There are no material objects

[Ichneumonwasp]

2. How would the world be if nature did not, in fact, exist?

There would NOT be a "world" if Nature (the world, the cosmos, the universe) did not exist.


Chunol

Yes, but what difference would that make to science? If the 'world' were merely a computer simulation we'd 'do science' the same as if there were little vibrating strings of energy acting like billiard balls hitting one another, coalescing, forming new compounds, etc.

 

[yy2bggggs]

1. What does it mean to assume that nature exists?

Well, that seems to be the question I am asking.

I'm confused. You're saying that science works with the assumption that nature exists. I'm asking what it means to make an assumption that nature exists, and you're saying that this is the question you're asking.

Do you see my confusion? You made a claim that science does x. I'm asking what x means, and now you're saying that this is the question you're asking?

Science says it is in the business of investigating Nature and of formulating natural explanations for natural phenomena.
When Science investigates Nature it follows a fairly rigid formula.
This formula is based upon a few assumptions, one of which is that Nature exists.

None of the above addresses the question that I asked. You're simply adding another claim that science follows strict formulas; beyond that you're repeating yourself.

2. How would the world be if nature did not, in fact, exist?

There would NOT be a "world" if Nature (the world, the cosmos, the universe) did not exist.

I don't quite think you're understanding the question. Suppose I see a tree outside my window, and nature exists. Compare that to my seeing a tree outside my window, and nature not existing. How are the two different?

After all, it looks to me like that tree is there; so exist or not, it at least appears to me as if a tree is there. Exist or not, it looks to me like on occasion that tree bends in the wind. Exist or not, it looks to me like the leaves turn colors and fall off at certain times.

So what is the difference between entertaining that it exists, or possibly doesn't exist; and simply not worrying about it--focusing instead on what seems to be happening to it?

3. And why does it matter for scientific inquiry?

All Science is doing is investigating Nature. It doesn’t drive a nail, lay a brick or start a fire.
So IF there was NO Nature for it to investigate, it would be doing nothing, there would be nothing for it to investigate. So I don’t think this is what Science means when it says it can only assume that Nature exists.

As I'm not sure what you mean by the assumption that Nature exists, I cannot comment on the quality of the above argument. I will interject, however, that I can investigate the narrative aspect of dreams. I can investigate motivations of characters in fictional works. I can investigate objects in 7-dimensional exotic geometries.

Is this a counterargument, or are you claiming that dreams, fictional worlds, and 7 dimension exotic geometries exist?

If you presume that Nature does NOT exist, it would mean “nothing” exists. There would be no “motion” or “non existing ball” and “no you” to study it. I don’t think this is what Science is saying.

This is a contradiction. In order for me to presume that nature does not exist, I have to be there. If I'm not there, what is presuming?

Once science accepts that it assumes Nature exists, the next thing it assumes is that Nature is independent of the individual and what he/she thinks or does. Nature (the world, the cosmos, the universe) exists “outside” of us. Nature doesn’t care about the individual, it gains or loses nothing whether we (as individuals) exist or not.

Okay, so let's suppose I just dump science then. I really care nothing about science, and can do without. The only thing I care about is truth, but I care intensely about it.

So instead of being like science, where I would presume that nature operates independently from me, I'm going to just say that I don't know if it does or not. So what I'm going to do instead is look at it and figure it out. Whatever methods I use, I'm going to make up (instead of following strict formulas)--but my goal is that I'm going to try to make sure the method reveals the correct answer. If nature is dependent on me, I'm going to want to find out exactly how, under what conditions, and so on; if it's not, I'm going to want to find out under what conditions it's not just in case I missed something.

I wonder what would happen if I followed this kind of non-scientific approach at things, rather than start with all of the assumptions that science makes.

 

[Chunol]

reply to post # 681


Originally Posted by Chunol
2. How would the world be if nature did not, in fact, exist?

There would NOT be a "world" if Nature (the world, the cosmos, the universe) did not exist.


Chunol

Yes, but what difference would that make to science? If the 'world' were merely a computer simulation we'd 'do science' the same as if there were little vibrating strings of energy acting like billiard balls hitting one another, coalescing, forming new compounds, etc.



chunol
IF Nature, or The World, or The Cosmos, or The Universe did not exist, than were do these “little vibrating strings of energy” exist?
Only in your mind? Where does your mind exist?
If nothing exists what is recognizing these “little vibrating strings of energy” enough to know that they are “little vibrating strings of energy”?

Are you saying that some “thing” or some “event” can take place or exist “outside” of Nature?
Wouldn’t that make it super-natural?


Thanks
Chunol

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

reply to post # 681


Originally Posted by Chunol
2. How would the world be if nature did not, in fact, exist?

