Invariance.

[Zarathustra]

An analogy is (1) a similarity between two things that are otherwise dissimilar, and (2) a comparison based on such a similarity.

Given that mathematics and reality are always going to have the fundamental difference of ideal vs actual, every possible mathematical description is equally dissimilar to reality in this regard. However, the fact that mathematical models can accurately describe reality (i.e. the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" ) implies that the ideal is instantiated in the actual ... so this dissimilarity diminishes as those models approach greater accuracy.

So as mathematical models increase in accuracy, we're talking less and less about "two similar things that are otherwise dissimilar," i.e. an analogy, and more and more about the very structure of physical reality.

We're not merely making comparisons between models and reality, we're also making predictions of new phenomena and connections between previously known phenomena on the basis of these models. If the models were only connected to reality by way of comparison, this would not be possible. It is only possible in virtue of the model actually capturing/elucidating/explaining a feature of reality.

Explanation is not comparison. Explanation is not the recognition of similarities between things that are otherwise dissimilar. Explanation is a deepening understanding of reality in the sense of understanding the very organization principles by which it is comprised and by which it evolves into new states. Again, if these underlying principles were not accurately grasped (an act of comprehension well beyond the scope of any mere comparison), then building upon that understanding (e.g. predictions and technology) would not be possible.

For example: I can make an analogy between a car and a cart. They are two things with wheels that can move about (and in every other sense dissimilar). However, this comparison in no way elucidates the nature of the automobile. It does not make it possible to explain how cars move on their own power, much less how to reproduce that technology yourself.

See what I mean?

What you guys are doing is making an analogy between scientific explanations and analogies, and then confusing this former analogy for the latter. It's circular reasoning.*

*[edit: to be fair to WF, he did say that models are like analogies. I agree that one can draw certain parallels between the two concepts, but--as I understand WF's apparent meaning--similarities don't necessarily imply an identity between two things. So, I'll accept that mathematical models are superficially like analogies, but in their most important roles, they are nothing at all like analogies.]

[peter]

Analogy is all we have however; even the image in front of our eyes in not in front of our eyes - a simulacrum of what is really out there, one thing used to describe another.

[Fist and Faith]

If that was an analogy, we wouldn't have the word "analogy" with a different definition.

[Zarathustra]

Analogy is all we have however; even the image in front of our eyes in not in front of our eyes - a simulacrum of what is really out there, one thing used to describe another.

FF is right; that's not an analogy. The link between the image we see in our brain and the object in front of our eyes is not a linkage of comparison. It's a causal linkage, cause/effect. With analogies, you don't have a situation where one half is causing the other. In perception, the two halves are linked inextricably, not just accidentally due to a purported similarity assigned to them.

I think "in our heads" is more figurative than "in front of our eyes." We don't ever experience the world as "in our heads." Perception isn't an analogy being made between something you experience in your head and something else outside you. Perception is a form of being-in-the-world. Our lives are not analogies. You are already-always in the world. It is only when we take a step back from our "natural attitude" (as Husserl called it) and hold the world in abeyance that analogies to alleged events "inside our heads" (a category which we never experience) become possible. We can make analogies between our perceptual experience and events in our brains, but in-the-world is our experience. In-our-head is a concept.

Now, I understand that our experiences are generated by a brain that is literally in our heads. But that's an explanation that depends upon brains being objects in the world which we can perceive. If all I ever have is my perception, and perception is only ever in my brain, then the very possibility that brains are objects in the world arises from the very same confusion you were trying to clarify by saying I don't really see things "in front of my eyes." If I can only experience things "in my head," then I don't really have a basis to say that I have a head, because there are no heads "in my head" for me to experience. Heads would be just more analogies, on this view. Therefore, the claim that "we can only see images in our heads" rests upon the very thing you are trying to avoid. Even worse: it turns "in your head" into an analogy, so that even your literal claim becomes contradictory metaphor.

Something more is going on here. If all we have are images in our heads, then we don't even have that.

[Vraith]

If that was an analogy, we wouldn't have the word "analogy" with a different definition.

Well, that's not correct...or do I mean right? Maybe...but WHICH right???

