models and reification (was: dW turns into dQ

[Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>]

> Sure, and don't "reify the model" - it is created as an aid to
> understanding, but can often have the unintended consequence
> of provoking
> meaningless questions and other sources of confusion.

Point granted regarding unintended consequences, but I know of know other
way to conceptualize a model, other then to reify it and see where that
leads me; experiment and self-consistancy provide the reality checks on both
the reification of the model and its unintended consequences.

I might point out that one of the unintended consequences can be further
insight.  I'd cite the example of attributing entropy to the area of the
event horizon of a black hole as an example of reifying a model, which many
smart folks at the time warned against doing.  And it turned out to have all
sorts of significant insights.

When I consider the ideal gas model, I really do assume the gas is composed
of little teeny tiny hard-non-interacting BB's rattling around in a
container.  I'm forced to do this to check for self-consistancy in the
model.  I fully realize that the model isn't the actual object.  I view the
model as being much like a Turing test.  If I can't tell the difference
between the model and the real thing, what's the difference.  If I can tell
the difference, then we get into discussion of the limits of applicability
of the model blah blah blah.

> I must
> again append
> one of my favorite quotes (below.

I like the quote, and reluctantly admit to being trained in theoretical
physics; which may explain a few things.

Joel