Re: Nonsimulable models

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Jeff
> Pridaux
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 5:44 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Nonsimulable models
>
>
> Excellent post Tim.
>
> In Anticipatory Systems Rosen said something like the "reactive paradigm"
> is universal in the sense that it can be used to describe the behavior of
> any natural system...(curve fitting).   But the reactive paradigm ignores
> all the causal entailment.
>
> Once you have the data, you can always "react to it" after the fact and
> form a "formal system" that can re-generate the data.
>
> It is probably true that the behavior of a natural system containing
> impredicative causal loops can be simulated with a simulation (without any
> impredicative causal loops) but as Tim says, the simulation wouldn't
> actually be a model since it didn't reflect the causal structure
> present in
> the natural system.
>
> The problem is that most scientists prefer to just consider that the
> natural system doesn't have the extra entailment (to make it match the
> entailment of the simulation) and then effectively consider the simulation
> (or mechanism) to be a model.


I have the feeling that one notable area in science where the distinction
between model vs. simulation is yet to be definitively determined is quantum
mechanics. I suspect that the focus on which of the various
"interpretations" of QM formalism is 'correct' is in large part a roundabout
discussion of model vs. simulation.

And those that do consider QM formalism as a model, then do a rather
interesting thing:
1) they create an "interpretation" - essentially a set of encoding/decoding
relations for a Modeling Relation,
2) now, having a formalism and an encoding/decoding for an MR, they then
envision a natural system that will make the MR commute
3) by doing so, they _impute_ the causal equivalents and effective processes
of the math to the material world. And so, for example, waves, in some
views, "collapse" in the material world and not just in the math.

Perhaps I oversimplified it a bit, but I'm comfortable staying on the fence
when it comes to the status of the QM formalism. :)

Regards,
Tim