We often have different words for the same thing.

We also have words that are near to others, meaning-wise, because we are drawing distinctions of degree/particularity.

Sometimes it's just a random evolution of language from its roots. If I had the time to look [because nothing is just popping into my head] I'd bet there are a lot of English synonyms where one word came from the Latin, one the Greek, one the Germanic, but all still used. Many words that are the same...but have definitions different, even OPPOSITE meanings.
[[Cleave---]].

Also, there are several additional---and more important/accurate in this context---definitions of analogy.
For instance, it means a correspondence between things. There is a correspondence between the light out there and the light in my head. A "model" even. [[a causal relationship]]
There is a correspondence between the math and the thing. [[not at all causal, unless the LHC has discovered "mathions"]]
Other relevant meanings, as well. [one related to logic, for instance].

[peter]

V. accurately describes the way I was using analogy there, as 'correspondence or partial similarity' (Google, secondary defn.), but I'm interested in Z's statement that the relationship between the image our brain produces in order for us to be able to navigate ourselves through the physical world (in the broadest sense of the term) and the actual 'true' nature of that world (before passing through the filter of our senses) is one of causality. Can this be right (in the direction that I think Z means it, ie from world {as cause}, to our picture of it, {as effect}). Surely if there is a causal relationship at all it is in the opposite direction - that of us causing our image of the world to be superimposed upon that framework which is the real world 'out there'. And what of a bat; does the effect produced by the cause differ depending on whether it has passed through the 'bat filter' or the 'human filter' (in which ever direction)?

(Apologies guys - I feel I ramble! )

[Zarathustra]

I'm interested in Z's statement that the relationship between the image our brain produces in order for us to be able to navigate ourselves through the physical world (in the broadest sense of the term) and the actual 'true' nature of that world (before passing through the filter of our senses) is one of causality. Can this be right (in the direction that I think Z means it, ie from world {as cause}, to our picture of it, {as effect}). Surely if there is a causal relationship at all it is in the opposite direction - that of us causing our image of the world to be superimposed upon that framework which is the real world 'out there'.

I'm not sure what you mean by "superimposed upon that framework which is the real world 'out there'." It's an interaction. Photons hit our eyes, causing a chain of effects through our visual apparatus (eye, retina, brain). So that causal direction is from the world to us. Now, what our brain does with that input--from putting it together to acting upon it--is a reversal of that causal chain back out to the world. I'll concede that. However, what our brain does with the sensory input to put together a picture is informed by the world itself, especially in the context of natural selection. If our brain took that sensory input and made images of flat plains when we actually faced a sheer fall from a high cliff, we wouldn't live long enough to reproduce. Sure, our perception of reality is fallible and inaccurate to a certain degree, but it's accurate enough to navigate this world and survive. That could not be possible with an arbitrary level of inaccuracy. It is fixed at some limit. Try and drive at night with bad eyesight, and you'll find that limit fairly quickly! Indeed, the fact that we can tell the difference between bad eyesight and sharp vision means there is a standard by which to measure eyesight, and that standard is a match with the world. I do not produce legible script with my mind; I thank my optometrist and his skill with lenses for that.

I honestly don't think in terms of a "truth/perception" divide. It's more of a spectrum from accurate to inaccurate. That's not to say that explaining how subjective experience matches the objective world isn't problematic or difficult, I just think it's given that we perceive the world. That's our starting point.

I think you have a better case with models, theories, and explanations that go beyond what we perceive. People used to employ analogies to carry their thought beyond what could be perceived, especially in mythology. But scientific models are not like myths.

[Vraith]

But scientific models are not like myths.

But many of the reasons for making myths, the purposes, and many of the processes for doing so, and the testing/replacing of them, so much of it is the same thing.
In a quite literal way, science is one of the direct descendants of myth. [it has siblings, cousins, even off-shoots that seem like different species...]
The difference is we have better tools---physical and mathematical---but those tools also evolved alongside/within and under the same world/pressures/systems.

