Re: simulation as a causal/inferential "chimera"

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Steve,

> SJ: 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?


TG: First of all, you are citing Hertz's wording, not Rosen's. Rosen's
condition is:
"The only condition on them is that they bring the two entailment structures
into congruence -- that is, they satisfy the commutativity condition, which
I have written as [1 = 2 + 3 + 4]". [EL p. 159]

In Hertz's wording, you omitted one crucial word: "necessary". He says that
the _necessary consequents_ (i.e., logically necessary consequents) should
be in correspondence. By "necessary consequents" I interpret that to be
synonymous with the phrase "entailment structures".

Regards,
Tim