= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on The Graviton as Aether - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (134)
I have to disagree with tommccabe - the fact is that model and theory are as different as technical manual and source code. There is only one perfect theory of reality - the theory that is reality - but innumerable models for different domains and purposes. Yes, many of our models began as theories, but that is because a good theory is by necessity a good model.
There can be many different parametrizations of the same surface, but they will each have the same topological and geometric properties.
So we could have several correct models--i.e. parametrizations which have the correct characteristics--and a single theory--i.e. set of characteristics with which to choose parametrizations. But each model will predict different yet-undiscovered characteristics. Using these new characteristics to make predictions would constitute different theories which are consistent-as-of-yet. Given the current state of quantum physics, different theories seem to be able to remain consistent for a while.
My use of model and theory have been prescriptive based on my interpretations of the thread below. I didn't intend this but all of the confusion and disagreement seems to have been in our minds.
We certainly seem to be arguing about words - you're probably right that the confusion is just in our minds.
You have a peculiar use of words reality and theory. I feel that theory and model are more or less the same - our ways to describe the reality. The word model is used when the description is not elegant and visibly incomplete. As for the analogy, you can have multiple source codes that do the same work. How do you establish which is the only perfect one, having access to the user interface only?
You have a peculiar use of the word model - up my alley, that word is used when you are analyzing a particular problem, however few approximations you make.
Well, maybe I am too much influenced by the Standard model of elementary particles. There are no important reasons why not call it a theory, IMO.
None of these terms have rigid definitions, it seems.
This doesn't seem right. A good model necessarily leaves things out; if you didn't need to leave out some details, then you'd use the object itself, not a model of it. But if a good theory is necessarily a good model, then a good theory also necessarily leaves something out. But then the theory can't be reality, since reality can't leave any of itself out of itself.
Unless it was more expensive to build the object than to build the model. Or if the design process required information in the model that is not obvious in the object.
But the true answer is "I meant 'good' in the sense of accurate to reality, not in the sense of 'computationally tractable'."
(Er, you might want to check the author, I did not write the above post.)
I did - I disagreed with your response to thomblake, but what I wanted to say was to thomblake, so I replied to him. If we were in a room, I would be facing him* and gesturing at you only to indicate that I was not supporting your argument.
I apologize for not being clear.
Edit: And further for not reading - you said model. I do not disagree, it appears.
* "Him", right? "Thom" sounds like a masculine.
Sure why not
Wait - is that "whatever pronoun you like, I don't mind" or "that's not the right deduction, but I am a man, so whatever"?
It took me a while to figure out how to answer this. Probably, "I don't care and won't object to you using that particular pronoun, and I generally don't see how my gender is anybody else's business."
Thank you for telling me.