Re: Modern Physics, Newtonian Paradigm, and the notion of State

[Ionel <***>]

Hi, Tim:

I'd go along with most of your comments about (M,R)-systems, but there are
some important facts that are running contrary to your sentence cited
below, if I understood your argumentation correctly:

>>These functional relational models are in an entirely different formal
universe of discourse than a formal universe of discourse built around
spatiotemporal relations.>> It is, metaphorically speaking, like a parallel
formal universe - a rather alien one to the one in which we are used to
doing physics in. >>....Of course, the opposite is also true: these
relational models have abstracted away state information entirely - they
have "thrown away the physics".) >>

---------------
FACTS: Both in 1971 and 1973, Robert published in BMB two substantial
papers in which he developed dynamic representations of (M,R)-systems that
appear to be aimed at linking the Abstract (M,R)-systems approach to the
physical representation of such systems in terms of kinetic or dynamics
eqs.,etc,  e.g. attempting to avoid to "throw away the physics", such as
the dynamics in terms of states and state-spaces. It is clear that Roberts'
states are not quantum states.
-------------
Regards,

Ionel

...>>In TQFT, the relations represented are still between spatiotemporal
quantum states: the encoding has gone from the natural system to a
spatiotemporal encoding and then to a topological one. In Rosen's
relational models, the encoding goes directly from the natural system to
the functional relational model. This allows for representations of
organizational qualities that cannot be encoded into the spatiotemporal
encodings of the Newtonian paradigm. (Of course, the opposite is also true:
these relational models have abstracted away state information entirely -
they have "thrown away the physics".)