Models versus Reality...

[The Inglorious One]

These are some very interesting ideas being tossed around here. I wish I was as articulate.

In Hegel's time, science was not as truncated as it is now. It included history and the social social sciences, which nowadays are set apart from the physical sciences. For Hegel, (and to me) there is no limit to our progressive understanding, which to say, our models of reality are constantly evolving.

We need a means to go back and question old hypothesis and interpretations of theories. But this effort may require dismantling the power of the present authorities who gain advantage by conserving their status.

Karl Popper, anyone? I absolutely agree with this, but how do we dismantle the powers-that-be without resorting to violence? New ideas take hold not because they are better, but because proponents of old ideas die off.

I don't know, but I do not to concern myself with that. I think the existing system contains the seeds for its own downfall. As knowledge that was once reserved for the elite become commonplace and as dissatisfaction grows within its own ranks, its priestly status is questioned, even moot. Scientist/philosophers with established reputations like Paul Davies eventually begin to openly question the status quo. (Davies thinks that meaning -- consciousness -- is somehow "built in to the universe" and thinks "chance-in-the-gaps" is no different than "God-in-the-gaps." These are heretical ideas to many in this forum, so accustomed are they to reductionist models.) The body-elite continues to becomes more and more unstable and even chaotic until it settles into a new and unpredictable paradigm of relative stability. The Reformation is a prime example.

The example you give of natural evolution not keeping up with Intellectual evolution is indeed "a simple human problem," a problem of sentiment.Emotionally, we want to presume that anyone should be allowed to participate in the game of their choice, but realistically it just doesn't work. So the question is, will we shift our perspective to fit reality, or will we try to change reality to fit our perspective? I think society will try to do the latter -- until it blows-up in its face.

[Scott Mayers]

These are some very interesting ideas being tossed around here. I wish I was as articulate.

In Hegel's time, science was not as truncated as it is now. It included history and the social social sciences, which nowadays are set apart from the physical sciences. For Hegel, (and to me) there is no limit to our progressive understanding, which to say, our models of reality are constantly evolving.

We need a means to go back and question old hypothesis and interpretations of theories. But this effort may require dismantling the power of the present authorities who gain advantage by conserving their status.

Karl Popper, anyone? I absolutely agree with this, but how do we dismantle the powers-that-be without resorting to violence?

That also goes in cycles from both extremes of violence AND pacifism throughout history. Just to add force to this, Hitler's original party, The National Socialists, significantly differed from Communism on the very fact that they believed that once could overthrow the system from using the present format of government (within it). This was a 'relatively' believed to be a pacifistic acceptance of the present process of law creation to get to ones' goals. Note how Hitler originally worked through the democratic process before he took over! He eventually differed from the original National Socialists by dropping the 'socialist' aspect for a pure Nationalism.

Both ended up violent in one way or the other. I'm not sure either what we could do? Yet Gandhi worked. But could one's pacifism also not act as a violation on others too regardless? Take the fact that the vast majority of prison population are men, for instance. The reality may be that both men and women are just as equally criminal but that women may have the indirect advantage of being able to use a more apparently passive means to be just as criminal. Sometimes the passive means to behave act with even more violence....just harder to see.

[A_Seagull]

It is not a matter of "models versus reality"; what we have is models OF reality.

And even the concept of reality is itself a model.

This is the underlying thing I'm trying to relate to others here. I don't think their is a conflict between models and reality.

It's not a conflict so much as a confusion.

The model will always be wrong


How can you tell if a model is "wrong"?

and this is proven by its inability to make prediction.

Of course models can make predictions, indeed it is ONLY models that can make predictions.

Once we mistake the model for reality we delude ourselves into believing we know the reality.

The whole point of this discussion is to avoid mistaking the 'model for reality'.

How can mechanical models even exist in a chaotic universe?

The fact that models can be created would suggest that the universe is NOT chaotic.

[Scott Mayers]

My point for this thread was to prove that ideas (models) predefine reality as things like physical laws. Also, they need not be based on anything at all.

If absolute nothing is assumed 'real', you CAN predict all of reality as derived from it since the assumption begs itself to be 'true' which contradicts that Nothing itself, including 'truth' nor 'falsity' exist there!

[Obvious Leo]

Let's get a couple of things right about the nature of chaotic systems, which is exactly what our universe is. They are entirely deterministic yet utterly unpredictable because they do NOT operate according to a system of laws. The only law which governs a chaotic system is the universal doctrine of causality, i.e. all effects must be preceded by a cause.

However chaotic systems have a unique property which law-mandated Newtonian ones do not. They EVOLVE increasing more complex sub-structures within themselves over time, a truth from which the term "complexity from chaos" derives.

Q. How do I know this to be true?

A. Because here we are having a chat about it.

[The Inglorious One]

My point for this thread was to prove that ideas (models) predefine reality as things like physical laws. Also, they need not be based on anything at all.

