Re: Modern Physics, complementarity, realization

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Ionel, Howard, Tim and all,

Re: this, on which I agree, three questions below...

Ionel wrote:
> Hi, Tim:
>
> A brief, and very much to the point/ appropriate response through
> a quote from yesterday's posting by Dr. Howard Pattee:
> Howard wrote:
> > I do claim that the need for inequivalent complementary models
> > for adequate understanding of complex systems is couched in
> > terms of what Rosen believed and expressed.

Does this concise and profound statement fit with Bohr's view of
complementarity?

Do the dual models of light as particle and wave provide a good
example of this principle?

Does the principle above (need for inequivalent complementary
models) also suggest that realization of a complex system is not
just about physical realization, but must also include some idea of
a relational realization as well? And even inequivalent physical and
relational aspects of realization that are integral, unified, even
though inequivalent?

Some thoughts, (not having read all the recent posts, but a good
portion, these may have already be discussed...)

Dan