Pat, (01)
I was not arguing that the model does not represent anything real or that
reality somehow does not matter. I don't suffer from positivism. But at the
same time I recognize that reality can not be comprehended mathematically or
otherwise. It is you who seem to insist that complete mathematical
comprehension is required for progress. (02)
>
>On Sep 18, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Len Yabloko wrote:
>
>>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2008, at 3:21 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris Menzel wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> As to the rest of John's posting, I refuse to be drawn into a
>>>>>> discussion of the power of either mathematics or logic. I am an
>>>>>> engineer.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you won't discuss it because, as an engineer, and hence as one
>>>>> familiar with bridges, moon shots, computers, the web, and the like
>>>>> that
>>>>> wouldn't exist but for the power of mathematics and logic, it isn't
>>>>> worth discussing something so obvious? Right on.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. That power is well documented and in evidence. But whether
>>>> mathematics can correctly capture "reality", as distinct from how
>>>> much
>>>> of the derived and quantified property called load it will take to
>>>> collapse the bridge, is not my concern.
>>>
>>> In brief: omit the scare quotes. By 'reality' I mean something very
>>> mundane. All I mean is that when an engineer does some calculations
>>> and then says "the cables aren't strong enough to support the deck",
>>> that she really is talking about the cables and the deck. That is
>>> what
>>> "reality" means in this example: the real, actual stuff that the
>>> engineer is concerned with, the stuff that will collapse into the
>>> river if mistakes are made. She is not talking about a model of the
>>> cables and the deck, or about representations of the cables and the
>>> deck. Who would care if a model or a representation fell into the
>>> river?
>>>
>>> Pat
>>
>>
>> My answer to that last question is: those who leave by that model
>> and representation do care.
>
>Um... not sure I can parse that. ("leave by that model"?)
>
>> Perhaps all they care about is the model, because all they know
>> about reality is the representation.
>
>Yes, of course. All we every know of reality is encoded in
>representations of it: mental representations, many of them. In fact
>the prime lesson of current cognitive science seems to be that we are
>in a very real sense made of representations, a kind of self-
>maintaining self-referential tower of representation. But it doesn't
>follow that these representations are not OF REALITY. To think that
>because all we have is a representation, that therefore the
>representation isn't really OF anything, is a very deep and pernicious
>fallacy. Representations are useful precisely because they are
>representations OF something real. If they were not, they would be no
>more use than dreams. When the Verrazano Narrows bridge collapsed, it
>was a real bridge that fell, not a model or a representation of a
>bridge.
>
>Pat
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|