Recent discussions in other groups have raised important points about Model Dependent Ontology that require clarification. MDO has been variously characterized as "denying reality", taking a sort of simplistic antirealist position, or representing some form of instrumentalism or idealism. These characterizations reveal conceptual tangles worth examining.
The very framing of the discussion about the world (that can be defined as sets of facts) in terms of whether they exist "independently of observers" or whether we're "denying reality" if we refuse to claim we can "know" what is "behind" such facts, already presupposes certain metaphysical assumptions that we should examine more carefully.
This isn't about affirming or denying particular ontological stances. The question of whether an observer-independent realm "exists" becomes less relevant when we recognize that such framing itself emerges from specific models with their own assumptions and limitations.
Consider quantum mechanics and relativity: rather than simply providing "facts as knowledge," these theories demonstrate how observations and measurements fundamentally depend on frameworks of observation. Different frameworks yield different but equally valid descriptions of phenomena.
MDO moves beyond debates about whether something "exists out there" because such debates still operate within realist frameworks, that present countless epistemic problems. Instead, it recognizes that any statement, fact, or concept (including "reality" itself) is necessarily interpreted within some model or framework. That is all.
Comments