Hi, Tim,
there is either an identification
or not -
the question is: is it right?
you really mean to "identify" a natural system
in its totality, as to match it with 'another one' maybe similarly unlimited?
Or you abide by matching clean cut models to 'identify' them with other 'clean
cut' models (unvaguely)?
I said "vague" because we deem 'identical'
something based on certain limited characteristics we observe within the
boundaries of our choice. Omitting the rest.
Let me illustrate with a very silly example:
"Cubes are identical"
OHO! one is big, the other is small. So add
the length of the edges, to make your identification crisp. Add also the
material they consist of, the colors, the gravitational system they are in,
and I still call them vague: there is always something you forgot.
(e.g. the outside surfaces may not be plane -
they are in diverse extreme speeds, or by other 1234x10^243 unobserv(ed)(able)
affecting features).
You may make crisp identifications as you
wish, in your formal scientific-reductionist (quanti?) definitional system -
in that case I really want to agree in
disagreeing with you - on this list <G>.
John M