So, you and shminux both seem to agree that there exists some X such that X determines observations, and that there exists some Y such that we use Y to constrain our predictions. You label (X,Y) (“reality”,”model”). Shminux labels (X,Y) (“repeatably testable model”,”model”).
Is there a situation where one framework makes different predictions than the other? More generally, is there anything y’all are actually disagreeing about, other than labels?
It sounds like you both agree, for example, that different observers can share an X while having different Ys, as can the same observer at different times, and that different Ys can vary in terms of how closely they approximate X, and that it’s best to adopt the most reliably X-approximating Ys I can.
What don’t you agree on?
I admit I find shminux’s labeling a little bizarre, as it leads me to say things like “the behavior of a Neandrathal hunter who falls off a cliff is constrained by a repeatably testable model”, but pretty much whatever labels I use I will end up saying some bizarre things about how the world really works, so that doesn’t bug me too much.
EDIT: Based on discussions below, I revise my understanding of the Xs and Ys to: (X,Y)minibearrex (“reality”,”set of models”). (X,Y)shminux (“set of repeatably testable models”,”set of models”).
So, you and shminux both seem to agree that there exists some X such that X determines observations, and that there exists some Y such that we use Y to constrain our predictions.
That is not quite the model of natural science I have in my mind. Yes, experimental testing is used to check models’ validity, but I never said that the results of this testing are determined by a single coherent whole ‘X’. The model of having such an ‘X’ works well in classical physics, including the unfortunate dude from the Simple Truth. It does not work well in QM. Specifically, it makes one ask questions like “what is the momentum and position of a particle, really?” (incidentally, this one EY has dealt with quite well in his QM sequence). Unfortunately, the mental model of a fixed underlying territory keeps leading one astray with questions like “do many worlds exist?”, “does wave function collapse violate relativity?”. Once you reformulate the questions as “what predictions does the MWI make?” and “How do we detect violation of relativity in the collapse model?”, the questions are immediately dissolved.
If all we have is observations and models and predictions, and the whole enterprise of trying to reason about whatever might underlie those observations is misguided, presumably abstract assertions like “there exists a single X” or “there exists more than one X” are also misguided except insofar as they can be grounded out in differential predictions about future events.
That is, I don’t see how the distinction you’re drawing here between those two superficially distinct accounts is at all meaningful on your ontology.
If all we have is observations and models and predictions, and the whole enterprise of trying to reason about whatever might underlie those observations is misguided
That is the minimal model I currently prefer, yes. And “the whole enterprise of trying to reason about whatever might underlie those observations” is not misguided, it’s useful for coming up with better models, but that’s all it is useful for. Assigning it any ontology is unnecessary.
That is, I don’t see how the distinction you’re drawing here between those two superficially distinct accounts is at all meaningful on your ontology.
I am not drawing any distinction, neither matters in the approach “build models and test them”. You are the one who started discussing some metaphysical “X”, I simply pointed out that your suggestion of a single “X” is not a requirement.
You raised the question of whether X refers to a “single coherent whole” entity or refers to multiple entities (e.g., multiple repeatably testable models).
Which, as I said, puzzled me, since my understanding was that on your account that’s a meaningless question. And it sounds like we agree that on your account it’s a meaningless question.
I’m still not really sure why you chose to raise it in the first place, but I hope we can agree that the proper thing to do with a meaningless question is to point out why it’s meaningless and otherwise ignore it.
So, you and shminux both seem to agree that there exists some X such that X determines observations, and that there exists some Y such that we use Y to constrain our predictions.
You label (X,Y) (“reality”,”model”).
Shminux labels (X,Y) (“repeatably testable model”,”model”).
Is there a situation where one framework makes different predictions than the other?
More generally, is there anything y’all are actually disagreeing about, other than labels?
It sounds like you both agree, for example, that different observers can share an X while having different Ys, as can the same observer at different times, and that different Ys can vary in terms of how closely they approximate X, and that it’s best to adopt the most reliably X-approximating Ys I can.
What don’t you agree on?
I admit I find shminux’s labeling a little bizarre, as it leads me to say things like “the behavior of a Neandrathal hunter who falls off a cliff is constrained by a repeatably testable model”, but pretty much whatever labels I use I will end up saying some bizarre things about how the world really works, so that doesn’t bug me too much.
EDIT: Based on discussions below, I revise my understanding of the Xs and Ys to:
(X,Y)minibearrex (“reality”,”set of models”).
(X,Y)shminux (“set of repeatably testable models”,”set of models”).
That is not quite the model of natural science I have in my mind. Yes, experimental testing is used to check models’ validity, but I never said that the results of this testing are determined by a single coherent whole ‘X’. The model of having such an ‘X’ works well in classical physics, including the unfortunate dude from the Simple Truth. It does not work well in QM. Specifically, it makes one ask questions like “what is the momentum and position of a particle, really?” (incidentally, this one EY has dealt with quite well in his QM sequence). Unfortunately, the mental model of a fixed underlying territory keeps leading one astray with questions like “do many worlds exist?”, “does wave function collapse violate relativity?”. Once you reformulate the questions as “what predictions does the MWI make?” and “How do we detect violation of relativity in the collapse model?”, the questions are immediately dissolved.
If all we have is observations and models and predictions, and the whole enterprise of trying to reason about whatever might underlie those observations is misguided, presumably abstract assertions like “there exists a single X” or “there exists more than one X” are also misguided except insofar as they can be grounded out in differential predictions about future events.
That is, I don’t see how the distinction you’re drawing here between those two superficially distinct accounts is at all meaningful on your ontology.
That is the minimal model I currently prefer, yes. And “the whole enterprise of trying to reason about whatever might underlie those observations” is not misguided, it’s useful for coming up with better models, but that’s all it is useful for. Assigning it any ontology is unnecessary.
I am not drawing any distinction, neither matters in the approach “build models and test them”. You are the one who started discussing some metaphysical “X”, I simply pointed out that your suggestion of a single “X” is not a requirement.
You raised the question of whether X refers to a “single coherent whole” entity or refers to multiple entities (e.g., multiple repeatably testable models).
Which, as I said, puzzled me, since my understanding was that on your account that’s a meaningless question.
And it sounds like we agree that on your account it’s a meaningless question.
I’m still not really sure why you chose to raise it in the first place, but I hope we can agree that the proper thing to do with a meaningless question is to point out why it’s meaningless and otherwise ignore it.
As far as I can tell, you are the one who invented “X”, no? I never said I need it, just pointed out certain flaws with it.
I suppose it is not meaningless in any model that includes X, and the one I favor does not. I hope we agree on at least that much.
Tapping out.