Where is your experience?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But I used your phrasing, your words ("not corresponding with reality" - not an exact quote). I merely wanted clarification on what you said.

You said Naive Realism doesn't correspond with what we know about reality, I'm merely asking for you to provide details.

What we know is that we can make models, that they are tested against facts, and that no model is "more real" in the sense of being a "more accurate map" of a "real territory", as the territory is always an abstraction (ergo a model in itself).

 

[Paul2]

What we know is that we can make models, that they are tested against facts, and that no model is "more real" in the sense of being a "more accurate map" of a "real territory", as the territory is always an abstraction (ergo a model in itself).

Certainly one model can be a more accurate map. If the territory were an arbitrary abstraction, then you'd have a point. But if it's not arbitrary, that means that it has some level of relationship to the thing itself, and therefore we can in principle judge whether one model is better than another.

Are you really saying that all models are equally useful?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Certainly one model can be a more accurate map. If the territory were an arbitrary abstraction, then you'd have a point. But if it's not arbitrary, that means that it has some level of relationship to the thing itself, and therefore we can in principle judge whether one model is better than another.

Are you really saying that all models are equally useful?

No. Every model has its uses, and it is only relevant in a particular context. And the territory is an abstraction, quasi arbitrary in the sense that we make our mental models based on previous ones, it is only after an avalanche of new facts that a new paradigm arises, only to be taken, this time, as the real map, about the real territory.

Take for instance what I wrote about Ptolomeus model, it was so powerful, so completely elegant and clever that it was believed to be a "true representation" of what was believed as reality (the presumed territory) for a thousand years.

It was only after many years of new data, and new ideas, that humanity experienced a paradigm shift, where the old theory was viewed as imperfect and its assumed referent (the so called territory) as false.

What we take as a territory is nothing but an abstract, background idea, a frame to hang all new theoretical models from diverse fields, a general notion or belief about what we believe our model "really" depict.

 

[Paul2]

No. Every model has its uses, and it is only relevant in a particular context.

Aww, not "context." Really?! I didn't see that one coming. OK, I'll bite. Given the same context, is every model equally useful?

And the territory is an abstraction, quasi arbitrary in the sense that we make our mental models based on previous ones, it is only after an avalanche of new facts that a new paradigm arises, only to be taken, this time, as the real map, about the real territory.

What does "quasi arbitrary" mean in general (not in relation to this particular discussion)?

Take for instance what I wrote about Ptolomeus model, it was so powerful, so completely elegant and clever that it was believed to be a "true representation" of what was believed as reality (the presumed territory) for a thousand years.

It was only after many years of new data, and new ideas, that humanity experienced a paradigm shift, where the old theory was viewed as imperfect and its assumed referent (the so called territory) as false.

Are you saying the Ptolemic model is now - today - just as useful as the heliocentric model?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Aww, not "context." Really?! I didn't see that one coming. OK, I'll bite. Given the same context, is every model equally useful?

I said that it was only relevant in the appropriate context. For instance, QM and GR, both incredibly successful in their respective context, yet, incompatible between them. If one is right, the other one must be, necessarily, wrong (if we want to keep a naive realist POV regarding what reality "is").

Now, given the same context, two competing models would be useful as long as they describe the needed facts. For instance, it is easier to calculate trajectories for space travel using Newtonian mechanics instead of GR, but in general, GR is considered as to be superior, in the sense it describes facts NM can't.

What does "quasi arbitrary" mean in general (not in relation to this particular discussion)?

That, to a point, new paradigms are always based on the previous model.

Are you saying the Ptolemic model is now - today - just as useful as the heliocentric model?

Depends on what you need. If you want to calculate when the next eclipse is going to happen, Ptolemaic model is more than enough. You should use the model that represents best the data you need. Oh and regarding the heliocentric model, do you believe it is a more accurate representation of reality? because, if you read a bit about how Einstein conceptualized it, there are no privileged frames of reference, so, the equations used to describe the movements of the solar system, ARE mere conveniences, and so arbitrary...

