Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Yanniru, On Models And Designs.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on June 3, 2003 03:22:02 UTC

Hi Yanniru,

I have hidden "whomi" and "bruce". Since then I have noticed (when I am not logged on) that hiding someone also hides the entire thread beyond them which means I miss a lot of posts from other people. I know you commented about the difference between a model and a design somewhere but I can't find it anymore.

I am sorry but as I am the only person who currently understands what I am talking about, I will take the liberty to explain the difference between a model and a design.

Design - Verb transitive: 1. To plan; make preliminary sketches of; sketch a pattern or an outline for. 2. To form in the mind; contrive. 3. To plan to do; purpose; intend. 4. To intend to set apart for some purpose. Verb intransitive: 1. To make designs. 2. To make original plans, sketches, patterns etc. Noun: 1. A plan; scheme; project. 2. Purpose; intention; aim. 3. A thing planned for or outcome aimed at. 4. A working out by plan; as, do we find a design in history. 5. (Plural) A secret or sinister scheme (often with on or upon); as, he has designs on her property. 6. A plan or sketch to work from; pattern; as a design for a house. 7. The art of making designs or patterns. 8. The arrangement of parts, details, form, color, etc., especially so as to produce a complete and artistic unit; artistic invention; as the design of a rug. 9. A finished artistic work.
For synonym see intend, plan.

Strange that the word "model" does not appear there anywhere!

Model - Noun: 1. a) A small copy or imitation of an existing object, as a ship, building, etc. made to scale. b) A preliminary representation of something, serving as the plan from which the final, usually larger, object is to be constructed. c) A piece of sculpture in wax or clay from which a finished work in bronze, marble, etc. is to be made. 2. A person or thing considered as a standard of excellence to be imitated. 3. A style or design; as last years model of automobile. 4. a) A person who poses for an artist or photographer, b) A person, especially a woman, employed to display cloths by wearing them; mannequin. Adjective: serving as a model, pattern, or standard of excellence. Verb transitive: 1. a) To make a model of. b) To plan, form, or design after a model. c) to make conform to a standard of excellence; as he modeled his behavior on that of his father. 2. To display (a dress, etc.) by wearing. Verb intransitive: 1. To make a model or models; as she models in clay. 2. To serve as a model (Noun #4). 3. In painting, drawing, etc., to take on a three-dimensional appearance as a result of contrast in lighting and color.
For synonym see example, pattern, paradigm, archetype, standard.

Now the word "design" appears twice in that definition. This indicates that when we use the word "model" we can be implying design of some sort. I would say that, from the definition above, the word model can be used to refer to a particular design or a model may be used as an aid in the creation of a design and that is about the limit of it.

From the opposite direction, we only have implications to go by. Since a model could be included in the class of "things" and we can "design" things it seems reasonable that one could design a model (a trivial comment).

Anything beyond this would require some serious argument. A design is not a model and a model is not a design. Of course that is excepting the case where the word "model" is used to refer to a specific design in a set of many, which I am sure is not the use applicable here.

My presentation rests on three very important issues. Two of them are answers to questions I have given to Harv and one is the concept of using numbers to label things. Starting with the questions:

1) Does the pipeline I refer to exist?

If your answer is no then forget everything I have said as without the concept of "illusions", our perceptions simply do not even make any sense to me.

And #5

5) Is it reasonable to assume that everyone's pipeline (their subconscious) works exactly the same as everyone else's?

If your answer is yes then forget everything I have said as I have absolutely no idea as to how it functions.

If your answers to one and five are yes and no then the following should make sense to you:

On the source end of the pipeline is "reality" on the destination end of the pipeline is "your mental image of reality". Any communicable concept of either end may be represented by set of numbers (concept number 3).

And, for you people who think you have a mental image of reality which includes incommunicable concepts, then just give it a number and anytime you want to refer to it, just use the number so I know you are referring to an incommunicable concept. If you have more than one, just use more labels. At any rate, anything you can communicate to me is representable in the form of numbers.

So a set of numbers go in one end of the pipeline and another set of numbers come out the other end of the pipeline. I have no idea how the "real" pipeline in my head works nor do I have any idea how anyone else's works; however, I do have indications that they all don't work the same. So, just for the fun of it, suppose I just design a pipeline to my own specifications. I am not modeling anyone's pipeline. All I am doing is designing a pipeline which transforms one set of numbers into another set of numbers. Set #1 is transformed via my designed pipeline into Set #2.

Now, to Set #2 I assign meaning and thus create a imaginary "mental image" of Set #1. Ignore all my arguments as to why I assign any particular meaning (as I clearly do it because I like the result I obtain, the whole thing can be regarded as a trick but a very nice trick anyway). In particular, the meanings I assign to Set #2 (by the time you finish chapter 2) are just coordinates of events (call them particles if you wish) in a four dimensional universe (x,y,z and tau) which evolve in time. This is a constructed "mental image" of whatever is on the other end of the pipeline; a possible way of looking at reality (as seen through my constructed pipeline).

What is important is that I have made no constraints at all on Set #1. That means Set #1 may be absolutely any communicable concept of anything! Set #2 is always a possible way of perceiving it.

Of what value is that? Why it's very simple. It makes absolutely no difference what Set #1 is, it can always be seen as a universe consisting of particles which obey Newton's laws in the classical limit, obey relativistic mechanics when velocities are large, obey General relativistic relationships when energy density is large and obeys quantum mechanics whenever looked at in close detail.

So, I have designed an analytical pipeline which will transform absolutely any random collection of data into a mental image 100% consistent with the mental image of reality I was trained to accept as a Ph.D. in theoretical physics. Since my pipeline makes utterly no constraint at all on the input end, it means that it makes no difference what is at that end (even your supernatural effects Harv), the deductions I make are absolutely true. Put it this way, the output of my pipeline is a paradigm which constrains the input in no way and yet it provides us with great powers of correlation and deduction. A pragmatic position if I ever saw one.

If anyone can understand that, there is much much more to talk about. Things which are not even touched in my paper.

Have fun -- Dick

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins