> In short, model theory makes no claims about reality.
> All the hard work lies in determining how well any
> particular model describes reality.  (01) 
Well, I don't know about *all* the hard work -- constructing a good 
model can be very difficult!  (02)
> And as Patrick D. said and I agreed, no model has an exact match to 
> reality.  (03) 
I think this is a very misleading statement; indeed, I believe it is 
flat out false if not qualified further (though I know you do not 
intend it this way). Granted, typically, like any model, a formal 
model that is intended to reflect some part of the physical world 
selectively avoids representing certain features of the world that 
are deemed to be inessential "noise". Thus, if I want to construct a 
formal model of, say, the faculty and administrative structure at 
Texas A&M University -- professorial and administrative ranks, 
departments, salaries, who answers to whom, etc -- my model will 
contain a representation of each faculty member and administrator, 
but will presumably not contain representations of, say, his or her 
arms and legs. So, yes, there are *details* of the concrete reality 
in question that my model omits. But, relative to the intended 
*granularity*, there is no reason whatever that the model cannot be 
EXACTLY right.  (04)
It is important to stress *both* of these points -- the sense in 
which a formal model can be an exact match and the sense in which it 
might not be -- when describing the relationship between formal 
models and reality. The statement above, at the least, leaves out a 
critical part of the picture.  (05)
Chris Menzel  (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (07)