I am building a model of an explanation of the elements of set A. B is a mental construct! It is "defined" to be a finite unordered set of elements of A. My model is very simply that some elements of A are available to me and I am calling that collection of those elements B. That is, some information about whatever it is that I am trying to explain or understand is available to me. Here I am taking the terms "explain" and "understand" to be equivalent in the sense that, if you cannot explain something, you must not understand it and, from the other side of the coin, if you do not understand something you certainly are not qualified to explain it... [You] would comprehend that, even if B vanishes, my modeling approach is still valid. As B is that part of A which is available to be used in solving the problem, if B vanishes, it merely means then what you have to work with contains no elements of A whatsoever certainly a circumstance which is possible... If you understand what I have said above, you should understand that my model applies just as well to both cases (realism and anti-realism) and the truth of my deductions does not depend the existence or non-existence of A. As an aside, if B vanishes (i.e., no possible collections of elements of A exist or can exist) then I think most rational people would deduce that A does not exist.

Question 4: Is your model a physical model? That is, do you agree that a physical model that introduces sets must show how those sets are reducible (in principle) to a composition of something physical (e.g., atoms)?

For example, you cannot have a physical model that models an immaterial God because an immaterial God is not reducible to a composition of atoms. If you model a concept such as 'information', it is understood that you are modeling something physical such as doped silicon, brain neurons, ink on paper, etc.

• It is a Logical model: a procedure! - doctordick - October 23, 2004 - 14:23 UTC