Joe, Poor Joe! Even the dust is dustless!
QED? LOL! QED is a conclusion proven by REASON Joe...... Edgar On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Joe wrote: > 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. ;-) > >
