4 ms·

> If you want to calculate a distance in space, you use Euclid’s formula. A distance, in three dimension, is the square-root of the of the sum of the squared di

> If you want to calculate a distance in space, you use Euclid’s formula. A distance, in three dimension, is the square-root of the of the sum of the squared distances in each direction of space. Here the Δx is a difference between two points in direction x, and Δy and Δz are likewise differences between two points in directions y and z. I really dislike it when explanations about reality become explanations about a model of reality. Can the original question be answered without assuming some model is the perfect reflection of reality, or just without using the model?

lokedhs 6y ago
What would that even mean? The model is a description of reality. When you talk about the model, you are referencing a mathematical description of reality. In a similar way, the ratio π is the mathematical description (or model, if you like) of a circle's circumference relative to its diameter. I'm not sure how to describe this relationship without invoking the mathematical description of said relationship.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > The model is a description of reality No, not neccessarily. It's purpose is to make predictions. It need not be an accurate description of reality. We know this from our own internal model of reality and from classical mechanics, neither of which seem to be accurate descriptions of reality but both of which are very good models for predicting outcomes.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    There really is no reality, just models that describe our observations more and more accurately.
    - i-am-curious 6y ago
      Of course not. We can prove things that are absolutely true. For example, we can show 2+2, with suitable definitions of 2, + and 4, always equals 4 anywhere in the universe.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        Math is not reality. It's an abstract concept that we've built up on top of axioms.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    As expressed by ta1234567890, that's a misunderstanding of what models are, and what "the map is not the territorry" means...
    - guerrilla 6y ago
      Are you responding to the wrong comment? ta1234567890 and I don't seem to contradict eachother, at least in the part of the thread I'm responding to. Your comment is too vague for me to respond to and doesn't contain a clear position or an argument for it: what did you mean to say?
      - coldtea 6y ago
        You seemed to disagree with your parent, which corrected ta1234567890. I happen to disagree with ta1234567890 too, and think the parent is correct, and ta1234567890's comment is non-sensical. He says: "I really dislike it when explanations about reality become explanations about a model of reality. Can the original question be answered without assuming some model is the perfect reflection of reality, or just without using the model?" My point is, you cannot talk about reality without using a model, except in some obscure philosophical sense (like e.g. Kant's ding an sich). Models are not some bizarro abstractions that have little to do with reality, they are exactly our way of talking about reality. Any talk about reality is about a model of reality. So ta1234567890 inquiry is bogus, we can't have "explanations about reality [NOT] become explanations about a model of reality". That models are abstractions, and that 'the map is not the territorry" (two ideas that might have informed ta123456... comment) is correct, but it just means that no model is perfect. Not that model-less talk about reality is possible... Plus, the idea that no model is perfect, is problematic in itself, often usef for a tin-foil rejection of any model. Some models can be perfect for their domain, or perfect for up to some very small degree of measurement error...
        guerrilla 6y ago
        > Models are not some bizarro abstractions that have little to do with reality They're tools to predict experience. Anything beyond that is philosophy, positive or negative (i.e. that they are only that or that they are more than that). Your philosophical position is that the reason that they are able to predict future experience is because they accurately describe reality to some degree. This is just the opposite position of Hume. If you think that the models give us knowledge of reality, then this is the opposite position of Kant. Your position is held by only 57.1% of professional philosophers. The Humean position is held by 24.7%. [1] My point here is that Kant's position is hardly obscure being that one more extreme than it is held by a quarter of philosophers and it's not wise for you to take your position as being objectively correct and anything else a "misunderstanding." Even if you only mean that it is more common, it's firstly only barely so and secondly however reality is or is not is not going to be decided democratically. I think additionally that your position is particularly naive considering that QM doesn't even pretend to tell us how reality actually is. That's what the various interpretations do. Or will you claim that QM is not a physical model? 1. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

lokedhs 6y ago

What would that even mean? The model is a description of reality. When you talk about the model, you are referencing a mathematical description of reality. In a similar way, the ratio π is the mathematical description (or model, if you like) of a circle's circumference relative to its diameter. I'm not sure how to describe this relationship without invoking the mathematical description of said relationship.

guerrilla 6y ago
> The model is a description of reality No, not neccessarily. It's purpose is to make predictions. It need not be an accurate description of reality. We know this from our own internal model of reality and from classical mechanics, neither of which seem to be accurate descriptions of reality but both of which are very good models for predicting outcomes.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  There really is no reality, just models that describe our observations more and more accurately.
  - i-am-curious 6y ago
    Of course not. We can prove things that are absolutely true. For example, we can show 2+2, with suitable definitions of 2, + and 4, always equals 4 anywhere in the universe.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Math is not reality. It's an abstract concept that we've built up on top of axioms.
- coldtea 6y ago
  As expressed by ta1234567890, that's a misunderstanding of what models are, and what "the map is not the territorry" means...
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    Are you responding to the wrong comment? ta1234567890 and I don't seem to contradict eachother, at least in the part of the thread I'm responding to. Your comment is too vague for me to respond to and doesn't contain a clear position or an argument for it: what did you mean to say?
    - coldtea 6y ago
      You seemed to disagree with your parent, which corrected ta1234567890. I happen to disagree with ta1234567890 too, and think the parent is correct, and ta1234567890's comment is non-sensical. He says: "I really dislike it when explanations about reality become explanations about a model of reality. Can the original question be answered without assuming some model is the perfect reflection of reality, or just without using the model?" My point is, you cannot talk about reality without using a model, except in some obscure philosophical sense (like e.g. Kant's ding an sich). Models are not some bizarro abstractions that have little to do with reality, they are exactly our way of talking about reality. Any talk about reality is about a model of reality. So ta1234567890 inquiry is bogus, we can't have "explanations about reality [NOT] become explanations about a model of reality". That models are abstractions, and that 'the map is not the territorry" (two ideas that might have informed ta123456... comment) is correct, but it just means that no model is perfect. Not that model-less talk about reality is possible... Plus, the idea that no model is perfect, is problematic in itself, often usef for a tin-foil rejection of any model. Some models can be perfect for their domain, or perfect for up to some very small degree of measurement error...
      - guerrilla 6y ago
        > Models are not some bizarro abstractions that have little to do with reality They're tools to predict experience. Anything beyond that is philosophy, positive or negative (i.e. that they are only that or that they are more than that). Your philosophical position is that the reason that they are able to predict future experience is because they accurately describe reality to some degree. This is just the opposite position of Hume. If you think that the models give us knowledge of reality, then this is the opposite position of Kant. Your position is held by only 57.1% of professional philosophers. The Humean position is held by 24.7%. [1] My point here is that Kant's position is hardly obscure being that one more extreme than it is held by a quarter of philosophers and it's not wise for you to take your position as being objectively correct and anything else a "misunderstanding." Even if you only mean that it is more common, it's firstly only barely so and secondly however reality is or is not is not going to be decided democratically. I think additionally that your position is particularly naive considering that QM doesn't even pretend to tell us how reality actually is. That's what the various interpretations do. Or will you claim that QM is not a physical model? 1. https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl