On 11/5/2012 1:32 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:

: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and
which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of
some scientific theory?"

Yes . "I love my mother" is some knowledge that I know , and is
not part
of a scientific theory. We know reality because we live in the
reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly
know reality because we live within it.  Our  primary knowledge
is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality.

A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that
approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with
some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that
embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we
have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is

Let us imagine that we have a mathematical model that isomorphic
with the whole reality. Let us say that this model is before you as
some computer implementation. The problem of coordination still
remains. To use this model, you need to find out its particular
part and relate it with reality. The model of the whole reality
does not do it by itself.

That seems like an impossible hypothesis.  Usually when one talks
about having a model it is a model that one created or someone else
created and the correspondence with whatever is modeled is part of
the creation of the model. If you were simply presented with a model
of all reality and you didn't know who created this model so that you
could ask them how it corresponded to the thing modeled then you
would be just like a scientist faced with nature and you would
proceed by creating a model of the model in terms you understood.

What you say about a historical development is exactly what Van Fraassen offers as a part of a solution to the coordination problem.

What exactly is 'coordination' and why is it a problem?

Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that the science has included in its model the dark energy, the dark matter and have found a way to make GR and QM compatible), one needs to take a decision what a particular part of the theory is necessary to drive a particular innovation. Even a complete scientific theory will not do it by itself. In this sense, it will be still incomplete.

I don't understand the problem; are you simply saying the model of reality is not reality itself? That seems rather trivial.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to