On Sep 19, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Len Yabloko wrote:
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.
Not at all. I never said anything about being complete
. Of course all descriptions are incomplete. But they can still be true
. And the role of semantics is to account for this, analyze what it means, etc..
BTW, of course reality can be comprehended. We do it all the time. We don't ever get complete comprehension, maybe, if that means what I suspect you mean by it. But I didn't say anything about being complete (in this sense, ie comprehensive, all-knowing). But its still the actual bridge that falls into the river when the cables break, not our incomplete comprehension of it.
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
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
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
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
"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
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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile