3 ms·

that idea only make sense if you claim there is a true interpretation of reality. The only way thats the case is if there is a designer who designed it to be un

that idea only make sense if you claim there is a true interpretation of reality. The only way thats the case is if there is a designer who designed it to be understood in a specific way. Otherwise no model can be representing reality in any objective way they can per definition only be interpretations (The map is not the territory). Reality don't care about true or false models. Reality has no evolution or planets or black holes. These are all interpretations at a very specific scale from a very specific perspective.

pdonis 11y ago
"Match reality" means "makes predictions that match what we actually observe". The model we use to make predictions can be viewed as an "interpretation", yes, but the comparison between what is predicted and what we observe is perfectly objective.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Again. If you believe there is a right way to interpret the world. A true way, then you are saying that someone created it to be interpreted in a specific way. But models that allow us to make predictions does not mean that they match reality it just means that it matches the predictions we can interpret. Thats a very different thing than reality.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    > If you believe there is a right way to interpret the world. I don't see what "interpretation" is involved in comparing a specific prediction with a specific measurement result. You're just comparing two numbers (with error bars, etc.). And the comparison doesn't care what kind of stuff you put in your model; that can be anything you like. All the comparison cares about is the numbers your model outputs as its predictions. > models that allow us to make predictions does not mean that they match reality it just means that it matches the predictions we can interpret. No, it means the model's predictions match the actual measurements we make. > Thats a very different thing than reality. Perhaps you are using a different definition of "reality" than I am. In which case I don't see how whatever definition you are using of "reality" is relevant to Asimov's article, which is what we are discussing.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      The specific measurement result IS the interpretation. In other words you cannot not interpret. It's not reality. In reality that measurement result doesn't exist. You are interpreting the world through your very very very limited senses and only seeing it the way your senses allow you to see it. This is very different from the world as it is. You are talking about reality within the confines of what humans can interpret. I am talking about reality as it is in it's entirety without any specific vantage point.
      - pdonis 11y ago
        > The specific measurement result IS the interpretation. Hmm, ok, so we are also giving a different meaning to the term "measurement result". I'm afraid our ontologies are too different to have a meaningful discussion.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        If you see language as an accurate representation of reality then yes we don't have much room for debate.

pdonis 11y ago

"Match reality" means "makes predictions that match what we actually observe". The model we use to make predictions can be viewed as an "interpretation", yes, but the comparison between what is predicted and what we observe is perfectly objective.

ThomPete 11y ago
Again. If you believe there is a right way to interpret the world. A true way, then you are saying that someone created it to be interpreted in a specific way. But models that allow us to make predictions does not mean that they match reality it just means that it matches the predictions we can interpret. Thats a very different thing than reality.
- pdonis 11y ago
  > If you believe there is a right way to interpret the world. I don't see what "interpretation" is involved in comparing a specific prediction with a specific measurement result. You're just comparing two numbers (with error bars, etc.). And the comparison doesn't care what kind of stuff you put in your model; that can be anything you like. All the comparison cares about is the numbers your model outputs as its predictions. > models that allow us to make predictions does not mean that they match reality it just means that it matches the predictions we can interpret. No, it means the model's predictions match the actual measurements we make. > Thats a very different thing than reality. Perhaps you are using a different definition of "reality" than I am. In which case I don't see how whatever definition you are using of "reality" is relevant to Asimov's article, which is what we are discussing.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    The specific measurement result IS the interpretation. In other words you cannot not interpret. It's not reality. In reality that measurement result doesn't exist. You are interpreting the world through your very very very limited senses and only seeing it the way your senses allow you to see it. This is very different from the world as it is. You are talking about reality within the confines of what humans can interpret. I am talking about reality as it is in it's entirety without any specific vantage point.
    - pdonis 11y ago
      > The specific measurement result IS the interpretation. Hmm, ok, so we are also giving a different meaning to the term "measurement result". I'm afraid our ontologies are too different to have a meaningful discussion.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        If you see language as an accurate representation of reality then yes we don't have much room for debate.