Re: meanings of model

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Tim,

I never answered your question directly. I am often not careful to
distinguish which side of the modeling diagram I have in mind. You are
correct that I usually mean by physical laws the natural laws that I
imagine exist whether or not I have created a model of these laws. What I
can know scientifically about natural laws I believe is strictly limited
by the Hertzian condition:

"As a matter of fact, we do not know, nor have we any means of
knowing, whether our conception of things are in conformity with them in
any other than this one fundamental respect" (i.e., the
commuting of the modeling relation).

Note that this condition does not restrict our imagination or our model
language in any way. We are free to use any kind of symbol system or
imagery, finite, infinite, continuous discrete, algorithmic or heuristic,
computable or not, crisp, stochastic, or fuzzy logic, and so on. The only
test is the commutation: "the consequent of the image in thought
(model) conforms to the image of the consequent in 
nature."

Which images"conform" (by encoding or measurement) well enough
is of course a matter often disputed. The more precise the conforming the
less dispute. That is why quantitative physical measurement is so
important. Biology does not have the luxury of observables that can be
quantified easily (e.g. specificity, function, fitness, etc.) which is
one of Rosen's main points.

Howard 

At 10:29 AM 12/13/04 -0500, Tim wrote:
> Howard,
>
> I am unclear what you mean by "physical laws" in your post. To
> me, "physical
> laws" are just those formal theories and their mathematical
> formulations
> that we humans create. In your rephrasing of my question, it sounds like
> you
> equate the phrase "physical laws" with something like
> "effective processes
> of nature". Is that the case?
>
> Regards,
> Tim