Model vs historyOctober 2 2010 at 2:35 PM
|Luke Parrish (Login lsparrish)|
Response to Response to Luke's
>Seems to me that Luke has agreed that a paper with marks on it cannot
>be a hydrogen atom, and by extension that a sequence of such papers
>cannot be the history of a hydrogen atom.
I've agreed to nothing of the sort. Where would you come up with a sequence of such papers without either observing a hydrogen atom or running a simulation thereof? There's no such thing as magic -- the sequence of papers implies a timeline of computations occurring. The example of marks on paper is simply confusing because it suggests that no computation is being done -- whereas in reality the result could not be achieved without significant computation.
You are still assuming the conclusion as a premise. Of course a sequence of such papers can be the history of a hydrogen atom if you don't rule it out by definition. The question of why to rule that out by definition remains for you to answer.