There would NOT be a "world" if Nature (the world, the cosmos, the universe) did not exist.


Chunol

Yes, but what difference would that make to science? If the 'world' were merely a computer simulation we'd 'do science' the same as if there were little vibrating strings of energy acting like billiard balls hitting one another, coalescing, forming new compounds, etc.



chunol
IF Nature, or The World, or The Cosmos, or The Universe did not exist, than were do these “little vibrating strings of energy” exist?
Only in your mind? Where does your mind exist?
If nothing exists what is recognizing these “little vibrating strings of energy” enough to know that they are “little vibrating strings of energy”?

Are you saying that some “thing” or some “event” can take place or exist “outside” of Nature?
Wouldn’t that make it super-natural?


Thanks
Chunol

No, I am not saying that things exist outside of 'nature'. I am saying that we don't necessarily know what 'nature' is; but that has no consequence for what we call science.

To explain. Our current explanation of 'nature' is based on little vibrating stings of energy.

They might exist as we propose them and they might not. It might be that they, everything, are a thought in the mind of God. Or part of a computer simulation.

Science is just the means by which we try to understand the rules of the game. It doesn't tell us what ontology is correct. Nothing can do that, except that I see no way to make sense of any form of substance dualism.

 

[punshhh]

No, I am not saying that things exist outside of 'nature'. I am saying that we don't necessarily know what 'nature' is; but that has no consequence for what we call science.

To explain. Our current explanation of 'nature' is based on little vibrating stings of energy.

They might exist as we propose them and they might not. It might be that they, everything, are a thought in the mind of God. Or part of a computer simulation.

Science is just the means by which we try to understand the rules of the game. It doesn't tell us what ontology is correct. Nothing can do that, except that I see no way to make sense of any form of substance dualism.

Yes science and it seems "critical thinking" is oblivious to the nature of nature.

 

[punshhh]

But facts are only known when they are, well, facts. The analogy would work for predictions, because it would light the (probable) position of a new buoy. Thanks for it.

Your analogy describes a blind, feeling process, rather than one in which insight can open up new territory.

Due to the nature of fog, you would need radar to perceive anything at any distance. Do you have an equivalent in your analogy?

 

[dafydd]

You would need evidence of accurate predictions to make the analogy work. Pity that there is no evidence.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Your analogy describes a blind, feeling process, rather than one in which insight can open up new territory.

Due to the nature of fog, you would need radar to perceive anything at any distance. Do you have an equivalent in your analogy?

A radar is a measuring device. The use of measuring devices to see what we otherwise cannot falls under science.

 

[Chunol]

reply to #684 and #685

Three quick questions..

Ichneumonwasp
Are we all using the term Nature in the sense that it represents the entirety of all things and events in the universe and that for some thing or event to exist outside of nature would, by definition have to exist outside of Nature or the Universe, or the Cosmos?


Punshhh
What level or part or area of science does NOT use critical thinking?

Ichneumonwasp and Punshhh
Are you two advocating that this fundamental assumption is wrong or misguided for some reason that I am not getting?

Thanks again for your time.

Chunol

 

[punshhh]

Punshhh
What level or part or area of science does NOT use critical thinking?

Sorry I was using "critical thinking" to refer to the skeptical philosophy espoused on this forum and the skeptical community at large. This is a separate school of thought to science as practiced by scientists.

Ichneumonwasp and Punshhh
Are you two advocating that this fundamental assumption is wrong or misguided for some reason that I am not getting?

I agree with your fundamental assumption, that nature exists and can be seen to exist, known and experienced. Everything we are aware of is nature.

However, my point is that what it appears to be to us is not necessarily what it actually is, or that what we perceive as existing is what actually exists.

I accept that it is unlikely that we are aware of the true nature of affairs due to our limited position within the scheme.

My position on this issue is that we are in the position of having very little knowledge of nature, and of the relevance of what we do know.
While at the same time knowing of nothing other than nature every moment and in every detail of our experience. Therefore science along with any other of our endeavors is profoundly limited within our limited position within the scheme.

We know nature and yet we do not know what we know.

 

[dafydd]

Sorry I was using "critical thinking" to refer to the skeptical philosophy espoused on this forum and the skeptical community at large. This is a separate school of thought to science as practiced by scientists.

I agree with your fundamental assumption, that nature exists and can be seen to exist, known and experienced. Everything we are aware of is nature.

However, my point is that what it appears to be to us is not necessarily what it actually is, or that what we perceive as existing is what actually exists.

I accept that it is unlikely that we are aware of the true nature of affairs due to our limited position within the scheme.

