Edgar,
Ah; I've left you in the dust, have I?
It's simple. Calling it "reason-based" is modeling it after a Human function
of reason. Can't you see that's a model?
And there is no complexity. There is Nature. Complexity is a character
imposed by Human thought, and only speaks about Humans' thought, not about
Nature.
Just as there is no "Color" in Nature. And no... "Light" ...in Nature.
Q.E.D., ;-)
--Joe
Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> 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. ;-)
------------------------------------
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
