Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:38:17 -0400

Dear Lee,

    Are you the continuer of Niels Bohr? Seriously! The argument that your
making is very similar to the argument that lead to the Copenhagen
Interpretation. ;-) This is not a crtitisism, you are making some very good
points.

    My problem is that I agree with both you and Russell and am having a
hardtime finding the middle ground. ;-)

Onward!

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: "EverythingList" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: RE: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?


> Russell writes
>
>> Sadly, your wish for the common sense understanding of "reality" to hold
>> will be thwarted - the more one thinks about such things, the less
>> coherent a concept it becomes.
>
> Well, all that I ask is that the *basics* be kept firmly in mind
> while we gingerly probe forward.
>
> The basics (basic epistemology, that is) include
>
> 1. the map is not the territory, and perception is not reality
>
> 2. the words we have for things are not the things themselves,
> but only labels
>
> 3. we must *not* use basic language and terminology that conflicts
> with that used by twelve-year olds
>
>> For most of us in this list, the 3+1 dimensional spacetime we inhabit,
>> with its stars and galaxies etc is an appearance, phenomena emerging
>> out of constraints imposed by the process of observation.
>
> Right there is the problem. Let's focus on what you are *referring*
> to in your first sentence: "the 3+1 spacetime with its stars and
> galaxies". We must keep clear the difference between what you are
> *referring* to and our observations of it, or our perceptions of it.
> They're not at all the same thing.
>
> So when you use the dread "is" and write "For most of us... the
> spacetime *is* an appearance", we've already gone over the edge.
> No. The spacetime that you probably meant is *not* an appearance,
> and we should not talk about it as if it is an appearance. *It*
> is whatever is out there. Yes, our understanding of it may be poor.
> Yes, it may not be at all as we *think*. In fact, it cannot in
> in any literal sense *be* what we *think*.
>
> I'm just urging everyone to keep in mind this key difference,
> that's all. If we lose the language of realism, we lose our
> real ability to communicate. There is no longer any constraint
> at all that keeps one's words having meaning to others.
>
> I understand and appreciate your remaining remarks.
>
> Lee
Received on Mon Jul 25 2005 - 22:39:12 PDT