If absolute nothing is assumed 'real', you CAN predict all of reality as derived from it since the assumption begs itself to be 'true' which contradicts that Nothing itself, including 'truth' nor 'falsity' exist there!

As I said earlier, I think model and reality are a feedback loop.

Is the set of all sets a member of itself? I don't know the formal answer to this question, or even if there is one, but maybe this, too, is a feedback loop: a necessary paradox.

[Scott Mayers]

Let's get a couple of things right about the nature of chaotic systems, which is exactly what our universe is. They are entirely deterministic yet utterly unpredictable because they do NOT operate according to a system of laws. The only law which governs a chaotic system is the universal doctrine of causality, i.e. all effects must be preceded by a cause.

However chaotic systems have a unique property which law-mandated Newtonian ones do not. They EVOLVE increasing more complex sub-structures within themselves over time, a truth from which the term "complexity from chaos" derives.

Q. How do I know this to be true?

A. Because here we are having a chat about it.

Why not step back one by reducing totality to be non-existing instead including even your law? That was my argument above:

Begin with nothing.
But then nothing is 'true' or 'false'.
If 'false', we couldn't begin with nothing,
Therefore that we began with nothing is 'true'

But if anything is 'true', it has more meaning than if it were nothing at all, not even the idea of truth.
Therefore, what is 'true' is at least one thing.
But we began with nothing.
So we have nothing that precedes (causes) something. Or,
Nothing and not Nothing
A CONTRADICTION
Therefore NOT(Nothing and not Nothing)
Not(Nothing and Something)
= Some Nothing and Some Something [Aristotle's sub-Contrary]

= Not Nothing (N)OR Not Something = Something OR Nothing [Demorgan's Rule]

[Scott Mayers]

My point for this thread was to prove that ideas (models) predefine reality as things like physical laws. Also, they need not be based on anything at all.

If absolute nothing is assumed 'real', you CAN predict all of reality as derived from it since the assumption begs itself to be 'true' which contradicts that Nothing itself, including 'truth' nor 'falsity' exist there!

As I said earlier, I think model and reality are a feedback loop.

Is the set of all sets a member of itself? I don't know the formal answer to this question, or even if there is one, but maybe this, too, is a feedback loop: a necessary paradox.

This is what Godel's theorem was responding was not true. But it is based on assuming there is a rule against perpetual feedback, the process of resolving each new contradiction. This is why I include Contradiction as a function within logic. It is the perpetual motivator for change.

[A_Seagull]

Let's get a couple of things right about the nature of chaotic systems, which is exactly what our universe is. They are entirely deterministic yet utterly unpredictable because they do NOT operate according to a system of laws. The only law which governs a chaotic system is the universal doctrine of causality, i.e. all effects must be preceded by a cause.

.

This from Wikipedia "Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions".

So applying this to reality, - or more accurately to our model of reality -I can accept that reality is chaotic. And in the finest degree is also unpredictable. But that does not restrain models from making effective predictions about the future of reality. - i.e. one can predict that there will be about 5 (or whatever) hurricanes in the Atlantic this season, but not predict when or where they will form nor how many there will actually be.

[The Inglorious One]

Let's get a couple of things right about the nature of chaotic systems, which is exactly what our universe is. They are entirely deterministic yet utterly unpredictable because they do NOT operate according to a system of laws. The only law which governs a chaotic system is the universal doctrine of causality, i.e. all effects must be preceded by a cause.

In other words, you accept the doctrine/model of chance-in-the-gaps: that "effects must be preceded by a cause" and, at the same time, it is possible for an effect to entirely absent in its cause.

Yup. Makes perfect sense.

News flash: indeterminacy and chaos are not the same thing. The word "chaos" in chaos theory is something of a misnomer (you said yourself it is deterministic, which is to say it is not chaotic). The is term used to describe a system's sensitivity to initial conditions and its unpredictability, not the initial conditions themselves.

Of course, the author could be wrong.

[Scott Mayers]

Did you know that the word and meaning of "Chaos" originated from the Greeks? I believe this was some original term which evolved to "Geos" (of Earth). Many believed that since water appeared to bring life spontaneously and was all there was at the beginning from interpreting fossil evidence of fish in higher ground. Some Egyptians believed this too before them. The idea of the air was less certain at the time and so was referred to as "spirit". But "Chaos" was extended to mean anything fluid which includes the air. This interpretation is how we got the word, "gas" later. It's interesting how much of our present debates on this were evidently argued in ancient times too. "Nun" was the name of this pre-existing 'fluid' or chaos. [Indeterminate and Chaotic perspective]

Others believed the source began with the sun, as represented in nature as an egg to bring life forth. This became "the source" for generic purposes and for others, "the egg" <= "je (h)ovah" ["I (am)", or "The", "egg"]. This set of beliefs were the nominal ones (non-chaotic and determinate perspective).

