geordief

You haven't addressed my point that I was mainly talking about the top model (eg a TOE) I only went into models in general as an after thought (and I am quite unschooled in models ). GR and similar theories have a particular place (pride of place) in the scheme of models . They are ideally "top models" and all the other models are beneath them in the hierarchy. This top model will ,arguably but not provably be forever one step behind what is being modeled as nobody can say that we will be able to model the physical universe completely .

I was referring to the model that will hopefully replace GR etc. Perhaps your models are models that apply to defined areas in physics that are practically set in stone. Even so ,if the top model is subject to continuous refinement then maybe the "sub-models" as it were may also be revised even if no actual improvement is noted.

That is how I see it . I use the terms "model" and "the modeled" (rather than "reality") "The modeled" is something we accept almost as as an article of faith and the model allows us to "see" what it looks like. But the "modeled" will always be one step ahead of the model

Thanks. Neither was I being sarcastic ,by the way. Actually far the greatest part of what I would consider to have learned on this forum is where I have been disabused of pre conceptions and this may require a few blows to the head from time to time

So Reativity's "flaws" are of a different nature to Newtonianism's? They just apply to the lack of applicability to the quantum domain and otherwise no flaws at all are apparent in the area it actually covers-whereas Newtonian physics was wrong in a more direct way

You are having a laugh or you think I am wasting my time and learning nothing?

So new models fit over old models like Russian dolls. What about my question though as to a patchwork quilt arrangement of models...Is that ruled out ? Do we have to have one model that rules them all or is an ad hoc arrangement feasible ? Is "adhocery" a sure signal that something is wrong or could the universe be built so that multiple models do apply and there really is no one"overarching" model ? (and never will be) Also ,is it possible that we are restricted in our understanding of the universe because we are a part of it and can never look at it from the outside.? Is there some kind of principle involved with that ?

Why? GR doesn't look like Newtonian physics,does it ? Wasn't Newtonian physics as right then as GR Is right now?

I will (but you may have to wait a while ) If GR is right then it seems it is possible for models to only apply under certain conditions. Is that a problem? If there is no model that applies in all circumstances we can imagine , is that a problem or is a patchwork quilt of models a reasonable method of analysing the physical processes we observe?

You mean I have to agree or not (that a human is an entity) ? Then ,I probably disagree on the basis it is not proven (to repeat what I already implied) Or do you want me to disprove what I simply think is unlikely or unprovable?

Do we agree that? It seems far from obvious to me.

Guilty , your honour. Are you not hoist on your own petard ? You have insisted that it all depends on the model you go by and are now bringing us back to relativity as if it has the top seat at the table. Relativity may be useless when applied to this kind of a reality /entity question (which may not be a proper question in the first place)

That is extremely questionable. Something that could exist without any attributes? As easy to require that something must have attributes to be considered as an entity in the first place. I know there may be a dictionary definition of "entity" that may specify an attributeless quality but I would not be inclined to go along with that. Rather no entities than such an appalling vista

Not what I had in mind. I wondered if even the unprocessed reality might be as likely to be multi-faceted as unitarian . I don't see any consequences that could be attached to it. except as a further invitation to treat the "reality" subject as just mind games(no harm in that of course) .

Brown pasta is higher GI and (for diabetics ) would cause less of a sugar surge. I doubt brown sugar is any better than white but it does taste more interesting sometimes. Just my feeling......

...is good advice but a bit impractical . Scientists (or people interested in science ) will never drop that subject and the best that can be done is to compartmentalize the question. My personal workaround is to refer to the model and the "modeled",.(evading the elephant in the room perhaps) As to actual nature of "reality" I wonder if it is infinitely multi -faceted or unitary ( but that is way off topic and completely speculative). A final point, much is made of different posters' "word salad" and it is plain to see at times but I do think clarity of language ,insofar as it is actually achievable is an important tool in the locker in these difficult subjects. pps: Is the "ontological" question actually an aide to scientific understanding like the pea under the princess' bed or or distraction from the task in hand?

At the time I entered the discussion I thought it was reasonable to talk of absolute darkness (perhaps as an example of any gap). Yes of course if you have a model that works in terms of gradations of light then total darkness is a limit of the lack of light reading. But even in this model does not the light reading have a different quality to the dark reading? It surely makes no sense to talk of light as an absence (inverse?) of darkness,does it whereas it may do the other way round . Why is that?

Was I not claiming that we cannot detect dark and so (according to that hypothesis ) any model would be equivalent in that regard.?

I didn't realize that I was arguing against that (I could easily have implied it without realizing it) Can you point out where I was doing or did that ? (or maybe I was off topic?) I hope that my lack of proper understanding of the subject is a given (if that has any bearing).

Are you getting round to saying that there are no areas without energy as I may have implied-and so no areas which can actually be described as dark? And so absolute darkness doesn't exist ,just gradations? Is that quantum theory?

I was thinking in terms of absolute darkness or presence of light. Did I lose the plot? Look at Swansont's post#66 that I answered.(and#63)

It seems so fundamental to me.. How would a choice of model change things? Any observation has to involve a signal from the area investigated and that signal can surely only emanate from an area that contains energy. It is possible to extrapolate from a collection of results that a particular local area is seemingly or probably devoid of "returns" and so ,in this case an area of darkness. But this "darkness finding" cannot be found directly -only by inference. Are there any models that allow one to detect darkness directly?

So how/where does my interpretation that you are detecting(or failing to detect ) light and deducing dark fall down? There is surely a hierarchy .You cannot fail to detect dark and deduce light ,can you?

The first time you see "bloob" it is meaningless. Second time around it has meanings.. Because you cannot detect dark?

No (if I am consistent) But it has (eg stumbling) effects. They are the effects (at a remove) of light It is the same question as to whether holes are real isn't it? If reality is information then my idea comes unstuck , think