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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aditya Varun Chadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
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
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.
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