Talk:Model-dependent realism: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John R. Brews
imported>John R. Brews
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:


The section [[Model-dependent realism#Background]] is very incomplete. Unfortunately, Hawking/Mlodinow make little effort to attach their theory to the very long line of earlier or even contemporary philosophical efforts. The introduction to the book by [http://books.google.com/books?id=lPaq8-dZ_L8C&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false Cao] outlines some of this history and introduces the subject of ''structural realism''. The article on ''scientific realism'' the [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/scientific-realism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] lists still more. There is a huge literature, and to place "model-dependent realism" in a proper context requires, in fact, a host of articles on these various topics that can be linked. Otherwise, this article on "model-dependent realism" will become two or three times its present length. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The section [[Model-dependent realism#Background]] is very incomplete. Unfortunately, Hawking/Mlodinow make little effort to attach their theory to the very long line of earlier or even contemporary philosophical efforts. The introduction to the book by [http://books.google.com/books?id=lPaq8-dZ_L8C&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false Cao] outlines some of this history and introduces the subject of ''structural realism''. The article on ''scientific realism'' the [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/scientific-realism/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] lists still more. There is a huge literature, and to place "model-dependent realism" in a proper context requires, in fact, a host of articles on these various topics that can be linked. Otherwise, this article on "model-dependent realism" will become two or three times its present length. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The viewpoint of “theory-dependent realism” being espoused in this book appears to be a kind of half-way house, objective reality being not fully abandoned, but taking different forms depending upon the particular theoretical perspective it is viewed from... [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdf3ae28-b6e9-11df-b3dd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1dbYVHaCB Penrose]
They advocate "model-dependent realism", which asserts that the "reality" of various elements of nature depends on the model through which one interprets them. This is an interesting approach to ontology, but it won't come as shocking news to philosophers who have thought about the problem. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575477583868227458.html Wall Street Journal]
The bulk of reviews focus upon the deliberately controversial elements of this book about God and the validity of ''M''-theory, none of which is important to the concept of "model-dependent realism". One gets the impression that this book was never a serious attempt at a scholarly position, but rather a gadfly to get discussion going. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:08, 13 November 2011

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A philosophical position that all we can know about reality consists of networks of world pictures that explain observations by connecting them by rules to concepts defined in models. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Philosophy, Physics and Biology [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Origin

This article was brought over from Reality and revised. This topic now is introduced there as a sub-topic Reality#Model-dependent realism . John R. Brews 16:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

The terms "world picture" and "physical theory" are stated by Hawking/Mlodinow to be (math+observations+connecting rules), but they don't always stick to this narrow definition. The term "world picture" is generalized to include any mental construct of reality. They also refer to a "model" as the mathematical part of a theory as distinct from the observational part, but they don't stick to this definition and sometimes use "model" as the same thing as "theory" or "world picture". Hence, quotations from this source can be confusing because one never knows which definition is in use except by reading entire pages for context. John R. Brews 12:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Background

The section Model-dependent realism#Background is very incomplete. Unfortunately, Hawking/Mlodinow make little effort to attach their theory to the very long line of earlier or even contemporary philosophical efforts. The introduction to the book by Cao outlines some of this history and introduces the subject of structural realism. The article on scientific realism the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists still more. There is a huge literature, and to place "model-dependent realism" in a proper context requires, in fact, a host of articles on these various topics that can be linked. Otherwise, this article on "model-dependent realism" will become two or three times its present length. John R. Brews 16:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The viewpoint of “theory-dependent realism” being espoused in this book appears to be a kind of half-way house, objective reality being not fully abandoned, but taking different forms depending upon the particular theoretical perspective it is viewed from... Penrose

They advocate "model-dependent realism", which asserts that the "reality" of various elements of nature depends on the model through which one interprets them. This is an interesting approach to ontology, but it won't come as shocking news to philosophers who have thought about the problem. Wall Street Journal

The bulk of reviews focus upon the deliberately controversial elements of this book about God and the validity of M-theory, none of which is important to the concept of "model-dependent realism". One gets the impression that this book was never a serious attempt at a scholarly position, but rather a gadfly to get discussion going. John R. Brews 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)