[W]e shall adopt an approach that we call model-dependent realism. It is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth. But there may be different ways in which one can model the same physical situation, with each employing different fundamental elements and concepts. If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other; rather, we are free to use whichever model is more convenient.
Based on this philosophy, Mlodinow and Hawking conclude that the big bang theory is more useful than the account given in Genesis because it explains the most about our present observations and thus is the best representation we have of the past. Still, they add, neither model can be said to be more real than the other.
What are your thoughts about this philosophy?
Let me see here:
The quality of 'reality' is attributed to a model when it is successful at explaining events. The BB model is better than the Gen one, but neither is more 'real'.
I think they're using 'real' as in: Real to the person with the model. As opposed to: Real to any/everybody.
That way, the Gen model can be just as real to one guy as the BB model is to them.
That makes sense from an inside perspective, but I don't think its a particularly useful philosophy.
I mean, yeah, my model of the world certainly seems real to me! But what does that have to do with anything?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
