Re: reification

[Bob Sciamanda <trebor@VELOCITY.NET>]

This is why I like the (noun and verb) "model".  By your Webster quote,
you are NOT reifying the BB analogy (another good word).  You are simply
saying that the behavior of a real BB system has sufficient in common with
that of an IG to be a useful analogy/model/description, for many purposes.

My Webster gives 12 definitions of the noun "model"; the last two are:

11) a description or analogy used to help visualize something (as an atom)
that cannot be directly observed.

12) a system of postulates, data, and inferences presented as a
mathematical description of an entity or state of affairs.

Bob

Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
trebor@velocity.net
http://www.velocity.net/~trebor

----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Rauber <Joel_Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: reification
> > > 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.

Leigh answered:
> > In that case you are not reifying it; that was the point.

Joel:
> Actually I think the above is the essence of reification.  My Websters
(not
> the best of authorities) defines 'reify' as
>
> reify = to treat as substantially existing
>
> I maintain that that is exactly what I'm doing when I think of an ideal
gas
> as being teeny weeny hard spheres; and when I model a real gas as an
ideal
> gas.