Models versus Reality...

[The Inglorious One]

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

Exactly. That's what I meant when I said our perceptions are of the average.

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

Yes. Each is meaningless without the other and each the cause of the other -- just like models and reality.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

Not all science deals with the uncertainty of climate predictions.

I don't know how you don't see any use of language as a form of modeling our reality??? We denote objects and beg the first learners of words by association in the presence of the objects or actions. These then become models when we use these words later on. Models cannot be avoided.

On your last quotes, with regards to experiment and observation, I don't deny these as a part of the process to discover truth. Logic, however, IS what is questioned by science and you should not have included that above. This is because the scientists treat logic/math as mere human creations that lack credibility over pure direct observation. This is the problem I have here. How is it considered to be a black and white thing? Only you presumed me as being anti-scientific by suggesting that I even think my reasoning is absolutely exclusive or distinct from the methodology.

You think that we can trust our senses but not the memory of them as if they were completely distinct. Present reality is like the ports in a computer that connect peripherals. But they act logically as any other memory address. The only difference is that the assignments of the values of the ports come from outside us where memory is assigned internally. But they are both either equally valid as ideas OR as reality as far as our conscious brains are concerned. Realtime experiences only have more data coming at once. It isn't efficient to memorize all this input and so the memory of them lacks a record of the experience to feel as real as the original. Nevertheless, as soon as you look away from immediate observation, any record of it is always less certain than the original experience. As such, if we take the side of those denying thoughts/ideas as real, you can't even hold any non-present record of the real time event (the observation) as anything more than ideas.

[Obvious Leo]

Inglorious. Try and pay attention because the language I used was suitable for children. Chaos is not the same thing as randomness, or indeterminacy, so you're falling for exactly the same logical fallacy as physics does with QM. ALL physical systems in nature which have not been designed by an intelligent mind are chaotic, which means that they are not determined by a suite of physical laws. Do you get it?

It's important that you do because this is the Theory of Everything.

[Obvious Leo]

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

YES. And this means that chaotic systems cannot be modelled beyond a finite order of probability. Just ask the weatherman or a particle physicist.

I doubt Obvious Leo is trying to simply change our models. One can be a generalist and not really employ models.

You've got it, mate. I'm not talking about the models but about the ding und sich which underpins them. The models are only necessary to make predictions and the fact that they can offer no explanations is irrelevant. That's not what they're designed to so.

"It is NOT the role of the physicist to explain what the universe is but merely to determine what he can meaningfully say about its behaviour"...Niels Bohr.

[Scott Mayers]

Inglorious. Try and pay attention because the language I used was suitable for children. Chaos is not the same thing as randomness, or indeterminacy, so you're falling for exactly the same logical fallacy as physics does with QM. ALL physical systems in nature which have not been designed by an intelligent mind are chaotic, which means that they are not determined by a suite of physical laws. Do you get it?

It's important that you do because this is the Theory of Everything.

I understood this similarly but notice that the Wikipedia entry clarified your point. However, this "butterfly effect" is claimed to be "deterministic" but transfers the meaning without recognizing the distinction.

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[2]

They understand "determinism" to mean "that which nature functions one-to-one" and falsely transfer this to mean "that which humans are able to predict what will actually occur." So under this misinterpretation, "Chaos Theory" is not valid as it is formally defined. This leaves it indeterminate in meaning. Because human determination is not possible for weather predictions the further away to the future should mean that the lack of proximity causes people to be unable to determine, thus humanly indeterminate; while these theorists opted to favor how nature is still nevertheless determinate with respect to some 'gods-eye' view. [Nature itself as 'god', that is].

