Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

A model represents what happened, and predicts that it will happen again under the exact same conditions. A model is perfect when applied to the right conditions. It is when other factors are involved does a model seem inaccurate.

I must ask you:
What did you hope to accomplish with this post?

I wanted to explain a more specific reason why I think that models are more than abstractions.

What in my post made you react in this way????

Because I don't see how evolution is relevant. Evolution is so vague. We are discussing specific systems and how they interact. Evolution is a result of how all systems interact in nature.

Why are there murders? Evolution
Why do people watch movies? Evolution
Why are there car accidents? Evolution
.
.
.

 

[Juma]

I must ask you:
What did you hope to accomplish with this post?

I wanted to explain a more specific reason why I think that models are more than abstractions.

Then why dont say so, and then do so (your post certainly did not)

 

[untermensche]

Because I don't see how evolution is relevant. Evolution is so vague. We are discussing specific systems and how they interact. Evolution is a result of how all systems interact in nature.

To call it evolution is metaphor.

The models don't appear whole. They undergo adjustments and improvements.

So there is a bias to just focus on the successful models and ignore the greater number of failed models when claiming the models are caused in some way.

 

[Kharakov]

The topic fell apart when none of the supporters of real infinities could provide evidence of one or argument why we should suppose this imaginary concept has real existence.

The real infinity is the extremely simple one: that something (in one form or another) has always existed.

It's a fact that nothing is an imaginary entity that does not have real existence.

 

[ryan]

Because I don't see how evolution is relevant. Evolution is so vague. We are discussing specific systems and how they interact. Evolution is a result of how all systems interact in nature.

To call it evolution is metaphor.

The models don't appear whole. They undergo adjustments and improvements.

So there is a bias to just focus on the successful models and ignore the greater number of failed models when claiming the models are caused in some way.

In the model, there is a perfect explanation of some aspect of nature. It's how far we extend the model that bites us. Models are an extension of what actually happened. It is our fault if we miss something.

If we knew everything, our models would be perfect.

 

[untermensche]

The topic fell apart when none of the supporters of real infinities could provide evidence of one or argument why we should suppose this imaginary concept has real existence.

The real infinity is the extremely simple one: that something (in one form or another) has always existed.

Claims lacking evidence are not that convincing. To those that want more than claims with no evidence to support them at least.

It's a fact that nothing is an imaginary entity that does not have real existence.

To call nothing an "entity" is to miss the point.

 

[untermensche]

To call it evolution is metaphor.

The models don't appear whole. They undergo adjustments and improvements.

So there is a bias to just focus on the successful models and ignore the greater number of failed models when claiming the models are caused in some way.

In the model, there is a perfect explanation of some aspect of nature.

Models are used to make predictions. They either make predictions or they don't.

Calling a model that makes predictions "perfect" is just to put an imaginary label on something real.

It is superfluous and capricious. To say the model makes predictions is enough. To add more, like adding the word "perfection", adds no meaning.

 

[Kharakov]

The real infinity is the extremely simple one: that something (in one form or another) has always existed.

Claims lacking evidence are not that convincing. To those that want more than claims with no evidence to support them at least.

Yeah. Since something cannot appear out of nothing, something must have always existed.

Logic is one way to discern this eternally real infinite truth: nothing has never existed except in the vain imaginings of those who claim something appeared out of nothing.

 

[untermensche]

Claims lacking evidence are not that convincing. To those that want more than claims with no evidence to support them at least.

Yeah. Since something cannot appear out of nothing, something must have always existed.

What is nothing and how do you know what can arise from it?

Where is your evidence?

All you present are empty claims about ultimate knowledge.

 

[ryan]

In the model, there is a perfect explanation of some aspect of nature.

Models are used to make predictions. They either make predictions or they don't.

Calling a model that makes predictions "perfect" is just to put an imaginary label on something real.

It is superfluous and capricious. To say the model makes predictions is enough. To add more, like adding the word "perfection", adds no meaning.

When something enters water and displaces it, the water models the position of what is displacing it. The model is the result of what actually happened. The same goes for EM when we use it to know displacements of particles.

Models have an element of what actually happened to them; they are a part of what happened.

 

[untermensche]

Models are used to make predictions. They either make predictions or they don't.

Calling a model that makes predictions "perfect" is just to put an imaginary label on something real.

It is superfluous and capricious. To say the model makes predictions is enough. To add more, like adding the word "perfection", adds no meaning.

When something enters water and displaces it, the water models the position of what is displacing it.

Water is dynamic. It is not static. There is all kinds of ionic activity, even in pure water.

What model predicts the exact ionic structure of water? Not the ratios between ions but the exact structure at any given moment in time.

What model gives us that?

Wouldn't that be a better model than our current so-called "perfect" models?

 

[Juma]

Models are used to make predictions. They either make predictions or they don't.

