Working within set parameters

[mrdim]

So, when reality does not fit our models, we default to the models, and not the reality which they are models of?

In a manner of speaking, yes, but at the same time we use these models of reality to make predictions. We cannot commit ourselves fully to reality in the current age, we must rely on and update existing frameworks until a better solution comes up. The actual problem is yet more complex, because reality is capable of such paradoxes as these, while at the same time, we are capable of finding solutions. What we have in common in the future may be unrecognisable to us now, in many ways, but it may still carry with it certain common features.

My theory about this is that change itself doesn't have to eradicate permanent constructs or mechanisms. But the complexity is currently too high for us to grasp and it's an unsolved problem. You're saying that it's all perfectly natural that systems and languages should change. I agree, but if you want to go further, then how do you define nature? Is there anything outside of nature, such as relations? Actually the problem of relations is a topic I have seen before on these forums.
As far as I remember, it asks: Is the universe composed of objects (or the very smallest compositional parts) without relations existing apart from these objects, or is there some way for us to determine that relations do in fact exist?

So for that question, I ask, what is nature? Does nature simply lead to change and divergence, or is there more to it?

In answer to your next question about practical experiences and how I learn from my experiences: I would simply say that our mental models of reality help govern our practical experiences, and that is how we perform 'correct' or 'favourable' actions
In relation to my previous point about nature, let us look into another question: What aspects of the universe are measurable in a continuous fashion? In other words, what aspects of the universe offer us a continual measurement of values, like width, height etc?

If there is scope for a continuous measurement of nature, where does that fit in with our common systems?
One useful example I can think of is entropy, for this discussion. Is it measured continuously, like anything that is classically measured, or is it random?

I know that entropy can be measured, but I don't know to what greater extent it can be measured.

As such, the models we create, complimenting our practical experiences, are faced with uncertainty, but at the same time, we can attempt to determine the different kinds of continuous measurements that will be available to us.

If we can measure things, then that is one example of some degree of certainty, but you are correct that it is largely our practical/mentally disciplined application of logic and reasoning that takes us to new levels of understanding.

As Angelo Cannata suggests, it is our sense of discipline that underlies or practical ability to make sense of life and the world. This has two meanings. First is that we are subjugated by the world. Second is that there is an apparent quality to the mental models we create to explain reality.

If we can exercise this sense of quality, we can improve our discipline. So my reality and my understanding of what comprises a 'quality' thought, is different from someone else's.

I think that we can allow ourselves to open up to new experiences and possibilities, and reinforce the quality of our existence, but we need some underlying certainty with regards to quality.


I hope I have made sense of this complicated subject, to myself and others. Thank you for your contributions so far. I look forward to seeing if I've made a mess of my arguments or if I have made sense.

I would also like to thank Angelo Cannata for your useful comments.

[mrdim]

I want to add a new method to my list of explorations as well.

Reality must have a way of sorting information, like a deck of cards perhaps.

If we could immediately find the card we are looking for in a deck of cards, then this is the probability that we may seek.

It is possibly about finding probability, such as if we were to choose from either qualities or relations, and find either one immediately.

In life, we find many probabilities, but there are so many accidental events that we come across.

Creating an independent event not contingent upon other things, might require. an adjustment of our approach to probability. Finding qualities or relations quickly.

On the other hand, there may be no actual qualities or relations in the universe. Nonetheless, if we find these as if they were accessible probabilities - - a shortcut, if you will, then that may create better results.

Sorry for the double post. Thought I would get that out of the way.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, when reality does not fit our models, we default to the models, and not the reality which they are models of?

In a manner of speaking, yes, but at the same time we use these models of reality to make predictions. We cannot commit ourselves fully to reality in the current age, we must rely on and update existing frameworks until a better solution comes up.

I think you may have misunderstood the point I am making. Have you heard of the logical fallacy, normally described as “the illusion of mistaking the map for the territory”? Here we have reality - the territory - and our models (maps). Reality, the territory, is the Master; the Reference by which all else is judged. Then there are our models, "frameworks", or maps, that represent our understanding of the territory. They represent the territory, but they are not the territory.

So when you comment that, if there should be any confusion, we should retreat to our maps, and set aside the territory, I think you have it the wrong way around.

[mrdim]

So when you comment that, if there should be any confusion, we should retreat to our maps, and set aside the territory, I think you have it the wrong way around.

Okay, well I think I see what you are saying. I wasn't saying that it is a case of either/or, I think that we can rely on both to make sense of each other. It just so happens that for practical purposes we must rely on existing frameworks to help us through the problems in the master territory. There is of course chance for confirmation bias in both the map and the territory, so both rely on each other.

If someone did have a radical theory about 'change' in the universe, then first it would have to agree with some kind of existing foundational premise, or at least we would have to alter our existing methods dramatically but slowly over time, assuming there would be no dramatic new technologies attached to the discovery.

I think that humanity has reached a stage in scientific progress where the frameworks and models of reality are so well calculated, that even if they are incorrect, it would take time to alter them rather than simply ripping them out.

However, a new technology could alter our existence in a dramatic way. In that respect, it is unknown what parts of the frameworks would be altered. But there will most likely be left behind some commonality that we can refer to.

With the subject of 'change', we do not currently know exactly what will change.

[Pattern-chaser]

So when you comment that, if there should be any confusion, we should retreat to our maps, and set aside the territory, I think you have it the wrong way around.

Okay, well I think I see what you are saying. I wasn't saying that it is a case of either/or, I think that we can rely on both to make sense of each other.

I'm sorry, I still haven't managed to communicate my point to you. The territory is 'reality', or 'the world'. It is, in general, too big and complicated for us, so we create maps to help us navigate the territory.

