On 05.11.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
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
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 accurate.
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
What exactly is 'coordination' and why is it a problem?
An analogy would be using a map. One needs for example to locate oneself
in a map. This could be generalized.
Let us consider how an engineer for example uses Maxwell equations. An
engineer starts with a design. This design could be described by Maxwell
equations but one needs an engineer to suggest the design. Maxwell
equations on their own are not enough.
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.
In a way. A scientific model is after all a representation. And a
p. 21 “Z uses X to depict Y as F”
Hence even a complete scientific theory does not contain "Z uses". This
remains somehow outside of even a complete Theory of Everything.
In a way it is trivial, I agree. Yet, it seems for example Hawking in
his Grand Design does not agree with such a trivial observation.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at