Re: Fundamental problems in Physics

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnM,
See interposed.
Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 4:20 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Fundamental problems in Physics
>
>
> 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').

TG: A "natural system" is that "cut-off" portion of the natural world. So,
yes, we are getting congruence of entailemnts between two "cut-off" things:
the natural system and the formal model.


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


TG: Metaphor could be relevant for form, I think. Actually, in the example I
gave of the metaphor in the "time broadening" paper, the form of some
equations in statistical mechanics was used to interpret the form of the
equations produced in QM.


> 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>.


TG: My father always thought that if you couldn't do the calculation on the
back of an envelope, you didn't really understand the problem. :)


> John M