 

[Paul2]

Depends on what you need. If you want to calculate when the next eclipse is going to happen, Ptolemaic model is more than enough. You should use the model that represents best the data you need. Oh and regarding the heliocentric model, do you believe it is a more accurate representation of reality? because, if you read a bit about how Einstein conceptualized it, there are no privileged frames of reference, so, the equations used to describe the movements of the solar system, ARE mere conveniences, and so arbitrary...

I quickly getting out of any hope of having expertise in this area, including astronomy, but I thought - hold onto your hats here - that the earth revolved around the sun, and it seems like you're saying that that is not necessarily the case, depending "on what you need." Do I have that right?

 

[Dancing David]

BDZ: Um, the model of reality created in our visual field for example is accurate enough most of the time. And as long as one is willing to examine the models that is about as good as it gets.

Reality behaves the way it does.

Absolute truth is never achieved.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I quickly getting out of any hope of having expertise in this area, including astronomy, but I thought - hold onto your hats here - that the earth revolved around the sun, and it seems like you're saying that that is not necessarily the case, depending "on what you need." Do I have that right?

There's a thread about this at the moment. I agree with BDZ here. It's a matter of calculatory convenience and intuitiveness. There is no other reason to prefer a heliocentral model of the universe. It is as correct and incorrect as any, given that it is a formulation of relativistic physics .

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I quickly getting out of any hope of having expertise in this area, including astronomy, but I thought - hold onto your hats here - that the earth revolved around the sun, and it seems like you're saying that that is not necessarily the case, depending "on what you need." Do I have that right?

Yes. to put it in the easiest possible way, consider this; If movement is relative, it is equally right to claim that the earth revolves around the sun, than that it is the sun that is going around the earth.

Let me attempt a more detailed explanation, I'm far from expert in the field, there are other members in here with the appropriate qualification. That said, GR is one of the most successful theories of our times, it has been able to prove its strength against a large series of experimental work.

Now, one of the pillars of the theory is that there are no "absolute inertial frames", and what this means is that the laws of physics are relative to the acceleration of every particular frame in relation to the inertial frame of our choice, and so, the idea about the earth "really" going around the sun, presented as an "objective reality" of some sort, was based on the idea that there was something immovable (the absolute inertial frame), like the earth was before Copernicus et al. Now the very concept is seen as obsolete, as movement can only be defined in relation to other bodies.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

BDZ: Um, the model of reality created in our visual field for example is accurate enough most of the time. And as long as one is willing to examine the models that is about as good as it gets.

Reality behaves the way it does.

Absolute truth is never achieved.

The question is, accurate for what? "Reality", whatever that is, "does behave it ways it does", it is as clear as it goes (a bit circular and tautological)... that said, what I object is that there is such a thing as "absolute truth" in the first place. As with GR, I believe that all we have, and can have, are frames of reference, or to put it more clearly, conceptual frames of reference. We then contrast one model with another in relation to known and projected facts. That's all.

 

[Paul2]

Yes. to put it in the easiest possible way, consider this; If movement is relative, it is equally right to claim that the earth revolves around the sun, than that it is the sun that is going around the earth.

Let me attempt a more detailed explanation, I'm far from expert in the field, there are other members in here with the appropriate qualification. That said, GR is one of the most successful theories of our times, it has been able to prove its strength against a large series of experimental work.

Now, one of the pillars of the theory is that there are no "absolute inertial frames", and what this means is that the laws of physics are relative to the acceleration of every particular frame in relation to the inertial frame of our choice, and so, the idea about the earth "really" going around the sun, presented as an "objective reality" of some sort, was based on the idea that there was something immovable (the absolute inertial frame), like the earth was before Copernicus et al. Now the very concept is seen as obsolete, as movement can only be defined in relation to other bodies.

