Posted by
glen ep ropella on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Welcome-Jim-tp526087p526110.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> phil henshaw wrote:
>> Can a self-consistent model have independently behaving parts, like
>> environments do?
>>
> If the independently behaving parts don't have some underlying common
> physics (e.g. they could in principle become different from time to time
> according to some simple rules, but generally are the same), then there
> will be so many degrees of freedom from the independently behaving parts
> that arguments about why a system does what it does will be
> quantitatively as good as any other.
I don't think that's quite true. It's close to true, but not quite
true. [grin]
Even if the parts don't have a common, underlying physics
(Truth/Reality), as long as they can interact _somehow_ and if they
interact a lot (highly connected), then a common "physics" may cohere
after a time so that a forcing structure limits the degrees of freedom.
In such a case (perhaps physical symmetry breaking is one example?),
some arguments about why a system does what it does will be more
accurate and precise than others, namely the ones that capture the
emergent "physics".
This could be true even if the "physics" that emerges is completely
abstracted from the original medium of interaction (the actual physics).
Ultimately, whether such a "ladder of abstraction" is _completely_
closed or not is a matter of faith or philosophy. Is there a bottom
turtle or not?
- --
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.comThe ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to
fill the world with fools. -- Herbert Spencer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.orgiD8DBQFIEQNnpVJZMHoGoM8RAl+TAJ46LnSihLOL4dwjNfXY+9zTCdtU+ACfXVPn
QTbC887A1yQK0MhaH5IqBew=
=UD39
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----