Re: Question on Non-simulability

[John M <***>]

Dear Howard, you missed two words from my question:
"old fashioned". I put it in deliberately, to indicate that I am not
referring to a RR-minded "model" in the reductionistic mode, but the (old
fashioned) modelmaking to "simulate" (ha ha) NOT the causal structure, but
the modus operandi by completely different means, which are already better
known and applicable.
There were - as I am sure you do remember - both physical and mathematical
models and widely used in engineering research.

John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Pattee" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Question on Non-simulability


> John,
>
> Real analog computers were popular 60 years ago before digital computers
took over. If you want to know more see http://dcoward.best.vwh.net/analog/
or Google "analog computer".
>
> Your interesting question is whether an electrical analog of the
mechanical pendulum is a simulation or a model. It all depends on
definitions. We say a model has the same (or similar?) causal structure.
Since the formal equations for both the circuit and the pendulum are
isomorphic (formally identical) one could argue they model each other. On
the other hand, the physical forces causing the actions are completely
different. In that sense they are simulations.
>
> What is your opinion, Tim?
>
> Howard
>
> > From: John M <***>
> > Date: 2004/08/22 Sun AM 10:45:47 EDT
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Question on Non-simulability
> >
> > Dear Howard,
> > thanks for the explanation, I did not understand one word of it.
> > My mistake.
> > Q: Does  "An analog computer uses ..." mean that there IS such a thing?
As
> > your concluding sentence said: "...the design of the analog is limited
only
> > by your imagination."
> > Is that example (simulating?) the pendulum not an old fashioned
"physical
> > modeling"?
> > Regaards
> > John M