We all use models daily and we all understand that they do not mirror reality. They do, however, give us a comprehensible picture of a complex phenomenon so that we can do something with it. The best models at the strategic level are those that give us the simplest possible big picture. As we need more detail, we expand portions of our model so that we can see finer and finer detail. It is important, however, that in constructing our model and using it, we always start from the big and work to the small.
This view represents a reductionist view that one can understand how a system works by dismantling its parts and isolating the causes and effects of each.

Not all systems are reducible in this way because of system-wide interactions that are lost when you isolate component systems. So there is fundamental disagreement about the viability of his "best" model description.

Oh NoI should have known, you are one of those Quantum Physics guys. Till tomorrow.
YEs, my GS series is actually 1310 "physicist"

I feel like we are refighting the Bohr-Einstein dabates over the nature of quantum mechanics or the Copenhagen vs Many Worlds interpretation arguments more recently.