Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnM,

It is congruence of inferential entailments in the model with causal
entailments in the natural system (which is necessarily a limited portion of
the external world),  rather than some kind of complete congruence of both
entities.

"Metaphor", in the Rosennean sense, would be where there is a decoding from
one system to another system, but there is no encoding (i.e., no
measurement) counterpart. Metaphor, in this sense, is an attempt at
prediction for the latter system based solely on the what the former system
is doing.[LI p. 64-66] The article on "time-broadening" of QM that I
recently mentioned utilized statistical mechanics (Boltzmann and
Fokker-Planck eqs.) as a metaphor for interpreting the formulation of QM
that the author arrived at.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:12 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Fundamental problems in Physics
>
>
> 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