In Deutsche-ian terms, they spring from conjectures in a theory-laden world in search of explanations, and succeed/fail/evolve through criticism/testing.
And he also noted that good explanation doesn't mean true.
Does "more accurate" mean literally more real or more like?
I mean: my 6megapixel selfie is much more accurate in every way than my 6-years-old stick figure self-portrait. But is it more ME? No, both are still definitively not me.
A gap, I think we all agree, has always existed so far. Will always exist, I think---maybe y'all agree with that, too?
I think the bridges/reachings across that gap will always be a form of analogy. I think that is how thought works...at least our kind of thought with our kind of brain.

Heh---so, back on topic, in analogy ---are myth/science like matter/energy, spacetime, different forms of the same thing? Are they invariant under the universe??
[[don't anyone take that bit too literally... Just thought it was funny and fun to leap to.]]

[Zarathustra]

But scientific models are not like myths.

But many of the reasons for making myths, the purposes, and many of the processes for doing so, and the testing/replacing of them, so much of it is the same thing.

Testing/replacing myths? I haven't heard of this. A myth *is* an analogy. Thunder is the "anger of the gods." That has no explanatory value whatsoever. It's an analogy between the explosive emotions humans have and the explosive nature of thunder. A theory of electricity is in an entirely different epistemological category. It allows us to produce lightning ourselves, circumventing the "gods."

In a quite literal way, science is one of the direct descendants of myth.

Perhaps in some limited sense, in isolated examples, but I don't think "successor" is necessarily the same as "descendant."

he also noted that good explanation doesn't mean true.

I thought Deutsche defined "real" entirely in terms of a good explanation.

Does "more accurate" mean literally more real or more like?
I mean: my 6megapixel selfie is much more accurate in every way than my 6-years-old stick figure self-portrait. But is it more ME? No, both are still definitively not me.

A picture is not an explanation. It has no predictive or explanatory power, nor any ability to confer knowledge in areas unrelated to the picture (e.g. building technology based on the resemblance between you and your picture). Accuracy in this context has a different meaning than accuracy in scientific theories or mathematical models.

A gap, I think we all agree, has always existed so far. Will always exist, I think---maybe y'all agree with that, too?
I think the bridges/reachings across that gap will always be a form of analogy. I think that is how thought works...at least our kind of thought with our kind of brain.

The gap is crossed with understanding, specifically, understanding the underlying structure of reality. If all we're ever doing is making analogies, then how can we ever claim to understanding anything? Can you name an analogy in any other context that confers understanding, mastery, and predictive power?

I concede that there are similarities between mathematical models and the reality that they model. But this similarity allows us to do much more than compare the two. It expands our knowledge beyond the comparison being made.

If all we ever have are analogies, then we can't say things like "gamma rays and light rays are part of a single electromagnetic spectrum." Instead, we'd have to say that they're merely analogous to each other. Which statement confers more knowledge? Which would you say is more real?

[peter]

A scientist tells me something is so and in my uneducated state (and in the culture of respect accorded to the pronouncements of scientists I have grown up in) I accept the explanatory power of his statement. In the pre-scientific age, the Druidic high-priest or whatever is held in the same position of respect; he makes his statement in respect of the origin of thunder - and I accept it for the same reasons (nb there is probably also a pre-druidic explanation that I hold in the same contempt that we now hold the 'anger of the Gods' explanation in). In both cases to me the explanatory power is the same. At some future time our explanation of how the world 'really is' will be held up as being as quaint as the druid's explanation is now. Explanatory power is thus not a reliable yardstick upon which to hang a handle of reality. Is it?

(Just seen Z's later comment, so ignore all of that: the risk of preparing an answer before having read the full post! )

Just a thought; doesn't science run the risk of becoming almost quasi-religious if it becomes hung up on the question of 'describing the truth'? Actually it doesn't matter does it? What matters is that it works - and works in the manner of 'the sieve' , sitting out stuff from nature that will make our lives longer/better/happier. Sciences aims are surely utilitarian not truth orientated?

[Zarathustra]

A scientist tells me something is so and in my uneducated state (and in the culture of respect accorded to the pronouncements of scientists I have grown up in) I accept the explanatory power of his statement. In the pre-scientific age, the Druidic high-priest or whatever is held in the same position of respect; he makes his statement in respect of the origin of thunder - and I accept it for the same reasons.

