Re: simulation as a causal/inferential "chimera"

[Steve Johnson <***>]

The *only* meaning of the phrase "bringing entailments
into congruence" is encoding/decoding of the
observables into formal images. 

My question can be re-phrased: Why do the entailment
structures can be purely causal or purely inferential
(syntactic) why can they not be mixed?

The only criterion for entailment congruence is
commutativity via the process of encoding/decoding.
Thus if we are successfully encoding and decoding
observables of a real plane into images in a software
simulation we have a natural system being in a
modelling relation congruence with a mixed
inferential/causal system. The inferential part is
provided by the humans, the causal part comes from the
hardware.

As long as the observables are commuting why is it not
a model?

- Steve


--- Tim Gwinn <***> wrote:

> 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
> 



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. 
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com