If a body moves away from another body, I can see how GR and relative motion in general would allow us to view the situation in two ways, either the one body is moving, or the other is moving (or maybe both are moving). But I don't see the same type of equivalence possible between two bodies when, in one view, one is revolving around the other. I can understand that a different description of the motion of the other might be possible when considering the first to be stationary and not moving, but I don't see how the same situation could be described to be that *either* is moving *around* the other.

 

[Dancing David]

The question is, accurate for what? "Reality", whatever that is, "does behave it ways it does", it is as clear as it goes (a bit circular and tautological)... that said, what I object is that there is such a thing as "absolute truth" in the first place. As with GR, I believe that all we have, and can have, are frames of reference, or to put it more clearly, conceptual frames of reference. We then contrast one model with another in relation to known and projected facts. That's all.

The behavior of the universe is what it is. There is no absolute truth.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The behavior of the universe is what it is. There is no absolute truth.

Then this equals to say a simpler sentence: There is no truth.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If a body moves away from another body, I can see how GR and relative motion in general would allow us to view the situation in two ways, either the one body is moving, or the other is moving (or maybe both are moving). But I don't see the same type of equivalence possible between two bodies when, in one view, one is revolving around the other. I can understand that a different description of the motion of the other might be possible when considering the first to be stationary and not moving, but I don't see how the same situation could be described to be that *either* is moving *around* the other.

It seems counter intuitive. I know. Have you read wikipedia's entry about naive realism?

 

[Paul2]

It seems counter intuitive. I know. Have you read wikipedia's entry about naive realism?

I scanned it, but didn't see which part might be relevant to the specific problem with the equality between views in which either object may be seen as rotating around the other.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I scanned it, but didn't see which part might be relevant to the specific problem with the equality between views in which either object may be seen as rotating around the other.

Well, it doesn't mention any particular problem, but in the end we can see that what you mention is a problem just if you think that there is something like "the real world" that "has to be like this". Guess a better reading would be Model Dependent Realism, also in Wikipedia... which is the closest thing I have found to my own thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

 

[Paul2]

Well, it doesn't mention any particular problem, but in the end we can see that what you mention is a problem just if you think that there is something like "the real world" that "has to be like this". Guess a better reading would be Model Dependent Realism, also in Wikipedia... which is the closest thing I have found to my own thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

My point isn't whether there is a real world, my point is whether descriptions depending on one's frame of reference must necessarily be equivalent.

If we're talking about two objects in relative motion in a straight line, it's easy to imagine someone viewing each object stationary relative to each, separately, and in each case it looks like the other object is the one that's moving, and the descriptions of how each object moves will be equivalent.

But if we're talking about objects circling each other, and an observer is stationary compared to one, and then to the other, I don't see how object A can look like it's rotating around object B (in a simple, circular orbit) when the observer is stationary to object B, while object B would look like it's rotating around object A when the observer is stationary to object A.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

My point isn't whether there is a real world, my point is whether descriptions depending on one's frame of reference must necessarily be equivalent.

If we're talking about two objects in relative motion in a straight line, it's easy to imagine someone viewing each object stationary relative to each, separately, and in each case it looks like the other object is the one that's moving, and the descriptions of how each object moves will be equivalent.

But if we're talking about objects circling each other, and an observer is stationary compared to one, and then to the other, I don't see how object A can look like it's rotating around object B (in a simple, circular orbit) when the observer is stationary to object B, while object B would look like it's rotating around object A when the observer is stationary to object A.

If I'm following you correctly, the misunderstanding is right at the start, I highlighted it. How do you define they are circling each other? Whats your frame or reference?

 

[Dancing David]

Then this equals to say a simpler sentence: There is no truth.

I have said that before , all human ideas are equally right and wrong, some are more valid than others.


:helmet:

 

[Dancing David]

If I'm following you correctly, the misunderstanding is right at the start, I highlighted it. How do you define they are circling each other? Whats your frame or reference?

The CMB