What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

1 The question is: Could a model of reality be 'right' - correct, accurate, complete, or true? Is that a possibility? Can you address that question?

No. That would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A perfect model requires perfect information. Perfect information requires brains that are as big as the universe itself. And so all models (by definition) are:
* incomplete
* idealised
* contain omissions

They are abstractions.

2 Against what criterion could a model be in error? After all, all models are wrong.

All wrongs are not made equal. Prevention may be better than cure, but amputation is better than death.

Which necessarily leads the discussion to: "What are acceptable trade-offs/compromises?"

[Peter Holmes]

1 The question is: Could a model of reality be 'right' - correct, accurate, complete, or true? Is that a possibility? Can you address that question?

No. That would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A perfect model requires perfect information. And so all models (by definition) are:
* incomplete
* idealised
* contain omissions

2 Against what criterion could a model be in error? After all, all models are wrong.

All wrongs are not made equal. Prevention may be better than cure, but amputation is better than death.

Which necessarily leads the discussion to: "What are acceptable trade-offs/compromises?"

So, if no model could be 'right' - complete, non-idealised, accurate, precise or 'true' - to say all models are wrong is vacuous. It gives us no useful information. It's a sexy but mindless dictum.

Against what criterion do we evaluate the relative wrongness of models?

[TimeSeeker]

So, if no model could be 'right' - complete, non-idealised, accurate, precise or 'true' - to say all models are wrong is vacuous. It gives us no useful information. It's a sexy but mindless dictum.

Of course it's useful. It is a falsifier! Against the very notion and unity of "Truth".
Exactly like evidence is useful against the notion of God.

Also observe the critical distingtion.

It is not based on foundationalism.
It is based on consequentialism.

Against what criterion do we evaluate the relative wrongness of models?

Cost and impact of error. Consequences.

[Peter Holmes]

So, if no model could be 'right' - complete, non-idealised, accurate, precise or 'true' - to say all models are wrong is vacuous. It gives us no useful information. It's a sexy but mindless dictum.

Of course it's useful. It is a falsifier! Against the very notion and unity of "Truth".
Exactly like evidence is useful against the notion of God.

Also observe the critical distingtion.

It is not based on foundationalism.
It is based on consequentialism.

Against what criterion do we evaluate the relative wrongness of models?

Cost and impact of error. Consequences.

You're just dodging the questions.

1 If no model can be true, to say all models are false is vacuous - a tautology. It doesn't falsify anything. Think it through again. Wrongness can mean something only against a criterion of rightness.

2 Do assertions about the relative wrongness of models - their consequences - have truth-value? Why is an error an error?

[TimeSeeker]

1 If no model can be true, to say all models are false is vacuous - a tautology.

That would be a false dichotomy. Which is why I am not saying that.

I am saying that all models are wrong (wrong does not mean false). In some particular way. And so knowing the limits of application of a model is important.

The way in which models are wrong is different.

it doesn't falsify anything. Think it through again. Wrongness can mean something only against a criterion of rightness.

False dichotomy. 'Rightness' is not required. Only degrees of 'wrongness'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of ... _principle

That which results in less wrongness is therefore morally right.
Medicine results in less sickness. It is morally right.

2 Do assertions about the relative wrongness of models - their consequences - have truth-value?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

Why is an error an error?

Because it failed to forecast a future event.

[surreptitious57]

All models are wrong because no matter their accuracy they are simply representations of reality
A representation of something is not and cannot ever be the same as the actual thing in question

[TimeSeeker]

You're just dodging the questions.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

Your questions are loaded with all of your misconceptions.

[Peter Holmes]

All models are wrong because no matter their accuracy they are simply representations of reality
A representation of something is not and cannot ever be the same as the actual thing in question

There's the rub. Why must a representation of reality be wrong? What is the (fantasy) standard of rightness?

[Peter Holmes]

You're just dodging the questions.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

Your questions are loaded with all of your misconceptions.

No, your rejection of objectivity, fact and truth is loaded with all your metaphysical misconceptions pf what those things are.

[Peter Holmes]

1 If no model can be true, to say all models are false is vacuous - a tautology.

That would be a false dichotomy. Which is why I am not saying that.

I am saying that all models are wrong (wrong does not mean false). In some particular way. And so knowing the limits of application of a model is important.

The way in which models are wrong is different.

it doesn't falsify anything. Think it through again. Wrongness can mean something only against a criterion of rightness.

False dichotomy. 'Rightness' is not required. Only degrees of 'wrongness'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of ... _principle

That which results in less wrongness is therefore morally right.
Medicine results in less sickness. It is morally right.

2 Do assertions about the relative wrongness of models - their consequences - have truth-value?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

Why is an error an error?

Because it failed to forecast a future event.

Your misunderstanding is evident. What we're talking about has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. We;re talking about the possibility of the objective representation of reality - not moral judgements about behaviour. Gross category error.

And the claim that all we have is degrees of wrongness makes no sense at all. Wrongness relative to what? Sorry, but the poverty of your reasoning is patent and must surely embarrass you. Why not back up and try a different tack?

[Belinda]

Hypothetically, if all models of reality past and future were known and final, would the knower know objective reality?

I am of course presuming that all models of reality are of this world!

[TimeSeeker]

No, your rejection of objectivity, fact and truth is loaded with all your metaphysical misconceptions pf what those things are.

*yawn*

I reject YOUR conception of objectivity, facts and truth AND metaphysics. Because my conception (MODEL!) is better. So I reject your assertion of 'misconception' on my part as an error on your part. As I have previously demonstrated your conception of reality is absent a temporal dimension - so you have absolutely no understanding of system dynamics. Which makes you incompetent to even participate in the debate.

Now what?

[TimeSeeker]

Your misunderstanding is evident. What we're talking about has nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

Yeah. That's why I reject your taxonomy. Because you can't decouple a representation (DESCRIPTION!) of reality from the UTILITY of that representation/description.

You've gone and categorized the world without any criteria for consideration as to WHY you've categorized the world that way. How do you decide if one taxonomy is better or worse than another taxonomy?

We;re talking about the possibility of the objective representation of reality - not moral judgements about behaviour. Gross category error.

OK, wiseass. What medium would you express this 'representation of reality'.

Conceptual? Linguistic? Mathematical? Computational? Mechanical?

If your representation of reality results in your extinction - your representation is objectively immoral. As far as the wellbeing of your species is concerned.

So how and WHY did you decide to categorize "representation of reality" separately from "moral judgments about reality"?

And the claim that all we have is degrees of wrongness makes no sense at all. Wrongness relative to what?

Wrongness relative to the premature death of every single human. Present and future. Colloquially: extinction.

Sorry, but the poverty of your reasoning is patent and must surely embarrass you. Why not back up and try a different tack?

I am sorry to disappoint you, but this mode of reasoning has persevered for millenia. Because it works. It has worked and will continue to work this way with or without your approval. Those who think like you go extinct sooner than those who think like me...

Which is precisely how natural selection wants it

[TimeSeeker]

I am of course presuming that all models of reality are of this world!

Reality keeps changing. And so any models we contrive necessarily need to be mindful of stochastics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics

[Belinda]

I am of course presuming that all models of reality are of this world!

Reality keeps changing. And so any models we contrive necessarily need to be mindful of stochastics.

Yes, but I was referring to supernatural intervention .

Random variables which pertain to our terrestrial kaleidoscope would be taken into account by the finality, that time ends, which I had in mind.