Re: inequivalent complmentary models

[John M <***>]

JJK and HP, please forgive me to skip copying here most of your discussion.
I will copy the passages I refer to (-try not to cut them out of context,
but please, tell, if I did).

>HP: That is the ideal because it is really a definition of what I think
most physicists and even normal people mean by objective. If you mean
something else by objective you will have to tell me what you mean. Of
course we agree that the ideal is not attainable. That is now an empirical
fact. But now we are talking only about physical laws. Laws are only a very
restricted type of model aimed at universality and inexorability.<

Let me consider myself one among the 'normal people'<G> - I guess HP's
'ideal' is a noun, not an adjective. In any case I try to apply a broader
sense.
I hesitated to touch the topic here - after many years having heavily
discussed it on other lists and Forums of quite diversified topical
participants, of mostly non-physics principia.

Some of *my* deductions as *my* conclusions:
OBJECTIVE is considered from the material the mind interpreted from impacts
(inaccessible per se) arriving into the mind - eo ipso what we call
"objective - is subjective. Even if many agree. Now "mind" is not our own
brain, I could not identify 'whatever' is using a 'mind'. As I hinted in a
previous post to JJK: observer may be any and all, absorbing and maybe
responding to information (=sort of the acknowledged difference(s) getting
into the mind).
Once information (in this sense) has been absorbed, it forms the
'knowledge-base'.
Our 'mind' is an observer in this sense and we call the information about
the interpretations of received impact from the environment the 'objective
knowledge', whether as straight impact, or conveyed info from 'others'.
I went into this a bit deeped than intended on this list, but I want to
stress to "take it easy" on the *objektive truth*. (See below)
The mind orders the knowledge-base into (by?) modeling - one of such is the
'physical' world - experiments, measurements, conclusions, laws.

Law (physical?) IMO is the conclusion drawn from the (relational?) model of
a topic we
observe(d). Physics observes the domain with characteristics coming within
applicable orders of magnitude of the subject-related conditions
(temperature, size, velocity, etc., maybe parameters not yet even
registered) in processes of interest ("our" world) and so are other topical
sciences as well.
(Human "law" is different: it is a culture-related compromise of diverse
interests in power - it can be violated at whim).

>HP: The cost of aiming at universality and inexorability is that physical
laws can be only models of those aspects of the universe over which living
systems have no influence or control.<

I agree with an extension of  the 'living systems' - a good appraoch for
which
is JJK's: >And we would have to add to this condition those aspects of the
universe over which R-complex systems have no influence or control,
which then means everything. BUT, and this is a big exception, once
there is a commonly shared reality...<

A caveat: there is always a two-way influencing in the process.  The
interconnection disallows a one way processing. Maybe te feedback
comes in 'out-of-model' ways, beyond the boundaries of the topical
observation, but disregarding such is "bad reductionism".
I stopped the copy of JJK's words at "reality", another concept easily
misrepresented at whim. It is a secondary identification upon (as seen
above) the (subjectivized) objectives, so there is a (pun-like?) definition
of the 'objective reality': 'subjective virtuality'. Not easily includable
into
the personalized and wishful systems-nomeclatures of most people.

HP's quoted Einstein-example of a Beethoven Symphony (thanks, HP)
is 'correct' in the context of physical observations, incorrect only, if we
mix the boundaries of diverse topical modeling. Here we enter RR's postulate
of the necessary diverse models, 'complementary' and unequivalent as said.
I find JJK's addition true:
>JK: This means that the sound - what we can measure externally - is not
equivalent to the experience, which occurs internally, within each of
our isolated systems (and those of the performers).<
although there are attempts to bridge the diverse modeling boundaries in
computer-generated (or: rather designed software) music, as eg. Jarre's
'synthetic' symphonic music. I have a record, sounds like 'real' orchestra
playing some 'real' (impressionist?) music and musician friends I played it
to quarrelled about the real, (known) musician "author" or at least the
style.
Princeton's prof. Morawetz also showed me software-designed "Bach-music".
I mention this only to be careful in formulating rigid statements.

Thanks for the insightful discussion

John M




----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: inequivalent complmentary models


Some thoughts stimulated by Howard's replies to Tim, below:

(Refer to the entire discussion in the archives)