I mean, I imagine philosophy as: "given a model (which could be a model of the reality) and some rules (rule could be the one by rationality) try to make inference on the rules to get other rules"
Could it be a not completely wrong definition?
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this communityI mean, I imagine philosophy as: "given a model (which could be a model of the reality) and some rules (rule could be the one by rationality) try to make inference on the rules to get other rules"
Could it be a not completely wrong definition?
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. -Wikipedia
Philosophy is big field. For example, Math can be viewed as applied philosophy.
To answer your question, a philosophy question does not need to connected with "the real world." It could be completely experimental. It could be just a thought experiment. It could also be an extremely logical argument that has everything to do with "the real world,"
What you are questioning is the classical 'ontic vs epistemic' problem.
There always exists gap between the epistemic definitions of world and the 'real' version of the world.
Why?
IMO, the above both are kind of related, for we have two issues here:
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle comes close to expressing the 'how much can be known' limitation in mathematical form, as one example.
As for the 'how much of the known can be quantified / expressed / conveyed', we have two issues again:
Godel's incompleteness theorem is a close example that demonstrates the 'limitation of representation', which is well studied and mathematized.
The other part 'limitation of expression' still needs a strong research further, but thought experiments and other observations are all around us.
Bennett's argument to Maxwell's demon is one such that comes close to this problem of 'limitation of expression', and other example subjects that come close to this are: irrational numbers, kolmogorov complexity.
Further research in future on these all indicated areas could provide more insights, perhaps.
Slavoj Zizek raises the same question (To himself) in Event: Philosophy in Transit at the beginning of the first chapter. I'll just tear out a small part (Because I have to type it)
Is philosophy really a mere theatre of shadows?... What if its power resides in its very withdrawal from direct engagement?
So, on one hand it is disengaged from real life. But it is that same property which connects it back to real life.