[Arisbe] Re: Differential Logic & Dynamic Systems

[Jon Awbrey]

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Howard Pattee wrote (HP):
Jon Awbrey wrote (JA):

JA: So you have "consequent" mean "temporal following" ("secular sequence"?)
    on both sides of the commutative diagram?  I am afraid that the words
    "LOGICALLY NECESSARY CONSEQUENTS OF THE MODEL" on the right side of
    the picture are almost bound and determined to confuse folks about
    this intention then.  Just a bit of observation, for all its warts.

HP: For "logical" a physicist would mean "mathematical" (they don't trust logic).
    For example, one mathematical consequent of Dirac's image of electrons
    (the relativistic wave equation) are states with negative energy.
    At the time this was considered nonsense, as well as contradictory
    to experience, and some thought, even to logic.  However, this
    mathematical consequent of Dirac's image turned out to be
    an image of the consequent of high-energy collisions
    (pair production, the creation and annihilation of
    particles and antiparticles ).  Physicists believe
    that in the long run experience (our images of
    natural consequents) will always supervene what
    we call logic or even nonsense.

Howard, this is sheer obfuscation.
Because it's Live from New York
and Saturday Night I will laugh
it all off, but come Monday you
will have some explaining to do.

Hertz or Para-Hertz, one either commits to meaning what is ordinarly meant
by "LOGICALLY NECESSARY CONSEQUENTS OF THE MODEL" or incurs the obligation
to explain what one chooses to mean instead, say, by way of an "empirical",
"logical", "operational", or "practical" definition, and I do not know of
any science-minded folks, logical, mathematical, physical, or other-wise,
who would let anybody else get away with less.  If Hertz and Para-Hertz
genuinely lack confidence in logic then they ought to cease from trying
to convert its fund of faith and credit among others to their own end,
as they do when they make to capitalize on the gilt associations of
the name.  So far, your partial explanation in this case, whatever
name you choose to file it under, tells me that you do not mean
causal effect or temporal successor on the right side of your
diagram.  What remains to be seen is what you do mean.

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