[Obvious Leo]

Scott. Wiki is of course not the most reliable authority in such matters but non-linear dynamic systems theory is a mature science with a rigorous methodology and there is a vast literature on the subject. It branches off into a number of sub-disciplines such as information theory, game theory, evolutionary theory, control theory, complexity theory, cybernetics etc. These theories are not Newtonian theories and do not use Newtonian mathematical tools. They are non-Newtonian theories and thus use the tools of fractal geometry, which cannot generate precise predictions. However these tools are used in every single science except physics, which coincidentally is the only modern science which makes no fucking sense. Go figure, huh! Maybe I'm right, mate. Maybe time is a fractal dimension and not a Cartesian one.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott. Wiki is of course not the most reliable authority in such matters but non-linear dynamic systems theory is a mature science with a rigorous methodology and there is a vast literature on the subject. It branches off into a number of sub-disciplines such as information theory, game theory, evolutionary theory, control theory, complexity theory, cybernetics etc. These theories are not Newtonian theories and do not use Newtonian mathematical tools. They are non-Newtonian theories and thus use the tools of fractal geometry, which cannot generate precise predictions. However these tools are used in every single science except physics, which coincidentally is the only modern science which makes no fucking sense. Go figure, huh! Maybe I'm right, mate. Maybe time is a fractal dimension and not a Cartesian one.

I'm not sure of which parts of science you mention above are 'owned' exclusively by one over the other. Newton's theories still hold. New theories only add what he didn't know with more precision. Regarding a factor like the planet Mercury's obliquely altering orbits, this was explained by Einstein to be a product of bent space. Yet this can be also argued that layers of atmosphere close to the Sun extend to a distance such that as Mercury gets close to the sun, this atmosphere both slows down Mercury while allowing this to be accelerated faster than normal towards the sun. This would reduce the math necessary to determine things using only Newton's laws there. Adding the speed of light as a participating factor, this doesn't displace any part of Newton's theories, they only add to them. [a kind of Cheerio effect]

I'm not sure what a 'fractal dimension' is defined as. I'm guessing that your thinking of how nature acts at times 'spiral'. This is only 'fractal' looking at paths that achieve an acceleration that is also changing (acceleration of acceleration or a x v^n ,where the power of v is any n > 0.) For example, the value 'g' of gravity is a measure base on sea level that actually alters at various altitudes.

EDIT: I just learned that changing acceleration as I defined above is called, a "jerk", and a changing "jerk" is called a "snap" by the way. (for n = 1 and n = 2 consecutively)

[Necromancer]

... this was explained by Einstein to be a product of bent space. Yet this can be also argued that layers of atmosphere close to the Sun extend to a distance such that as Mercury gets close to the sun, this atmosphere both slows down Mercury while allowing this to be accelerated faster than normal towards the sun. This would reduce the math necessary to determine things using only Newton's laws there. Adding the speed of light as a participating factor, this doesn't displace any part of Newton's theories, they only add to them.

Photons do hold small amounts of mass and light is thus affected by (strong) gravity. I assume you know this and this is entered in being plain information.

[Obvious Leo]

Scott. I could have made my point clearer by saying that all the sciences except physics use the non-linear modelling of information theory, which is non-Newtonian. Physics does not model the universe as an information entity.

By the way all planets have precessing orbits, not just Mercury. A planet absolutely NEVER orbits its parent body along the same orbital path. In the case of Mercury this is more apparent simply because of its proximity to the sun and the relative masses of the two bodies.

[The Inglorious One]

Inglorious. Try and pay attention because the language I used was suitable for children. Chaos is not the same thing as randomness, or indeterminacy, so you're falling for exactly the same logical fallacy as physics does with QM. ALL physical systems in nature which have not been designed by an intelligent mind are chaotic, which means that they are not determined by a suite of physical laws. Do you get it?

It's important that you do because this is the Theory of Everything.

Uh, no. Logically, it simply does not follow that physical systems in nature which have not been designed by an intelligent mind are necessarily chaotic. In physics, chaos is related to a system's sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Those initial conditions are indeterminate; that is, not capable of being determined or defined.

Also, FYI, there is no ToE.

[The Inglorious One]

Scott. I could have made my point clearer by saying that all the sciences except physics use the non-linear modelling of information theory, which is non-Newtonian. Physics does not model the universe as an information entity.

That depends on the physicist you talk to.

[Obvious Leo]

That depends on the physicist you talk to.

