Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

Is it inherently correct, or is it just something that works because it works?

Exactly. That is why I keep bringing up the evolution...

 

[ryan]

Yes, that is what I have always thought. But why is it that models work at all if there isn't some deeper connection between it and what it's modelling?

Also, the more accurate a model is, the more it becomes what it's modelling. Take a perfect map for example; the more specific it is, the more it becomes what it's mapping. Or imagine trying to explain red to someone who has never seen red. The best way to explain red is by showing the colour to the person.

This also partially answers the problem of induction.

The models work because they are descriptions of what we observe. Those descriptions don't tell us what reality is but how reality works - what to expect to happen given specific conditions. We don't know the "WHY" reality works the way it does but we invent analogies to help us visualize the description of the "HOW" i.e. we can describe the actions of gravity as a force, a field, an exchange of virtual particles, bending of spacetime, a vibrating string, etc. All these models help us predict but certainly they can't all be the true nature of gravity. They just help us visualize the math that allows us to predict the affect of gravity, whatever the hell gravity really is.

ETA:
Models work because they are simply descriptions of what we have repetedly observed as the actions and reactions of nature. Models are formalized pattern recognition. Humans happen to be quite good at pattern recognition.

Unless I am missing something in this post, there is no good resolution to the problem of induction.

 

[ryan]

Is it inherently correct, or is it just something that works because it works?

Exactly. That is why I keep bringing up the evolution...

What are you saying "exactly" to, the former or the latter?

 

[skepticalbip]

The models work because they are descriptions of what we observe. Those descriptions don't tell us what reality is but how reality works - what to expect to happen given specific conditions. We don't know the "WHY" reality works the way it does but we invent analogies to help us visualize the description of the "HOW" i.e. we can describe the actions of gravity as a force, a field, an exchange of virtual particles, bending of spacetime, a vibrating string, etc. All these models help us predict but certainly they can't all be the true nature of gravity. They just help us visualize the math that allows us to predict the affect of gravity, whatever the hell gravity really is.

ETA:
Models work because they are simply descriptions of what we have repetedly observed as the actions and reactions of nature. Models are formalized pattern recognition. Humans happen to be quite good at pattern recognition.

Unless I am missing something in this post, there is no good resolution to the problem of induction.

That is because the "problem of induction" is a philosophical problem, not a science problem. Philosophers will invent (and have invented) philosophical problems to argue about for centuries, never resolving anything. The "problems" of good and evil or morality has been argued by philosophers for millennia with no resolution but, hey, it keeps philosophers busy and makes them feel useful.

 

[ryan]

Unless I am missing something in this post, there is no good resolution to the problem of induction.

That is because the "problem of induction" is a philosophical problem, not a science problem. Philosophers will invent (and have invented) philosophical problems to argue about for centuries, never resolving anything. The "problems" of good and evil or morality has been argued by philosophers for millennia with no resolution but, hey, it keeps philosophers busy and makes them feel useful.

It's a big problem, and sometimes it rears its ugly head, like now.

 

[Juma]

Exactly. That is why I keep bringing up the evolution...

What are you saying "exactly" to, the former or the latter?

If you cannot figure that out then it really doesnt matter...

 

[Juma]

That is because the "problem of induction" is a philosophical problem, not a science problem. Philosophers will invent (and have invented) philosophical problems to argue about for centuries, never resolving anything. The "problems" of good and evil or morality has been argued by philosophers for millennia with no resolution but, hey, it keeps philosophers busy and makes them feel useful.

It's a big problem, and sometimes it rears its ugly head, like now.

How? I really cant see how it is significant.

 

[ryan]

It's a big problem, and sometimes it rears its ugly head, like now.

How? I really cant see how it is significant.

The whole point of this necessary derail is to examine what a model really is for the purposes of time. You seem to take the position that models are just illustrations of reality instead of representations. The problem with a model that is so "artificial" is that it says nothing about why it should work.

 

[skepticalbip]

How? I really cant see how it is significant.

The whole point of this necessary derail is to examine what a model really is for the purposes of time. You seem to take the position that models are just illustrations of reality instead of representations. The problem with a model that is so "artificial" is that it says nothing about why it should work.

As I said, models work because they are descriptions of observations. They work because nature is consistent - what happened before happens again. If nature wasn't consistent then there would be no science because there would be no way to predict based on prior observations. Why nature is consistent may be a question for philosophers or priests but, as for science, it is accepted that it does based on all prior observations. That is enough for science.

 

[Juma]

You seem to take the position that models are just illustrations of reality instead of representations.

This doesnt make sense.
Illustrations are representations...

The problem with a model that is so "artificial" is that it says nothing about why it should work.

Do you anything about evolution? At all?

 

[ryan]

The whole point of this necessary derail is to examine what a model really is for the purposes of time. You seem to take the position that models are just illustrations of reality instead of representations. The problem with a model that is so "artificial" is that it says nothing about why it should work.

As I said, models work because they are descriptions of observations. They work because nature is consistent - what happened before happens again. If nature wasn't consistent then there would be no science because there would be no way to predict based on prior observations. Why nature is consistent may be a question for philosophers or priests but, as for science, it is accepted that it does based on all prior observations. That is enough for science.

Why should forces exist tomorrow?

