From Model to World: 2 When the Cut Disappears

The first structural mutation occurs when the relational cut between model and world vanishes. In this state, models are interpreted as if they were the phenomena themselves, and outputs are read as literal depictions rather than conditional projections.

This reification is subtle. Models often produce results that resemble observations, and practitioners may rely on them for planning, prediction, or explanation. The ease with which models map onto real-world data encourages the assumption that the model is reality, rather than a structured theory of possible instances.

Once the cut disappears, several consequences emerge:

• Conflation of data and model: outputs are treated as measurements rather than modelled possibilities.

• Misattribution of predictive authority: the model is judged by its internal coherence and apparent accuracy, not by the structural fidelity to actual phenomena.

• Stability of belief without validation: confidence in the model grows independently of its relational grounding.

This mutation is a structural hazard across domains. By ignoring the cut, communities begin to operate as if the model were reality, leading to misinterpretation, overconfidence, and the subtle erosion of empirical accountability. Recognising when the cut vanishes is the first step toward diagnosing and understanding

From Model to World: 1 What a Model Is, and What It Isn’t

Models are widely used across science, economics, climate research, and AI. Yet the first step in understanding their function is to recognise what they are and what they are not.

A model is a theory of possible instances. It is a structured abstraction that represents potential configurations, behaviours, or dynamics of a system. It does not exist as the system itself; it cannot instantiate phenomena independently. The relational cut — the distinction between model and world — is essential: the model is a tool for exploring possibilities, not a literal depiction of reality.

Classical examples illustrate clarity: a Newtonian planetary model represents the possible trajectories of celestial bodies; an ideal gas law models ensembles of particles under specific assumptions. In both cases, the model predicts or describes behaviour, but it does so as a theory of possibilities, not as the phenomena themselves.

Confusion arises when this cut is ignored or vanishes. When a model is treated as the world itself, outputs are interpreted as literal reality, uncertainties are underappreciated, and the theory’s relational status is obscured. The model ceases to be a diagnostic tool and becomes a surrogate for the world — a structural mutation we will explore across multiple domains.

Establishing this foundational clarity allows us to see the consequences of vanishing cuts, and why recognising the distinction between model and world is critical for accurate interpretation, evaluation, and responsible application of models.

The Aesthetic Turn in Physics: 6 Implications for Theory Evaluation

The aesthetic turn has profound consequences for how theories are evaluated, selected, and sustained. By substituting beauty, elegance, and simplicity for direct empirical engagement, physics has developed a structural pathway for authority that operates independently of instantiation.

Research programs are shaped by aesthetic criteria: theories that are elegant, symmetric, or parsimonious are privileged, while empirically adequate but 'ugly' alternatives are marginalized. Predictive and explanatory virtues may be supplemented or overshadowed by aesthetic approval. As a result, credibility, resources, and institutional support flow along lines defined by structural, rather than strictly epistemic, criteria.

Critique within this context often fails to land. Challenges that appeal to classical standards of prediction or empirical engagement are deflected by the rhetoric and institutional weight of aesthetic consensus. Authority is maintained not through anticipatory success but through repeated affirmation, community alignment, and formal or aesthetic coherence.

Recognizing the implications of the aesthetic turn reveals a broader pattern: structural surrogates — whether predictive, explanatory, or aesthetic — allow scientific authority to persist even when classical engagement with phenomena is partial, delayed, or absent. This insight prepares the way for subsequent analysis of other structural substitutions, including modeling practices, symbolic systems, and methodological norms.

The series concludes here, leaving the reader with a clear understanding of how aesthetic criteria function as a surrogate for epistemic engagement and the subtle yet powerful ways they shape theory evaluation and scientific practice.