Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Tim,
I would appreciate more explanation.

TG: Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. What you previously seemed to
assert to be the same things - Hertz's discussion in the Introduction of the
Principles of Mechanics and the Rosen Modelling Relation - as represented in
your diagram "ELABORATED HERTZ/ROSEN MODEL COMMUTATION DIAGRAM" combining 
the two - are now very different things.

HP: My elaborated diagram is labeled differently than Rosen's usage, but I 
do not understand why it is so essentially different. It is meant to 
express Hertz's basic concept of a good model. Could you explain what you 
think is "entirely different."

TG: If you wish to promote an entirely different epistemological basis for 
science founded on your interpretation of Hertz, then fine, but this really 
isn't a useful forum for that.

HP: I do not wish to promote anything. I wish to understand what we mean by 
good models. If complex systems require complementary models, as Rosen 
says, I think perhaps there may be more than one good epistemology for such 
irreducible models. In any case, I would like to understand how Rosen's 
epistemology is different from Hertz's.

Howard