Calling a model that makes predictions "perfect" is just to put an imaginary label on something real.

It is superfluous and capricious. To say the model makes predictions is enough. To add more, like adding the word "perfection", adds no meaning.

When something enters water and displaces it, the water models the position of what is displacing it. The model is the result of what actually happened. The same goes for EM when we use it to know displacements of particles.

Models have an element of what actually happened to them; they are a part of what happened.

So what? Yes a plaster mould have probably much left of what moulded. But our genetically inherited sense for how things move in earth gravity (yes, we have adopted to it by evolution) are provided by our genes and is not caused by how the genes themselves react to gravity. Thus there is no other cause than (!) evolution.

 

[ryan]

When something enters water and displaces it, the water models the position of what is displacing it.

Water is dynamic. It is not static. There is all kinds of ionic activity, even in pure water.

What model predicts the exact ionic structure of water? Not the ratios between ions but the exact structure at any given moment in time.

What model gives us that?

Wouldn't that be a better model than our current so-called "perfect" models?

The information about the behavior of anything is never destroyed.

 

[ryan]

When something enters water and displaces it, the water models the position of what is displacing it. The model is the result of what actually happened. The same goes for EM when we use it to know displacements of particles.

Models have an element of what actually happened to them; they are a part of what happened.

So what? Yes a plaster mould have probably much left of what moulded. But our genetically inherited sense for how things move in earth gravity (yes, we have adopted to it by evolution) are provided by our genes and is not caused by how the genes themselves react to gravity. Thus there is no other cause than (!) evolution.

I didn't say that it isn't evolution; I said that it's not saying very much. It's the answer for any reasons for why all life behaves the way it does. I am hungry right now because of evolution.

Be more specific.

 

[untermensche]

The information about the behavior of anything is never destroyed.

That is unresponsive to my point and not at all demonstrable.

It sounds like a vague hope.

My point was that better models could possibly be built.

So how are the current models perfect?

 

[Juma]

So what? Yes a plaster mould have probably much left of what moulded. But our genetically inherited sense for how things move in earth gravity (yes, we have adopted to it by evolution) are provided by our genes and is not caused by how the genes themselves react to gravity. Thus there is no other cause than (!) evolution.

I didn't say that it isn't evolution; I said that it's not saying very much. It's the answer for any reasons for why all life behaves the way it does. I am hungry right now because of evolution.

Be more specific.

No. It is the answer you are looking for: how can one system model another system and yet not be directly coupled. Answer: by being selected for by evolution.

 

[ryan]

The information about the behavior of anything is never destroyed.

That is unresponsive to my point and not at all demonstrable.

It sounds like a vague hope.

My point was that better models could possibly be built.

So how are the current models perfect?

I am saying that there is a perfect model out there and that we uncover some of its perfect "explanations", but sometimes we don't.

For example, assume that a car drives by me at 12:00. If I say that the car drove by me between 11:55 and 12:05, I am perfectly correct. Is this an incredibly amazing coincidence, or did I receive a perfect truth about nature?

 

[ryan]

I didn't say that it isn't evolution; I said that it's not saying very much. It's the answer for any reasons for why all life behaves the way it does. I am hungry right now because of evolution.

Be more specific.

No. It is the answer you are looking for: how can one system model another system and yet not be directly coupled. Answer: by being selected for by evolution.

Hmmm, well, you obviously see something about evolution that I don't. To me, evolution is quite obvious and is just a result of a large dynamical system. Why it's even limited to ecology is beyond me: the rock is in the river because it lasts a long time in that environment, and nothing is interested in taking the rock away. Evolution is just a simplified explanation of results of many interactions of many complex systems.

 

[Juma]

No. It is the answer you are looking for: how can one system model another system and yet not be directly coupled. Answer: by being selected for by evolution.

Hmmm, well, you obviously see something about evolution that I don't. To me, evolution is quite obvious and is just a result of a large dynamical system. Why it's even limited to ecology is beyond me: the rock is in the river because it lasts a long time in that environment, and nothing is interested in taking the rock away. Evolution is just a simplified explanation of results of many interactions of many complex systems.

You obviously know nothing about evolution.

 

[untermensche]

That is unresponsive to my point and not at all demonstrable.

It sounds like a vague hope.

My point was that better models could possibly be built.

So how are the current models perfect?

I am saying that there is a perfect model out there and that we uncover some of its perfect "explanations", but sometimes we don't.

For example, assume that a car drives by me at 12:00. If I say that the car drove by me between 11:55 and 12:05, I am perfectly correct. Is this an incredibly amazing coincidence, or did I receive a perfect truth about nature?

If we had perfect knowledge wouldn't we know what dark matter and dark energy are?

We have some knowledge, but to call any of it "perfect" is just a desire to see something perfect.