We do not accept the pronouncement of scientists with the same blind, dogmatic submission to authority as people once accepted the authority of priests. Just look at how many people are skeptical of global warming. Even for the issues which most people accept--like relativity and quantum mechanics--our acceptance is nothing at all like accepting a druid's explanations, because we can go to Wikipedia and learn the basics ourselves in a few minutes. In fact, the machines we use to check these statements rely upon the very science we'd be checking! So in terms of persuasion, scientists don't have to rely upon their authority figure status. The proof is all around us. Look around you right now and you'll find yourself immersed in a world that wouldn't exist if the scientists were full of shit. Druids, on the other hand, couldn't point to a single thing that relied upon the veracity of their statements.

In both cases to me the explanatory power is the same.

Surely you don't believe this. Explanatory power is not measured by gullibility and trust. A theory either explains things or it does not.

At some future time our explanation of how the world 'really is' will be held up as being as quaint as the druid's explanation is now. Explanatory power is thus not a reliable yardstick upon which to hang a handle of reality. Is it?

Do you look back on the pyramids and think the architectural knowledge of ancient Egyptians is quaint? Just because something is old doesn't mean it is wrong, ignorant, or quaint. When you acquire knowledge that allows you power to shape the world, that knowledge will never be rendered (entirely) false. I'm sure in 1000 years they'll look back on this time as the era when mankind finally started figuring out the true nature of reality. No future scientific discovery is going to change the fact that DNA is our genetic blueprint, or invalidate the basic knowledge of physics and celestial mechanics that allows us to send probes throughout the solar system with pinpoint accuracy. Those are facts. They are real. If they weren't, we wouldn't be able to do the things we do.

Just a thought; doesn't science run the risk of becoming almost quasi-religious if it becomes hung up on the question of 'describing the truth'?

It depends on what you mean by "truth." If you're talking about facts (see above), then no. If you're talking about truth in terms of the meaning of life or morality, then yes. But science doesn't deal with the latter, so the question is moot.

Actually it doesn't matter does it? What matters is that it works - and works in the manner of 'the sieve' , sitting out stuff from nature that will make our lives longer/better/happier. Sciences aims are surely utilitarian not truth orientated?

The two aren't mutually exclusive, are they? Why isn't utility a measure of truth? The more sophisticated the utility, the more certain the understanding of the principles which make it possible. We could not build working computers, for instance, if we were in error about the way electricity works. Now, there might be more to it than we currently know, but those unknowns aren't significant enough to prevent working computers.

In the future we will learn subtler and grander truths, but this won't necessarily invalidate all knowledge we have now, nor the way we go about acquiring that knowledge ... as with your druid example. We'll still be using the scientific method. Certain facts will not be overturned. Stars, for instance, will always be spheroids of thermonuclear fire in the void of space. We're not going to overturn that knowledge in the same manner of overturning the idea of stars as fixed points of light on a crystal sphere. We're not going to suddenly learn that earth isn't a spherical rocky planet orbiting the sun, as we once replaced the idea of a flat, stationary earth. We might very well seem quaint to people in a 1000 years, but they'll have to give us credit for getting many things right, just as we have to give credit to the first people who inferred and measured the true shape of the earth 1000s of years ago.

As Asimov said in "The Relativity of Wrong:"

... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

[As with nearly everything Asimov writes, this short essay is clear, interesting, and informative. Worth reading if you've never seen it!]

[peter]

Will do Z!

[peter]

Will do Z!

[Skyweir]

Wow!!!!!!

Vraith! Z!! All of you that have posted on this fascinating thread!!!

You are amazing - the ideas, the arguments - the reasoning! Awesome!!

And so beautifully articulate!! And Faith - mmm .. *hopefully not confusing threads now* .. the quotes .. great!

Im not going to pretend to have a background in physics, quantum theory, or any of that .. or that I follow everything, cos not everything .. lol .. or that I can understand a great number of the concepts discussed in the thread .. but what I have enjoyed when reading all the comments is the clarity with which you have made your various arguments. Thank you and kudos .. and don't stop, its exhilarating!

The subject matter is incredibly interesting