Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[John M <***>]

Tim,
thanks for your reply, [it reminded me of Enrico Fermi, when people
discovered (rather 'invented?) newer and newer elemental and more elemental
particles and called them by Geek names. He said:" If I understood so much
Greek, I could be a botaniker".]

So "THAT" congruence is not really a congruence, only in the aspects we want
to congrue, otherwide it is a disgruence for all else.
I believe conform is an 'easier' word than congruent.
Exactly the situation I wanted to raise my question for. I've read your
reply-text several times and got the idea that 'this' congruence does NOT
apply to a natural system, only to the limited portion we chose (=model)
according to the limitations applied. (If I read acceptably the
difference(?) between your 'inferential' and 'causal').

Also: is a metaphor really pertinent ONLY to activity? Not also to form?

I had a professor who said "if you cannot explain something so that a
normal, average educated person than you don't understand the matter
sufficiently".  I want to understand these things for myself <G>.

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Fundamental problems in Physics


> 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