We do not "rely on both to make sense of each other", we rely on our maps to help us make sense of the territory. But, and this is the important bit, if there is ever a contradiction between the map and the territory, it is always the map that is wrong. It cannot be otherwise. 'Reality' is never wrong; it cannot be wrong.

[Angelo Cannata]

I think the discussion between map and territory isn't so simple: what we call "territory" is always filtered by some map.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the discussion between map and territory isn't so simple: what we call "territory" is always filtered by some map.

Yes, indeed so. As I said:

The territory is 'reality', or 'the world'. It is, in general, too big and complicated for us, so we create maps to help us navigate it.

[Angelo Cannata]

I mean, whenever we think we are trying to adapt our maps to the territory, actually we are adapting it to another map that we think closer to the territory. In this situation it can happen easily that while we think we are adapting our map to the territory, actually we are doing the opposite, we are going further away from the territory.

[Pattern-chaser]

I mean, whenever we think we are trying to adapt our maps to the territory, actually we are adapting it to another map that we think closer to the territory.

Although we use maps as I have described, I think, we can also over-think this. The territory is reality; it is what it is. Because it is so complicated, we make maps to help us navigate. Our maps are subject to constant improvement, where possible, but the territory - reality - is not. When we improve our maps, we are substituting one map for another, better, one. The new one still maps reality like the old one did, but does it better.

To do as you describe is to make the mistake we are trying to avoid: mistaking the territory for the map, or vice versa.

[mrdim]

It certainly seems clearer to me now, what you are saying.

Presumably the best way of exploring reality, to the best of our ability, is to use empirical methods which we can say are more physical than mental analysis or theoretical maps.

The problem, in the case that I have stated, would be to validate the mental representation that there is change in the universe. This is similar to asking if time exists. There is no absolute proof that time exists, but for practical purposes the theory of relativity helps us explore the concept of time.

Therefore we can state based on our relative perception of time that "event X occurred at moment Y." generically speaking (but I'm not sure to what precision this can be calculated, since time is relative to the observer).

So we must begin with the premise that time is similar to our concept of change, and our relative perceptions allow us to observe this.

If we are to say that we do not have a complete theory for 'change' in the universe, so we should instead use the existing models and frameworks until we can explain it: You're right in one sense that we must avoid retreating to the map and discarding the territory, because a great deal of scientific postulates will not offer the same degree of accuracy as say, the Hafele Keating experiment with the clocks.

To what degree of accuracy modern experiments offer compared to this, I do not know.

However, it seems to me that there is an iterative process involved in science, where the magnitude (the potential effectiveness) of theory, informs practical measurements.

In that case, the iterative process of 'perfecting' formulas and equations, is enough to justify a conceptual framework that we can use to sustain current theories and maps, even when reality (the territory) throws us surprises, or data that we can't make sense of.

For practical purposes we cannot measure all of reality at once.

But we seem to agree that reality can be measured in different forms.

I think that actually you are incorrect in saying that we don't use one to make sense of the other. I think it's clear that we use the territory to make sense of measurements, which are themselves abstract and contain their own unique point of reference in our understanding of the world, or the universe.

Now, I think, if measurements could be replaced with something that characteristically exists for what it actually is, and not what it represents, then there would be no dualism between reality and our map of reality.

However, I assume that there is some dualism in the universe, and that measurable properties eventually fall under this dualism, rather than everything simply 'being as one.'

So I think that when you suggest that I'm committing a fallacy, we can only look to what we can practically determine and make iterative, and not beyond.

Thank you for your insightful comments.

[Pattern-chaser]

Presumably the best way of exploring reality, to the best of our ability, is to use empirical methods which we can say are more physical than mental analysis or theoretical maps.

...

If we are to say that we do not have a complete theory for 'change' in the universe, so we should instead use the existing models and frameworks until we can explain it

...

it seems to me that there is an iterative process involved in science, where the magnitude (the potential effectiveness) of theory, informs practical measurements.

In that case, the iterative process of 'perfecting' formulas and equations, is enough to justify a conceptual framework that we can use to sustain current theories and maps, even when reality (the territory) throws us surprises, or data that we can't make sense of.

All of the things I've highlighted are maps, or mapping-tools. There's nothing wrong with them, or with using them; we have no choice, as the universe is too big for us to swallow in one bite.

I think that actually you are incorrect in saying that we don't use one to make sense of the other. I think it's clear that we use the territory to make sense of measurements, which are themselves abstract and contain their own unique point of reference in our understanding of the world, or the universe.

These measurements are empirical observations of the territory. There are concrete, not abstract. Things start to get abstract when we analyse our data, and start to interpret it. N.B. that interpretation includes fitting the new data into our world-models (maps), so that they become more easily comprehensible to us.

[mrdim]

All I would say is that we use laws and models to the extent at which they are still useful to us. Such as Newton's laws, which, if we were to interpret them as false because of Einstein's theory of relativity, we would be missing the point. Newton's laws have been reduced in scope but they are still effective on some level.

Even if our interpretation of Newton's laws is wrong, we are not yet aware of how to correct this problem in interpretation, because the laws can still be of use to us.

That means in science, people have to exercise judgement, and a case of successive interpretation isn't the only factor.

I do agree however that if interpretations are wrong in our models, then that can lead to further wrong interpretations as a sort of succession of failures.

(If I'm still way off the mark, maybe you could provide an example of how new theories of change in the universe would cause us to update our models of reality using the data available, without relying too much on information that could be out of date when attempting to sustain our judgement of what is effective and what isn't?)

I appreciate that you are only human and may have limited patience.