Re: Objects, Models, Theories

Tom,

Here my task is to build bridges between several different classical and contemporary uses 
of the word “model”, so I don't have the luxury of complete control over the words in play 
but have to start from the customary senses in the various communities of interpretation. 
  Of course I'm slyly working from a sign-relational backdrop, but I have be 
sleight-handed about that and not hit people over the head with it.

You can probably guess that I'm using “object” to cover sign-relational objects, and 
“theories” are clearly syntacked together from complexes of sign-relational signs, so all 
we have left to pin down is where the various kinds of “model” sit at the table set with 
the labels of Object, Sign, Interpretant.

In its theoretical sense, a model of a theory is anything the theory is true of, anything 
that satisfies the theory.  In that sense, a model is very like an object.  It is whatever 
the theory is talking about.  In the order of nature, indeed, models come before theories. 
  But there is another order, the order of art, and one may construct artificial models 
out of almost any stuff, even the stuff of signs.  So you see the kind of wiggle room we 
have to work with.

Things are easier outside of logic, in applied mathematics and the special sciences, where 
models are just things like analogues, icons, simulations, and similar representations of 
objects.  But that makes them objects serving as signs of other objects, and so you may 
find some semiotic subtlety lurking there.

Well, enough for now ...

Jon

Tom Gollier wrote:
 > Jon,
 >
 > Always good to see you dabbling on the list again.
 >
 > If I translate what you're saying into my understanding of Peirce, what you
 > mean by "analogical model" is similar to what he meant by "diagram".  And,
 > I would say what you seem to mean by "logical model" is more what he meant
 > by "metaphor"; that is, one analogical model/diagram run in "parallel" with
 > another.
 >
 > Of course, whatever we say about "metaphor" with regard to Peirce is going
 > to be more controversial, and perhaps you don't think logic is an
 > analogical diagram?
 >
 > Tom
 >
 >
 > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
 >
 >> Post   : Objects, Models, Theories : 2
 >> URL    : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/11/20/objects-models-theories-2/
 >> Posted : November 20, 2013 at 8:42 am
 >> Author : Jon Awbrey
 >>
 >> Re: The Graph Of Math
 >> At: http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-graph-of-math/
 >>
 >> Re: Three Types Of Mathematical Models
 >> At: http://egtheory.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/mathematical-models/
 >>
 >> What — if anything — is the common sense that connects the different
 >> senses of the word “model”, as it has been used over the years in logic,
 >> mathematics, and the special sciences?  It’s a problem I’ve been running
 >> into for several decades now and I think I can trace the roots of it going
 >> back as far as Aristotle’s treatment of analogy.  Just by way of creating
 >> a bit of trans-disciple-ary interaction, here’s a link to a link of the
 >> issue’s most recent arising in my own roll of blogs.
 >>
 >> * Objects, Models, Theories : 1
 >> = http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/09/10/objects-models-theories-1/
 >>

-- 

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache