Guy Hoelzer  wrote in
news:brgdaa$1cjq$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> in article brcqkl$7rd$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, William Morse at
> wdmorse{at}twcny.rr.com wrote on 12/12/03 8:33 AM:

As an interesting aside, a number of my posts that were written over a 
period of several weeks all appeared on the newsgroup at once due to the 
vagaries of the internet. Several of these appeared to me to get more 
thoughtful replies than more timely follows. The result with any luck 
will be to get me less concerned with a timely respose and more concerned 
with a well thought out response


>> Which gets to the point of what the division is between entities.
>> This is ultimately meaningless, it is a result of the filter we
>> impose on the world as observer. Now we have to impose the filter, we
>> have to entify, because we cannot hold all that there is in our
>> heads. So we create a model, which loses information but allows us to
>> manipulate it. But the meaning  comes from the model. It is intrinsic
>> to the system only in the accuracy to which the system can be modeled
>> by a simpler system. 
 
> I agree that we do this, and that there can be some some heuristic
> value in doing so.  However, the fact that we arbitrarily entify
> nature to assist our understanding does not mean that real entities
> don't also exist in nature. I would argue that aligning the assumed
> agents of effect in our models with the real agents of effect in
> nature should be a primary goal of modelers. At least, identifying the
> real agents of effect in nature should be a primary goal of
> theoreticians, and modelers should always be careful to distinguish
> between real agents and arbitrarily entified aspects of nature. 
 

I can't tell if we have a real disagreement here. Models are constructed 
with agents, and those agents are not diffuse, although they can be 
modified to make them appear so. I am not so sure this is true of nature, 
which may be "by nature" (sorry) diffuse.   It is certainly possible in 
some cases to model what is in fact a large number of agents by a single 
lumped agent, and in this latter case we have created an arbitrary entity 
that I would not argue is real even if it is predictive. 

But we are starting to get into the question of an entity with this 
thought of a lumped agent- for instance a person. Is Guy Hoelzer an 
entity? What most of us would think of as "you" includes a whole lot of 
microfauna, some of whom you couldn't function well without. Are these 
hitchhikers separate entities? - many of them can't exist without you. In 
general when we construct a model that includes "Guy Hoelzers", we lump 
in the microfauna. Are they then the same entity as you? I would say no 
in a detailed view, but in a farther away view I wouldn't even have had 
the knowledge to answer the question. So from that standpoint I would 
have to say that entities do not exist independently of the filter we are 
imposing.


 
> 
> You seem to be arguing that science is a way of predicting rather than
> a way of knowing.  If so, I can't prove you wrong, but I would
> disagree.  I do agree that scientific progress ought to mean a better
> understanding and that unfounded teleological explanations do not
> represent progress.  On the other hand, founded teleological
> explanations can represent scientific progress, and that is something
> I am aiming for. 

I would guess that the reason you think you can't prove me wrong is 
related to why I think that science is based on prediction rather than 
"knowing". I have not yet seen a convincing proof that I and my 
perceptions of the world around me were not created one second ago. If 
that is possible, how can I "know" anything? I do not act on the 
assumption of instantaneous creation because it is not particularly 
useful. Now it is probably also true that to a certain extent I 
"believe" in science - partly because as a human I am evolved to base 
judgements on beliefs - but I try to pretend that I am agnostic, which is 
why I prefer describing science as a way of predicting rather than a way 
of knowing. I do agree that asking "why" is a useful exercise, so I like 
your aim of discovering founded teleological explanations. 

Yours,

Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/12/04 3:12:52 PM