3 ms·

Unless you have very peculiar and idiosyncratic definition of the world model, I am fairly confident that what you are saying doesn't make much sense. In econo

Unless you have very peculiar and idiosyncratic definition of the world model, I am fairly confident that what you are saying doesn't make much sense. In economy in a way that is not dissimilar to physics, model has a precise meaning. To quote Wikipedia, it is a simplified version of reality that allows us to observe, understand, and make predictions about economic behavior. You can't have a model of a model. That just doesn't really make sense. > Mathematical proofs rely on this I'm confused by what you want to say here. Mathematical proofs don't use models. Every proved statements in mathematics can be built from axioms which are presupposed true applying logical rules which are themselves part of the axiomatic system. Saying that something is mathematically proved basically means that given this set of rules we can build up to that point. > Rationality itself is a model Once again I'm fairly lost by what you are trying to mean. I'm fairly certain that for most accepted meaning of the world model and the world rationality, rationality is in fact not a model in the same way that a dog is not a theory.

zepto 5y ago
> Once again I'm fairly lost by what you are trying to mean. You may want to look up the difference between formal models and informal models. Since both rationality and the paper showing that it is bounded are based on formal models, it is reasonable to assume this is what we are talking about.
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand your argument. Are you actually talking about rational choice theory? > Since both rationality and the paper showing that it is bounded are based on formal models There is no paper showing that "rationality" is bounded. Models use to consider actors making purely rational choices in the sense that they are always optimizing their utility functions using all available information. Bounded rationility is a different way of modeling actors choice function. It's just a different model. There is no model of models. Still I don't see what any of that has to do with the difference between formal and informal models. Informal model is a term I have never heard used outside of policy discussion. It's basically dress up for "because the expert said so".
  - zepto 5y ago
    > Sorry, I don't understand your argument. Understood. It’s worth noting that the definition of a model that you said you were using doesn’t match with typical definitions of a formal model. You aren’t talking about formal models, and I accept that you are only thinking in terms of economic models. Perhaps that explains where the difference in understanding lies.
md224 5y ago
> Mathematical proofs don't use models. Maybe the person you replied to was taking a model theoretic perspective? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/

zepto 5y ago

> Once again I'm fairly lost by what you are trying to mean. You may want to look up the difference between formal models and informal models. Since both rationality and the paper showing that it is bounded are based on formal models, it is reasonable to assume this is what we are talking about.

WastingMyTime89 5y ago
Sorry, I don't understand your argument. Are you actually talking about rational choice theory? > Since both rationality and the paper showing that it is bounded are based on formal models There is no paper showing that "rationality" is bounded. Models use to consider actors making purely rational choices in the sense that they are always optimizing their utility functions using all available information. Bounded rationility is a different way of modeling actors choice function. It's just a different model. There is no model of models. Still I don't see what any of that has to do with the difference between formal and informal models. Informal model is a term I have never heard used outside of policy discussion. It's basically dress up for "because the expert said so".
- zepto 5y ago
  > Sorry, I don't understand your argument. Understood. It’s worth noting that the definition of a model that you said you were using doesn’t match with typical definitions of a formal model. You aren’t talking about formal models, and I accept that you are only thinking in terms of economic models. Perhaps that explains where the difference in understanding lies.

md224 5y ago

> Mathematical proofs don't use models. Maybe the person you replied to was taking a model theoretic perspective? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modeltheory-fo/