[cladking]

How can you tell if a model is "wrong"?

Until a model is 100% certain in it's ability to predict all things, it is wrong.

Let's say it this way; if a model is simple enough any human can understand it then it's wrong. This doesn't mean models can't ever make correct predictiuons just that they miss on some level.

Of course models can make predictions, indeed it is ONLY models that can make predictions.

Science makes predictions, not models. The science Scott Mayers proposes might actually work and ancient science based on observation and logic worked but had no models. I doubt Obvious Leo is trying to simply change our models. One can be a generalist and not really employ models.

Models aren't made by experiment or by science but are created mostly by language. It's difficult to hold large numbers of things in mind at once so we create models to do it for us; like mnenomics. But just as every experiment ever done can't tell us everything there is to know or even the nature of gravity, no model can do it either.

The whole point of this discussion is to avoid mistaking the 'model for reality'.

Indeed. It's a fascinating discussion.

The fact that models can be created would suggest that the universe is NOT chaotic.

I don't follow the logic here. The only way your statement might be true, it seems, is if all of reality exists in the model and it obviously does not.

[Scott Mayers]

How can you tell if a model is "wrong"?

Until a model is 100% certain in it's ability to predict all things, it is wrong.

Let's say it this way; if a model is simple enough any human can understand it then it's wrong. This doesn't mean models can't ever make correct predictiuons just that they miss on some level.

This is a confusion between the 'abstraction' of models of art to those of science, like art which is optimized when most general but lacking clarity. This way their audiences can fill in the blanks enabling to appeal to more people. By contrast, the generalizations of models for science would be to discover all relevant factors necessary to minimally define all its members. This is not the same meaning of "abstraction". The metaphorical adjective used for the arts only emphasizes that it overgeneralizes to appeal to the minimum common denominator.

Of course models can make predictions, indeed it is ONLY models that can make predictions.

Science makes predictions, not models. The science Scott Mayers proposes might actually work and ancient science based on observation and logic worked but had no models. I doubt Obvious Leo is trying to simply change our models. One can be a generalist and not really employ models.

Models aren't made by experiment or by science but are created mostly by language. It's difficult to hold large numbers of things in mind at once so we create models to do it for us; like mnenomics. But just as every experiment ever done can't tell us everything there is to know or even the nature of gravity, no model can do it either.

Language then becomes the models too, though.

The whole point of this discussion is to avoid mistaking the 'model for reality'.

Indeed. It's a fascinating discussion.

Or, ...as I intended, to question whether their actually is a difference?!

The fact that models can be created would suggest that the universe is NOT chaotic.

I don't follow the logic here. The only way your statement might be true, it seems, is if all of reality exists in the model and it obviously does not.

Chaotic (as in Indeterminate) or Ordered Specifically (as in determinate) both operate collectively as truth.

[cladking]

This is a confusion between the 'abstraction' of models of art to those of science, like art which is optimized when most general but lacking clarity. This way their audiences can fill in the blanks enabling to appeal to more people. By contrast, the generalizations of models for science would be to discover all relevant factors necessary to minimally define all its members. This is not the same meaning of "abstraction". The metaphorical adjective used for the arts only emphasizes that it overgeneralizes to appeal to the minimum common denominator.

A model might make a prediction like that it will rain tomorrow but unless it can specify the oreigin, speed and history of each molecule in every specific drop then it is incomplete. Of course it might not even rain because modelling isn't that good.

Language then becomes the models too, though.

There's no reason this has to be true. With our modern language perhaps it is but there are other types of language. There are ways other than logic to hold reality.

Or, ...as I intended, to question whether their actually is a difference?!

!

Perhaps on some level there isn't. But I have some doubt that progress can be made this way. The point is to try to increase understanding foir future generations. Is it possible to make progress without experiment, logic, observation? Even the soundest argument must be supported in the real world of experiment or observation/ evidence.

I believe we have no choice but to believe current models are not reality but merely our estimation of it.

[The Inglorious One]

Did you know that the word and meaning of "Chaos" originated from the Greeks? I believe this was some original term which evolved to "Geos" (of Earth). Many believed that since water appeared to bring life spontaneously and was all there was at the beginning from interpreting fossil evidence of fish in higher ground. Some Egyptians believed this too before them. The idea of the air was less certain at the time and so was referred to as "spirit". But "Chaos" was extended to mean anything fluid which includes the air. This interpretation is how we got the word, "gas" later. It's interesting how much of our present debates on this were evidently argued in ancient times too. "Nun" was the name of this pre-existing 'fluid' or chaos. [Indeterminate and Chaotic perspective]

Others believed the source began with the sun, as represented in nature as an egg to bring life forth. This became "the source" for generic purposes and for others, "the egg" <= "je (h)ovah" ["I (am)", or "The", "egg"]. This set of beliefs were the nominal ones (non-chaotic and determinate perspective).

Etymology is fascinating!