Reality Cannot Be Directly Known So We Must Model It

[Sunstone]

I posted this quote in another thread, but I think the ideas it expresses need a thread of their own:

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

Do you agree or disagree with Einstein and Infeld? Why?

 

[Willamena]

Depends on how you define reality, what is "real" to you. If the picture is not enough to be "real," then... there you have it.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me Einstein and Infeld are pointing to the role and use of models in "figuring out reality". What do you think the significance of those models might be?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That we have to use language to describe reality hints at the encasing of the watch (to continue the metaphor).

 

[Super Universe]

I posted this quote in another thread, but I think the ideas it expresses need a thread of their own:

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

Do you agree or disagree with Einstein and Infeld? Why?

Einstein is correct in his comparison of reality to a person trying to understand a closed watch except... we can open the case.

 

[Sunstone]

Einstein is correct in his comparison of reality to a person trying to understand a closed watch except... we can open the case.

And in what way can we do that?

 

[Buttercup]

I posted this quote in another thread, but I think the ideas it expresses need a thread of their own:

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

Do you agree or disagree with Einstein and Infeld? Why?

I'm not smart enough to disagree with Einstein. Until man figures out how the watch mechanism works, it's all speculation. And even then it's possible there may be more than one way to get one to run.

Before man could fly DaVinci and others drew models illustrating the conjectured mechanics of flight. Until Orville and Wright were successful, sustained flight was a mystery.

So, while I do agree with Einstein, there is a way to figure out how that watch works, even though we can't see inside.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Because science depends on induction, we can never be 100% positive of the absolute truth of our scientific discoveries. However, intuition should tell us that there is a real basis for what we do know about nature.

 

[Willamena]

It seems to me Einstein and Infeld are pointing to the role and use of models in "figuring out reality". What do you think the significance of those models might be?

Reality is a model; each model is reality. They might have different perspectives and different angles, to view their subject in different ways or put their subject in different contexts, or different levels of complexity, or to achieve different purposes, but they are all real.

 

[logician]

Isnt't that what science is all about, trying to open the case?

 

[Fluffy]

Is Einstein not simply talking about the problem of induction?

If this is the case then I agree with him fully and would point to Popper for the alternative.

 

[Febble]

I posted this quote in another thread, but I think the ideas it expresses need a thread of their own:

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

Do you agree or disagree with Einstein and Infeld? Why?

Yes, I agree.

Moreover, I would say that we can only evaluate models on the basis of their usefulness, not on the basis of how closely they conform to reality, although how good their predictions are is one dimension along which they can be useful.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I posted this quote in another thread, but I think the ideas it expresses need a thread of their own:

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

Do you agree or disagree with Einstein and Infeld? Why?

I agree. We are limited by our own limitations of perception much like a record player can only translate so much of what was actually being played when recorded.

 

[Random]

I agree. We are limited by our own limitations of perception much like a record player can only translate so much of what was actually being played when recorded.

But...perception = Reality. No?

 

[Willamena]

Our models construct reality.

Anything more is "I don't know." "I guess." "This is what I imagine it to be."

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I posted this quote in another thread, but I think the ideas it expresses need a thread of their own:

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

Do you agree or disagree with Einstein and Infeld? Why?

There are at least 2 kinds of "knowing." This comment refers to only one of them. Reality can be experientially known directly, but this still involves conceptual interpretation. Various interpretations are not invalidated because concepts are wrong, but by the interpretor.

 

[sandandfoam]

I posted this quote in another thread, but I think the ideas it expresses need a thread of their own:

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

Do you agree or disagree with Einstein and Infeld? Why?

I wish you'd said it Sunstone because I hesitate to disagree with Einstein...
But I think we are more like a particle of a cog in the watch, we are not detached observers outside reality, we are tiny litle parts of reality.

 

[logician]

Yes, I agree.

Moreover, I would say that we can only evaluate models on the basis of their usefulness, not on the basis of how closely they conform to reality, although how good their predictions are is one dimension along which they can be useful.

Reliable data input into any model is as important as the model itself.

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[emiliano]

I posted this quote in another thread, but I think the ideas it expresses need a thread of their own:

"In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations."

Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution Of Physics

Do you agree or disagree with Einstein and Infeld? Why?

I have to say that I don’t agree, because the reality that we obtain from a model would be our very own reality and if is not accepted or shared by all other, it would be a delusion and not reality

 

[PureX]

A lot of people become frightened by this image, I think. Human beings survive and thrive by their 'cleverness': by knowing how reality works, and by manipulating it to their advantage. So when we're confronted with the idea that we DON'T know much about how reality works (or why), we become aware of our glaring vulnerability, and we become afraid. As a result, many of us will try to deny this realization. These folks will insist on pretending to themselves and to others what they DO know how and why it all works. And they will create religious and philosophical paradigms to promote and support this pretense.

Unfortunately, in following this path of willful denial of our own ignorance and vulnerability, these folks must then destroy, and discredit, and otherwise eliminate any and all evidence to the contrary in order to maintain their successful denial of it. And so they become the enemies and antagonists of those who are willing to recognize, explore, and report on the truth of the human condition. And sadly, those who would seek out the truth among us not only have to do battle with their own human ignorance and natural limitations, but they must also battle so many of their fellow humans, who have made truth the enemy of their preferred delusions.