Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[John M <***>]

Tim:

is "congruence" applicable for a partial similarity? a limited model is NOT
congruent (IMO) with all those aspects it does miss by the selective only
formulation.
I feel 'congruence' cannot be selective: it is "all of it" - not a model.
(my Latin, not English feeling of course: as: grown together. Is a torso or
an arm congruent with the total body?) I would say 'partially conforming',
or at least 'partially congruent? - but it is only an idea.
Then again 'causal structure'? as  'select' cause(s?) of some of the
unlimited? in the model I consider a partial causation(?) cut from the total
(it does not make really sense).

Simulation seems OK to me, if it is of any worth, then there is the ominous
metaphor, which is further than simulation and includes aspect, idea, maybe
form as well - without the necessity of any identity of elements included.
I think the mathematical or mechanical 'modelling' works in simulation.

John Mikes



----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: Fundamental problems in Physics


> Howard,
>
> HP:
> > 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?
>
> TG: On the model part of your statement, I would use the term "congruency"
> rather than "conforming", but otherwise I agree.  As to simulations, I'd
say
> it requires only the correspondence of behavior of the simulation with
> correspondence of behavior of the natural system, but I think that's what
> you are saying, so we agree there. That puts us back to the original Rosen
> modelling relation, as far as I can see.
>
> Regards,
> Tim