3 ms·
Is this another way of saying "All models are wrong, but some are useful." Us mathematically, and computer inclined people like to think math has a sort of uni
by discodave 6y ago
Is this another way of saying "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
Us mathematically, and computer inclined people like to think math has a sort of universal truth to it. But it only has truth within the bounds of it's own system, or it would break one of Godel's incompletness theorems, right?
As I write this, I'm kind of thinking that the "All models are wrong" George Box quote is almost a statement of Godel's theorem.
- ordu 6y ago> Is this another way of saying "All models are wrong, but some are useful." All models are wrong by definition. The goal of the modelling is to simplify things, makes them less complex then they are in the reality. So model is wrong. QED. So to say "the model is wrong" is to say nothing. No new information transferred. While to say "the model is not valid" is to state that the model doesn't deliver it's promises. It is a non-null information about the model. I mean, yes, it could be seen as an another way to say "all models are wrong, but some are useful". But I'd prefer not to say that, because I see "wrongness" to be a notion inapplicable to a model. It is ok though to apply it nevertheless to make a nice catchphrase. > it only has truth within the bounds of it's own system, or it would break one of Godel's incompletness theorems, right? I'd prefer not to say this either. I'm not so sure that there is no way to create The Mathematics, which would go beyond arithmetic so Godel theorems would be inapplicable to it. Godel theorems more then just a regular model, they are a model within a model modelling a model about a model. What do they say us about the reality I'm not sure. How to apply them to the reality without losing validity?