Joe, Agreed but what's your point?
The progress of science and the practical technology based upon its models PROVES the knowable complexity of reality is reason based... Edgar On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Joe wrote: > Edgar, > > one question posed was: > "How could a complex mental model actually accurately model something that > was not equally complex or more?" > > As an answer, just please go ahead and remember the case of "Epicycles", in > an early model of the Solar System. It was accurate in modeling and even in > predicting, but, as you also know, got off initially on the wrong foot, and > so was a very complex castle built in the air, hoping to model a quite simple > situation. > > Current models seem moderately better. > > Yet, beyond just a single solar system, the non-Keplerian rotation curves of > disk-galaxies are not explained, not even that of our Milky Way. The nature > of unseen mass is unknown and not a feature of any model, except as a suspect > still at-large. This casts suspicion on the whole model. > > For long in Philosophy of Science, there has been a wonderment over the > "Isomorphism" that arises in our thought between what we call The World, and > models, but naming the similarity of structure or form with a five-syllable > word does not discover anything particular. It's like naming certain animal > behavior "Instinct": A mere hiatus, a place-holder for ignorance. Yet, the > Logical Positivists could neither find nor specify a criterion of Cognitive > Meaningfulness. So, despite the appearance of structure and form, there's > nothing to point to in the world which seems to make us so sure of what we > say about the world, and that includes a basis for all models, complex or > simple. > > "Complexity", though, is a Human category of thought; it is not in Nature. > Nature is just Nature. And models just model the surface, the "crust" of > Nature. > > To know Nature, you must first know Nature. > > Just as, to know Recursion, you must first know Recursion. ;-) > > --Joe > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Sure science is "human mental models of what reality might be". But what is > > the reality that science so accurately models if it itself is not equally > > complex or more? > > > > How could a complex mental model actually accurately model something that > > was not equally complex or more? > > > >
