You can discuss most topics without bringing the notion of reality into the argument. Replace “true” with “accurate”, where “accurate” relates to predictions a model makes. Then all your reality zoo collapses into that one point.
If you replace “true” with “accurate,” what does “accurate” mean?
I would have thought that “accurate” means that the distance between the model result and the true result is small, so it contains a notion of truth and a notion of distance.
That’s relative to your concerns. I could add a sixth.
Theres something to be said for ontological parsimony , and there’s something to be said for explanatory comprehensiveness. They are both values, so there is no completely objective resolution.
I could add that, even if you are not interested in social constructs, like money or morals, they are interested in you.
You can discuss most topics without bringing the notion of reality into the argument. Replace “true” with “accurate”, where “accurate” relates to predictions a model makes. Then all your reality zoo collapses into that one point.
If you replace “true” with “accurate,” what does “accurate” mean?
I would have thought that “accurate” means that the distance between the model result and the true result is small, so it contains a notion of truth and a notion of distance.
If you have a narrower definition of truth, you can do less with it.
I’m sure there is a sweet spot. Having 5 different definitions of reality is not it.
That’s relative to your concerns. I could add a sixth.
Theres something to be said for ontological parsimony , and there’s something to be said for explanatory comprehensiveness. They are both values, so there is no completely objective resolution.
I could add that, even if you are not interested in social constructs, like money or morals, they are interested in you.
OP is primarily describing different things that people mean by “existing”, not prescribing them.