[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Fundamental problems in Physics



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