3 ms·

> Is there a better method for building a model of the world? One of the questions should be: Why should we build a model for the world? Is that really possibl

> Is there a better method for building a model of the world? One of the questions should be: Why should we build a model for the world? Is that really possible/doable? And if the real answer is "no", why should we apply that failed model to the real world, affecting (potentially in a negative way) the lives of millions of people?

maxerickson 6y ago
It's obvious that useful models are doable. You have picked the most expansive meaning of "of the world", which isn't really an interesting thing to talk about.
parksy 6y ago
> One of the questions should be: Why should we build a model for the world? The decision not to build a model, is a model. > Is that really possible/doable? Models are just data-driven predictions based on understanding. The better the data, the better the understanding, the better the model. If a model for the world is impossible, then either the data is impossible to gather or process, or the understanding is impossible to achieve. Data is just facts based on observed events, so I refuse to believe that a model for the world is impossible based on ability to track data. Understanding is the wildcard - humans are complex beings. But each tiny step forward increases global understanding. Years ago, autism was considered "cold mother syndrome". Now through decades of careful and detailed analysis it's understood as a neurological disorder. Depression and anxiety were thought to be issues of the soul, demonic possession, laziness, etc. Now there is an ever expanding array of diagnostic tools to help sufferers. So I refuse to believe that understanding is impossible. tl;dr: Yes, a model for the world is possible. > And if the real answer is "no", That's a big if. > why should we apply that failed model to the real world "failed model" what failed model? Also recall doing nothing is also a model. Bring on the dark ages! > affecting (potentially in a negative way) the lives of millions of people? In my world view, doing nothing and praying to higher powers, or allowing chaotic despots to rampage the lands has already caused immeasurable premature death and suffering. Why would anyone vouch for a return to the dark ages, just because progress feels like effort?
- paganel 6y ago
  The decision of not doing math is not math, unless we go on obscure neo-platonic paths and equate negation with presence. Recent history is full of failed models, eugenics itself came out of scientists’ books that some German former corporal later enabled. Eugenics was based on a (failed) model of the world. Chaotic despots have rampaged the lands with the help of technology and science just fine, people wouldn’t have reached Magadan against their own will without railways. Give me “dark ages” every day against millions of people in the Gulag. Also, the trans/Atlantic slave trade wouldn’t have been possible without navigation-related advances, many of them scientific in nature.
zajio1am 6y ago
There is no alternative to building models of the world. There are only badly built models (based on individual experience, without opposition or falsification attempts) or better built models (like from scientific process). You can avoid having models of some domain if you can avoid to make decisions in that domain.

maxerickson 6y ago

It's obvious that useful models are doable. You have picked the most expansive meaning of "of the world", which isn't really an interesting thing to talk about.

parksy 6y ago

> One of the questions should be: Why should we build a model for the world? The decision not to build a model, is a model. > Is that really possible/doable? Models are just data-driven predictions based on understanding. The better the data, the better the understanding, the better the model. If a model for the world is impossible, then either the data is impossible to gather or process, or the understanding is impossible to achieve. Data is just facts based on observed events, so I refuse to believe that a model for the world is impossible based on ability to track data. Understanding is the wildcard - humans are complex beings. But each tiny step forward increases global understanding. Years ago, autism was considered "cold mother syndrome". Now through decades of careful and detailed analysis it's understood as a neurological disorder. Depression and anxiety were thought to be issues of the soul, demonic possession, laziness, etc. Now there is an ever expanding array of diagnostic tools to help sufferers. So I refuse to believe that understanding is impossible. tl;dr: Yes, a model for the world is possible. > And if the real answer is "no", That's a big if. > why should we apply that failed model to the real world "failed model" what failed model? Also recall doing nothing is also a model. Bring on the dark ages! > affecting (potentially in a negative way) the lives of millions of people? In my world view, doing nothing and praying to higher powers, or allowing chaotic despots to rampage the lands has already caused immeasurable premature death and suffering. Why would anyone vouch for a return to the dark ages, just because progress feels like effort?

paganel 6y ago
The decision of not doing math is not math, unless we go on obscure neo-platonic paths and equate negation with presence. Recent history is full of failed models, eugenics itself came out of scientists’ books that some German former corporal later enabled. Eugenics was based on a (failed) model of the world. Chaotic despots have rampaged the lands with the help of technology and science just fine, people wouldn’t have reached Magadan against their own will without railways. Give me “dark ages” every day against millions of people in the Gulag. Also, the trans/Atlantic slave trade wouldn’t have been possible without navigation-related advances, many of them scientific in nature.

zajio1am 6y ago

There is no alternative to building models of the world. There are only badly built models (based on individual experience, without opposition or falsification attempts) or better built models (like from scientific process). You can avoid having models of some domain if you can avoid to make decisions in that domain.