Re: simulation as a causal/inferential "chimera"

[Steve Johnson <***>]

sorry for resending - I omitted a key negation.

Now I'm confused again - the modelling relation only
states that the images of consequents should be
consequents of images. So the whole commutativity has
to do with encoding/decoding of measurable observables
into images. Where does entailment structure come in?
The only thing we do as we model is to come up with a
suitable inferential structure such that the relation
commutes. If a computer simulation is commuting in a
sense that images of consequents correspond to
consequents of images, why is it not a model?

True, the entailments in the hardware do NOT
correspond to the entailments in the airplane but we
need to keep in
mind that in the case of a computer simulation the
right side of the simulation is NOT just the causal 
entailments of the hardware but entailments of the
hardware PLUS the inferential entailments in the
software put in by humans. So in this sense a computer
simulation is a Causal/Inferential chimera but as a
whole it fulfils the commutativity condition so why is
it not a model?

> 
> --- Howard Pattee <***> wrote:
> 
> > Judith,
> > 
> > I have to side with Tim. A model airplane has the
> > basic causal entailments 
> > of an airplane. It flies. A simulator doesn't.
> This
> > is an important 
> > distinction.
> > 
> > Howard
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>               
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do
> good. 
> http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com