[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
 
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Fundamental problems in Physics
- From: Howard Pattee <***>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:19:08 -0800
Tim,
You quote me out of context, and misunderstood my point.
At 09:07 PM 12/16/04 -0500, Tim wrote:
Howard,
The difference is that you consider a failure of the modelling relation to
commute as being "not often a fatal error".
HP: I said: "That's not often a fatal error. The Hertzian "commutation" is
not a formal commutation, but an analogy." My point is that commutation is
used here only as an analogy and is totally inappropriate for encoding if
used literally in the strictly formal sense. We probably should not use the
word commutation in a metaphorical sense because it has caused such
misunderstanding.
As Rosen says, the encoding process is not a formal process. Hertz did not
use "commutation" ( he is translated as "conforming") because encoding is
neither a part of the formalism on the right nor just a consequent of
natural laws on the left. Encoding (measurement) is not entailed by formal
inference or causal laws.
TIM: I read this, and your other
comments, as indicating that a commuting modelling relation is somewhat
optional.
HP: Not at all. Of course the consequent of the formalism of the model must
"conform" to the consequent of nature, otherwise the model is unacceptable.
TIM: Granted, determining when a model is in a commuting modelling
relation requires subjective determination.
HP: Since formal commutation is not subjectively determined, I assumed you
understood it as a metaphor. As I said in my post:
It is a "conformation" relation that is not well defined because it is so
different for different models and contexts. How close and to what types of
observables does the formalism have conform before it is an acceptable
model? That type of question makes Rosen's distinction between simulation
and model.
I meant that Rosen's meaning of "model" requires conforming with the causal
structure of the system, whereas his "simulation" requires only conforming
with the observables. Is that your interpretation?
Howard