3 ms·

say i have a theory that says, changes in temperature depend on changes in pressure in some specified way. And you say, oh I have a similar theory, it's a comp

by lg 16y ago

say i have a theory that says, changes in temperature depend on changes in pressure in some specified way. And you say, oh I have a similar theory, it's a computational model. In my model of the universe, when my model of temperature changes, then so does my model of pressure, and it changes in exactly the same way your theory describes. I'd say ok, that's a great theory about your model of pressure and your model of temperature in your model of the universe. And you say, no no, this is a theory about actual pressure and temperature in the actual universe, just like your theory. In that case your model is not enough. I also need reason to believe that your models of temperature and pressure are relevantly similar to actual temperature and pressure such that relational properties that hold of the entities of your model also hold of the entities they're supposed to represent. If it turns out you modeled temperature as a jpeg representing a picture of a cat, then how is that a theory about the temperature? Whereas my theory is a theory about temperature simply because my theory says: temperature, that real thing in the world, will do such-and-such.

barrkel 16y ago
Both the theory and the model depend on the definitions of their constituents. If you don't have a theory of temperature or pressure, your theory is similarly useless, because you will have no way to interpret the words "temperature" and "pressure". Your theory assumes these things, but you want to say that the model is invalid because it also assumes these things. But the more important misconception you appear to have is that you are not considering the human element; no representation of the theory has meaning unless a human interprets it. Programs manipulate symbols; but it is the human who chooses what the symbols mean, and that includes incorporating theories / models implied or assumed about those meanings. It's no different for a theory written down in a book.

by lg 16y ago

barrkel 16y ago

Both the theory and the model depend on the definitions of their constituents. If you don't have a theory of temperature or pressure, your theory is similarly useless, because you will have no way to interpret the words "temperature" and "pressure". Your theory assumes these things, but you want to say that the model is invalid because it also assumes these things. But the more important misconception you appear to have is that you are not considering the human element; no representation of the theory has meaning unless a human interprets it. Programs manipulate symbols; but it is the human who chooses what the symbols mean, and that includes incorporating theories / models implied or assumed about those meanings. It's no different for a theory written down in a book.