3 ms·
Unless the thing you are modelling is itself also a model. And by virtue of the limitations of our (extended) senses, everything is a model. What you know as "
by craigsmansion 9y ago
Unless the thing you are modelling is itself also a model.
And by virtue of the limitations of our (extended) senses, everything is a model.
What you know as "gold" is really a model of gold. What we know about gold, the colour, specific weight, etc. in no way describes the actual thing and is only a representation as can be conveyed by our senses.
Everybody agreeing about the observable nature of a thing from a particular frame of reference does not imply that frame of reference is the one that is closest to the truth.
Anyway, as much fun as it is to think about such matters, they will, almost by definition, never be falsifiable, so yes, you are of course correct, even if only from the generally most useful frame of reference we call reality.
- mjburgess 9y agoSounds like (metaphysical) idealism. The difference between idealism and realism here is meta-empirical. I would say idealism is false, and in fact, nothing is a model and everything is concrete. To call the computer program a model is to say that when I look at it, I can use it to inform myself about the world. It's an abstract property. The actual system in question is silicon and electrical current, etc. And thus shares nothing of interest with gold.