Dear Aditya,
I find your attempt to reconcile the arguments to be very good! I most
appresiate that you point out that our notion of Realism must include both
the invariants with respect to point of view and an allowance for novelity.
I do agree that we could use a FAQ defining the strange terms that we
use. ;-)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aditya Varun Chadha" <adichad.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
>I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the
>following:
>
> Our perception of reality is limited by the structure and composition
> of brains. (we can 'enhance' these to be able to perceive and
> understand 'more', but at ANY point of time the above limitation
> holds). I think this is closer to what Lee wants to say, and I totally
> agree with it. This is what I have tried to elaborate on in my earlier
> (my first here) email.
>
> But the very fact that this limitation is absolutely inescapable
> (observation and understanding is ALWAYS limited to the observer's
> capabilities) gives us the following insight:
>
> That which cannot be modelled (understood) cannot figure in ANY of our
> "models of reality". Therefore although our models of reality keep
> changing, at any given time instance there is no way for us to
> perceive anything beyond the model, because as soon as something
> outside our current model is perceived, we have moved to a future
> instance, and can create a model that includes it. Thus it is kind of
> senseless to talk of a reality beyond our perception. In other words,
> we can call something "reality" only once we perceive it. In this
> sense "models may be more real than reality" to us. This is an
> argument of the "Shroedinger's Cat" kind.
>
> In fact if I am correct about what both Bruno and Lee want to say,
> then Lee's arguments are a prerequisite to understanding to what Bruno
> is hinting at.
>
> Quantum Physics says that an observer and his observation are
> impossible to untangle.
>
> From the above fact,
>
> A Realist (Lee) would conclude that "absolute reality" is unknowable.
> (follows from heisenburg's uncertainty also btw:-) ). But for this the
> realist assumes that this "absolute reality" exists.
>
> A Nihilist (Bruno) would conclude that since this tanglement of
> observer and observation is inescapable, it is meaningless to talk
> about any "absolute reality" outside the perceived and understood
> reality (models).
>
> None of the views is "naive". In fact neither view can ever disprove
> the other, because both belong to different belief (axiomatic)
> systems. apples and oranges, both tasty.
>
>
> P.S.:
> If what I have said above sounds ok and does help put things in
> perspective, then I would like to think that in this WHOLE discussion
> there is NO NEED of invoking terms like "comp hyp", "ASSA", "RSSA",
> "OMs", etc. I, being clearly a lesser being in this new domain of
> intellectual giants at eskimo.com, would highly appreciate if atleast
> the full forms are given so that I can google them and put them in
> context.
>
Received on Tue Jul 26 2005 - 19:08:31 PDT