#model-dependent realism

[itsyaboyeric]

I try not to get too worried about what other people think about me after having realized that the only way people are able to judge you is via using themselves as a barometer to compare; and, that the circumstances of everyone's life are truly and wholly different.

I think that casting judgment is a great limiter in not only how one perceives others, but also sees themselves.

One time, while eavesdropping on the people directly behind, I overheard them gawking at my bed head hair. Initially, this perturbed me and the thought of turning around to say something crossed my mind. But instead, I had an epiphany about the role of perception in social relationships: these people were not talking about me in an earnest sense. To them, I was an abstraction to compare themselves to and engage with one another. Turning around to give them a piece of my mind would only foster that connection!

(Post inspired by my friend @katherinemargot !)

[saintkevorkian]

model-dependent realism, from The Grand Design, 2010. Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking

[saintkevorkian]

model-dependent realism, from The Grand Design, 2010. Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking

[jtvelikovsky]

StoryAlity#167 - Model-Dependent Realism

StoryAlity#167 – Model-Dependent Realism

On: Model-Dependent Realism

I don’t use the term “Scientific Theory”, I use the term “Scientific Model”.

…And why?

At least 3 reasons:

1) So a layperson can never (mistakenly!) say: “It’s just a theory-?” when we’re talking about: Science!

2) It means you need: a Model. A diagram. A flowchart. (Words are a very low-bandwidth communication channel. A picture’s worth 1k words & a symbol’s worth 1k…

View On WordPress

[thesleepinggardener]

While reading The Grand Design, I was introduced to the concept of model-dependent realism. In other words the idea that “If there are two models that both agree with observation, […] then one cannot say that one is more real than another.” I’m sorry Hawking if I’m a bit late to this train, I guess I just didn’t know this is how people do physics nowadays.

While one might be tempted by this approach to quote Ms. Storm in Tim Minchin’s song with the same name; “You can’t know anything, knowledge is merely opinion,” there is a catch however which differs model-dependent realism from, say, relativism (not to be confused with relativity). While the former allows for the length of an object to be dependent on the relative speed of the observer, without ever commenting on the actuality of such a concept, the latter claims that nothing can be said about the length at all. Thus, though both views argue that the true nature of reality is irrelevant (actually relativism argues rather that “true nature” is nonexistent altogether), model-based realism provides (or requires) a framework of laws to dictate why and when observations differ, while relativism invites to complete anarchy. Anyways, it is model-based realism that let us accept for instance the dual properties of photons.

Applied to Love, a concept which has been bugging me for years, it would allow for a belief based upon selective observation, regardless of the true nature of the concept (as long as one formulates laws dictating its behavior). One can then avoid to refute the hypothesis altogether based on countless of evidence. Hence Love can exist and not exist at the same time, much like Schrödinger's cat. This is all very cool, especially if you also believe in Alternative histories.