No it doesn't, although I understand the point you're making. Quite a number of the leading physicists of the modern era are aware of the fact that the spacetime paradigm is not an information theory and cannot be reconfigured to make it into one. Brian Greene, Lisa Randall and Frank Wilczek are probably the most prominent amongst this group, although Max Tegmark could arguably also be included. However despite this shortcoming inherent in the paradigm the word "information" crops up more and more frequently in the language of physics, particularly in the most recent work of Carlo Rovelli and Sean Carroll. Even Steven Hawking, who I ordinarily regard as a dinosaur in the field, uses informational concepts in his black hole physics, even to the point that he is nowadays having serious doubts that black holes even exist.

[cladking]

I don't know how you don't see any use of language as a form of modeling our reality??? We denote objects and beg the first learners of words by association in the presence of the objects or actions. These then become models when we use these words later on. Models cannot be avoided.

Mathematics models natural logic.

Ancient language modeled natural logic as well.

Modern language, at best, only models our perception. It is very very poor at this job and it does an even poorer job at communicating ideas. Most people most of the time will make misstatements about nature. Fully 95% of statements made about nature are wrong or irrelevant to the phenomenon under discussion but people don't notice. This isn't to say scientists make mostly misstatements and many of their misstatements are mere colloquialisms; eg- the sun came up this morning. Scientific language is used to communicate models and scientific language is less prone to deconstruction so scientists are much better at communicating current understandings. To a very limited extent scientific language is actually a modeling of reality as well. However, for the main part, every scientist misunderstands both the model and the reality and they each still have unique understanding caused by language. Where the language is mathematical the understanding becomes much more understood the same by each person.

Modern language is the culprit in almost every failure of communication and understanding. If you think in modern language you can understand something but you can't communicate it and know the listener has the same understanding. The simpler the concept the more easily shared understanding can be established and estimated. There are countless reasons for this which I've mentioned many times but one of the largest is that every word derives its meaning from context and we each have our own estimation of defining and connotative meanings. But additionally modern language is not tied to reality by any means at all. We can talk about geiger counters all day even though one or both doesn't understand each aspect of the way they work, the principles involved, the way older models worked, or even the nature of what they measure. We still will both think we know these things or believe the other does and "learn" from him. After such a discussion both parties will be astounded to hear me say that no two beta particles are identical and the numbers we use to count them are mere constructs that can't be properly applied. Sometimes I've interrupted such "discussions" to inform the parties they are talking about two different things! One thinks the subject is geiger counters and one thinks the subject is mother boards or toasters. Normally we just don't notice we're talking about two different things because the things we're talking about are similar; God willing, extremely similar.

Modern language pretty much requires we make statements. These statements might be something like "I believe Russian hats are made of wool". But generally we speak in declarative statements. It doesn't matter that everything is so complex that no human can understand it because we run around making statements like we do. "Geiger counters detect background radiation". Nobody has a problem with such statements even though the terms aren't defined. Silver nitrate film is a sort of geiger counter but for no practical purpose does it detect low radiation unless exposed to it and for a protracted period. Of course geiger counters can't detect any radiation on Alphe Centarii because no such device exists there. To "detect" something we must be able to access the output. "Background radiation" is very much different on a star than the earth. Need I even point out that we don't understand the nature of "radiation" and only model it. No matter what you say and how you say it it is always wrong and always misunderstood. Nature is not condusive to statements. Reality doesn't bend to language and language is tied in no way to reality.

Modern language is distinct from reality and there is little overlap even in scientific modeling and descriptions. People don't notice because the perspective provided by thinking in modern language hides all these faults. We blithely proceed about our lives thinking we understand reality and the human race knows everything. We think we always understand one another. How can we be wrong about everything when we can even count the number of tiny particles zipping about?

[The Inglorious One]

Modern language is distinct from reality...

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[cladking]

Modern language is distinct from reality...

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Where is it written that trees are green and the sky is blue? Have you never seen a blue spruce or an oak tree in the fall? Have you never seen a sky before a storm or mamatus clouds lit from below at at sunset?

Reality and language are wholly distinct and we can't imagine a language where the two are intimately connected.

Reality is what it damn well pleases to be and our language doesn't reflect this. It reflects our perceptions.