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

Re: Modeling vs. Simulation [from "fundamental problems in physics"]

I do think that an attempt at a Rosen glossary would be a way to make progress. It would be controversial and in constant revision, but it would mark the tracks we make in these discussions, I think. How about someone writing for a small grant to do this?

JK

Tim Gwinn wrote:

JohnM,

You hit the nail on the head: "It would take time and effort". I can only
dedicate so much of my time to Rosen and my website.

The other problem with a glossary is that short definitions in a glossary
often don't give enough specifics or rationale to make the entries
meaningful for any but the most general questions.

Of course, you could also get all of Rosen's books and papers and have them
on-hand for yourself. But that would take time and effort (and money) also.

Regards,
Tim



-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:03 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Modeling vs. Simulation [from "fundamental problems in
physics"]


Tim,
may I repeat the nth time: instead of writing 345 times at length
about "as
Rosen defined..." to identified different views occasionally,
WHY NOT COMPOSE THE ROSEN-GLOSSARY?
It would take time and effort, but would be economic vs. the
desultory long
explanations repeated on and on. Short and - if - based on quotes from RR
last version writings. (Earlier versions may have been changed).

John M