Re: the "(M,R)-System" model, Modeling relations, and semantics

[John M <***>]

Jerry, a 'late' reply to a sideline (picking nits?) 
Let me interpose my lines into your text, please
John

--- Jerry Zhu <***> wrote:

> Hi Judith and John,
> 
> Classic physics deal with end points, trajectories,
> and movements hence deal with change.

JM: 'endpoint' is a result, (ssumed to be stable?) and
a trajectory is what we assume as the event of the
model we observe. Movements? does anything move, or is
it observable now here, then there? In between? It is
the eternal question of continuity vs discrete states.
I am for the former, because the discrete states are
in eternal change (Oh, that word aygain!) Nothing
stops in nature, nothing returns (no reversibility,
because by the 'time' you want to 'reverse' it, you
find a changed nature). 

> But this change is reversible.  The film can be 
> rewinded.  I wonder how irresibility (arrow of time,
> rate of change etc.)
> is explained in your model which time is not dealt
> with directly.  According to Jantsch the study of
> universe must include at least three levels of
> inquiry of physics ...
JM: you mean the model we call 'physics'...
> which refers to what Pattee means matter
> aspect which is logical the language of which is
> mathematics.  the symobol aspect is formal and hence
> is eternal and timeless the language of which is
> archetyes. 
JM: please, do not mix the language mathematics - an
unlimited natural system translated into human logic -
with the "APPLIED" mathematics, when such language is
applied for calculations within limited (incomplete)
models with their limited (cut to incompletion)
values.
Nobody in sciences observes nature, only the models. 
We cannot fathom the unlimited variables and
impredicative predicates at the present state of our
mind. 
> 
> Jerry
> 
John