the same as the universe in reality — that is, what if someone could make a map so detailed that it becomes the territory? It would lead to the paradox whose existential ramifications are outlined by author Jorge Luis Borges:
The inventions of philosophy are no less fantastic than those of art: Josiah Royce, in the first volume of his work The World and the Individual (1899), has formulated the following: ‘Let us imagine that a portion of the soil of England has been levelled off perfectly and that on it a cartographer traces a map of England. The job is perfect; there is no detail of the soil of England, no matter how minute, that is not registered on the map; everything has there its correspondence. This map, in such a case, should contain a map of the map, which should contain a map of the map of the map, and so on to infinity.’ Why does it disturb us that the map be included in the map and the thousand and one nights in the book of the Thousand and One Nights? Why does it disturb us that Don Quixote be a reader of the Quixote and Hamlet a spectator of Hamlet? I believe I have found the reason: these inversions suggest that if the characters of a fictional work can be readers or spectators, we, its readers or spectators, can be fictions.
— Jorge Luis Borges 2
When artists “model”
As fractally paradoxical as Borges presents it to be, this is precisely the kind of modeling done by artists. Artists “model” in the sense that, when we make work, we project our mental maps of the territory back into the territory — we make things that allow others to see the world “through our eyes.” We wish our maps to be perceived by and therefore register on the maps of our fellow travelers. But the maps artists make stop short of creating Borges’ existential crisis because we are limited by our own perceptions, the time allotted for the task, the imperfection of our tools and materials, the quantum limitations of scale, and the quandary of resolution: make the map too low-res, and it becomes too simple — too hi-res, and it becomes too complex.
History and theory
Everything simple is false. Everything which is complex is unusable.
— Paul Valéry 3
Of course, one thing an artist might choose to make is a map — not a metaphorical one, but an actual map. When an artist makes a digital model, they create a map. While a digital model is, at its core, a complex map, it is not so complex as the reality it maps. In the words of Korzybski, so long as there is a recognizable similarity of structure, the relative simplicity of the digital model “accounts for its usefulness.”
Modeling is a deep and complex conceptual activity, relating or transferring the data and attributes of one territory onto another. In this title, we’ll create a map of the history and theory of modeling, but it is of necessity a simple one — keeping Valéry’s warning in mind. Just as the English mapmaker above can never complete his task, we can’t cover such a far-reaching topic in one text, let alone a chapter or two. Nevertheless, the examples here will guide and inspire your own modeling experience.
Chapter synopses
CHAPTER 1 — The History of Modeling
Navigate modeling’s historical trajectory, from ancient origins to modern digital frontiers. Explore the fusion of art, science, and technology driving modeling’s evolution. Through key figures and innovations, examine modeling’s profound impact on society, and how it shapes perceptions and advances understanding across diverse fields.
CHAPTER 2 — Concepts of Modeling
Delve into the foundational principles that govern diverse modeling methodologies. From abstraction to simulation, examine key concepts crucial for modeling across various disciplines. Explore an overview of theoretical frameworks and practical applications, while developing a deeper understanding of modeling processes.
CHAPTER 3 — The Future of Modeling
Map past futuristic visions onto contemporary technological advancements. Explore the evolution of modeling from physical to virtual realms, highlighting the convergence of digital and tactile experiences. Conjecture about “magic” technologies like replicators, transporters, and holodecks to envision a future where modeling allows digital and physical worlds to merge.
- Korzybski, Alfred. “A Non-Aristotelian System and its Necessity for Rigour in Mathematics and Physics.” 1931. Reprinted in Science and Sanity, fifth ed. Institute of General Semantics. 1994. p. 58.[↩]
- Borges, Jorge Luis. “Partial Magic in the Quixote.” Labyrinths, Selected Stories & Other Writings. New Directions. 1964. p.195-6.[↩]
- Valéry, Paul (trans. Scarfe, Francis). “Our Destiny and Literature (1937).” Reflections on the World Today. Pantheon. 1948[↩]