 

[skepticalbip]

As I said, models work because they are descriptions of observations. They work because nature is consistent - what happened before happens again. If nature wasn't consistent then there would be no science because there would be no way to predict based on prior observations. Why nature is consistent may be a question for philosophers or priests but, as for science, it is accepted that it does based on all prior observations. That is enough for science.

Why should forces exist tomorrow?

You are in the wrong forum to pose that question. It isn't a science question. Your question belongs in either the philosophy forum or one of the religion forums.

Note the highlighted in my previous post.

ETA:
Besides, if the forces ceased to exist tomorrow then we would never know because we would cease to exist so the question has no meaning for us - unless you want to say your final farewells before the end.

 

[Juma]

As I said, models work because they are descriptions of observations. They work because nature is consistent - what happened before happens again. If nature wasn't consistent then there would be no science because there would be no way to predict based on prior observations. Why nature is consistent may be a question for philosophers or priests but, as for science, it is accepted that it does based on all prior observations. That is enough for science.

Why should forces exist tomorrow?

Because they exist today and have done so for a very long time and we see no reason why that should change.

 

[ryan]

This doesnt make sense.
Illustrations are representations...

Not really, a representation is more related to what it represents that an illustration.

The problem with a model that is so "artificial" is that it says nothing about why it should work.

Do you anything about evolution? At all?

Yes, I am confident that I understand evolution. But I am sitting here staring at my computer with this look on my face desperately trying to make the connection to evolution that you claim to make. You are always pretty clear and direct, but this is a wild explanation.

We know that we can predict quite accurately. The question is why do predictions work in the first place.

This has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[ryan]

Why should forces exist tomorrow?

You are in the wrong forum to pose that question. It isn't a science question. Your question belongs in either the philosophy forum or one of the religion forums.

Note the highlighted in my previous post.

ETA:
Besides, if the forces ceased to exist tomorrow then we would never know because we would cease to exist so the question has no meaning for us - unless you want to say your final farewells before the end.

To question models in science is to philosophise. This whole thread has been philosophical.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are in the wrong forum to pose that question. It isn't a science question. Your question belongs in either the philosophy forum or one of the religion forums.

Note the highlighted in my previous post.

ETA:
Besides, if the forces ceased to exist tomorrow then we would never know because we would cease to exist so the question has no meaning for us - unless you want to say your final farewells before the end.

To question models in science is to philosophise. This whole thread has been philosophical.

Exactly. That is why I suggested a couple hundred pages ago that it should be moved to the philosophy forum since it had little to nothing to do with science. Although models are constantly questioned and tested in science, they are questioned from the scientific perspective not the philosophical perspective as some of those in this thread have done.

 

[Juma]

To question models in science is to philosophise. This whole thread has been philosophical.

Exactly. That is why I suggested a couple hundred pages ago that it should be moved to the philosophy forum since it had little to nothing to do with science. Although models are constantly questioned and tested in science, they are questioned from the scientific perspective not the philosophical perspective as some of those in this thread have done.

Science is philosophy. Making sense of data IS philosophy. That free floating speculation exist doesnt make science separate frrom philosophy.

 

[Kharakov]

"Something has always existed" is not a logical necessity.

It is a logical necessity, unless you're equivocating the statement to mean something other than what I meant by it (which should be fairly clear after the last 30 or so posts).

I'm not interested in reinventing the wheel for the 100th time. If at some point in time absolutely nothing exists, this condition will continue forever. This is a logical necessity: nothing doesn't do anything, it doesn't change, it doesn't have properties that will give arise ot other properties, etc. In fact, the only way for nothing to have an effect is for the imaginary concept of nothing to affect something (which it does in this conversation).

Argument from oblivious ignorance doesn't work- ohh, I can't picture how something can appear out of nothing, but this doesn't mean it can't. The idea of something from nothing is complete lunacy. I mean that like light from the moon...

Things don't appear out of nothing: nothing is the absence of everything, including causal structures, and what not. From absolute nothingness, nothing can appear. Nothing isn't a negative amount of something- it isn't even that.

A finite past does not entail that the world that exists now was somehow created out of nothing.

Yes it does: it entails that something has always existed, which implies eternal existence (eternal existence before now, which is a decidedly non-finite past, a past with infinite duration).

 

[Kharakov]

To question models in science is to philosophise. This whole thread has been philosophical.

Exactly. That is why I suggested a couple hundred pages ago that it should be moved to the philosophy forum since it had little to nothing to do with science. Although models are constantly questioned and tested in science, they are questioned from the scientific perspective not the philosophical perspective as some of those in this thread have done.

There is more than a little sophistry in this thread (mostly from one individual). Ultimately though, philosophy and science must agree that something has always existed (it's impossible for this not to be the case). This is a scientific and philosophical fact.

A bullshitting scientist like Krauss, who wants to redefine nothing to mean "Something that exists that causes other things to exist" is really just playing a word game, without regard for the truth of what they say.

 

[ryan]

To question models in science is to philosophise. This whole thread has been philosophical.

Exactly. That is why I suggested a couple hundred pages ago that it should be moved to the philosophy forum since it had little to nothing to do with science. Although models are constantly questioned and tested in science, they are questioned from the scientific perspective not the philosophical perspective as some of those in this thread have done.

I certainly don't mean that testing models is philosophy as we all know that that is purely science. I mean questioning or critiquing the models and the results.