Thank you for proving my point.

As i said, that isn’t a “point”. Asking for something that doesn’t exist and “predicting” no one will be able to give it to you is a fool’s errand.

Having a model or not having a model is meaningless. That is the “point” you are entirely missing. We don’t study models to understand anything about reality, we study reality and then build models for specific limited purpose. All models are wrong, but some are useful for a limited time.

That is a nonsensical statement

Only because you have been encouraged to misunderstand what a model is and what it is for. Having a model that the earth is the center of the universe (geocentric model) - of which several currently exist - does not make it so. Do you understand what i’m saying? If not, please speak up / ask questions!

A model can be an accurate representation of reality

Possibly, but that is not their purpose. Models are built for specific use, but “accurate representation of reality” is not one of them. They are inherently built of a small (and flawed) subset of the data that comprises reality, which means they are always wrong and at absolute best incomplete. It’s godel’s proof by other verbiage.

We don’t study models to understand reality. We study reality to understand reality.

Why are you unable to show a representation of a flat Earth?

There are plenty of representations of a flat earth. Look up AE maps, and the gleason map. There are no maps without flaws, however - for the same reasons there are no models which are flawless either.

The point is that having a representation or not is irrelevant. The world is whatever shape it is despite what your conceptions, maps, models describe it as. Conceptions, maps, and models constantly change and are discarded/changed each generation as they stop serving their function and need to be. Through all of that, reality remains the same - and doesn’t care what we think or how we depict it.

Having a model, or not having a model, has no impact on reality.

Thank you for proving my point.

As i said, that isn’t a “point”. Asking for something that doesn’t exist and “predicting” no one will be able to give it to you is a fool’s errand.

Having a model or not having a model is meaningless. That is the “point” you are entirely missing. We don’t study models to understand anything about reality, we study reality and then build models for specific limited purpose. All models are wrong, but some are useful for a limited time.

That is a nonsensical statement

Only because you have been encouraged to misunderstand what a model is and what it is for. Having a model that the earth is the center of the universe (geocentric model) - of which several currently exist - does not make it so. Do you understand what i’m saying? If not, please speak up / ask questions!

A model can be an accurate representation of reality

Possibly, but that is not their purpose. Models are built for specific use, but “accurate representation of reality” is not one of them. They are inherently built of a small (and flawed) subset of the data that comprises reality, which means they are always wrong and at absolute best incomplete. It’s godel’s proof by other verbiage.

We don’t study models to understand reality. We study reality to understand reality.

Why are you unable to show a representation of a flat Earth?

There are plenty of representations of a flat earth. Look up AE maps, and the gleason map. There are no maps without flaws, however - for the same reasons there are no models which aren’t flawless either.

The point is that having a representation or not is irrelevant. The world is whatever shape it is despite what your conceptions, maps, models describe it as. Conceptions, maps, and models constantly change and are discarded/changed each generation as they stop serving their function and need to be. Through all of that, reality remains the same - and doesn’t care what we think or how we depict it.

Having a model, or not having a model, has no impact on reality.