Hertz condition

[Steve Johnson <***>]

Can someone provide a reference for Hertz condition?

Thanks,

- Steve


  ... 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
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250