My position on this issue is that we are in the position of having very little knowledge of nature, and of the relevance of what we do know.
While at the same time knowing of nothing other than nature every moment and in every detail of our experience. Therefore science along with any other of our endeavors is profoundly limited within our limited position within the scheme.

We know nature and yet we do not know what we know.

Why a limited position? What scheme? You keep stating all this without a shred of evidence. This is your fantasy.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

reply to #684 and #685

Three quick questions..

Ichneumonwasp
Are we all using the term Nature in the sense that it represents the entirety of all things and events in the universe and that for some thing or event to exist outside of nature would, by definition have to exist outside of Nature or the Universe, or the Cosmos?

Yes. Nothing exists outside of Nature in any of these schemes. In each there is only a single substance. In one scenario nature is as we see it and we model it correctly -- vibrating strings of energy. In another what we see as nature is actually an effect, an action of the mind of God. God would not be outside nature, but rather would be nature (or his thoughts would be nature). In the computer simulation we would see something that we think is nature, but we would simply be wrong. The 'real nature' would be outside the computer simulation but could just as easily be composed of the stuff that we have decided to call 'matter' and may work as we have modelled it.

Ichneumonwasp and Punshhh
Are you two advocating that this fundamental assumption is wrong or misguided for some reason that I am not getting?

Thanks again for your time.

Chunol

I don't think 'wrong' would be the right word for it, especially since our model to explain nature might be correct (we might get lucky). But, when you get down to it, how do you define 'energy'? What is it? We tend to define it in terms of what it does, not what it *is*, which could very well be telling us that it is the most fundamental substance.

The bottom line, if you want to look at it from the perspective of definitions, is this: we define every word or concept in terms of other words or concepts. Whatever the most fundamental 'stuff' there *is* we will never be able to provide an adequate definition because it is fundamental. There will be nothing else with which to compare it in order to provide an adequate definition.

If the assumption that the universe is composed of a single substance is correct, then there is no way that we can ever know what that single substance is in any fundamental sense. All we can do is examine the way it works, probe the 'rules of the game'. When idealists come along and 'prove' that we are just thoughts in the mind of God, they are whistling in the wind. Same is basically true of 'hard materialism'. Either option might be correct, but there is simply no way to prove it. Nature is going to look like nature no matter what the fundamental substance *is*.

Since it is impossible to 'get at' the nature of that substance at its most fundamental level it is a waste of time to say that we know what it is. We don't. We can't. No amount of prodding is going to change this issue. We can, however, refine and stretch our understanding of the 'rules of the game', our understanding of how it all works.

All BDZ is saying is that we need to realize that we should take a step back from thinking that we can have final answers. What we really do is see how this substance, whatever it is, works and we may arrive at a stunningly sublime understanding of how it works.

The difference between BDZ and myself is that I don't mind if you want to call that substance matter, or energy, or thought, or whatever. It's just a label after all.

 

[tsig]

Sorry I was using "critical thinking" to refer to the skeptical philosophy espoused on this forum and the skeptical community at large. This is a separate school of thought to science as practiced by scientists.

I agree with your fundamental assumption, that nature exists and can be seen to exist, known and experienced. Everything we are aware of is nature.

However, my point is that what it appears to be to us is not necessarily what it actually is, or that what we perceive as existing is what actually exists.

I accept that it is unlikely that we are aware of the true nature of affairs due to our limited position within the scheme.

My position on this issue is that we are in the position of having very little knowledge of nature, and of the relevance of what we do know.
While at the same time knowing of nothing other than nature every moment and in every detail of our experience. Therefore science along with any other of our endeavors is profoundly limited within our limited position within the scheme.

We know nature and yet we do not know what we know.

Why is ignorance your favorite position?


Your main insight seems to be just how dumb we humans are.

This would include you.

 

[AlBell]

You would need evidence of accurate predictions to make the analogy work.

Those accurate predictions seem to exist, but do not address underlying ontology.

'Kick a rock' does not prove Berkeley wrong unless you've already chosen materialism (and g_d does not, cannot, exist) as the ontological choice.

Pity that there is no evidence.

Indeed, and it doesn't appear any will be forthcoming soon. A new GR-QM synthesis might answer the question.

 

[dafydd]

Those accurate predictions seem to exist, but do not address underlying ontology.

.

Examples please.

 

[AlBell]

Those accurate predictions seem to exist, but do not address underlying ontology.

.

Examples please.

You have an example of epistemology supporting one's pre-selected choice of ontology? I've never seen that case.

I repeat "'Kick a rock' does not prove Berkeley wrong unless you've already chosen materialism (and g_d does not, cannot, exist) as the ontological choice." And other possible choices do exist; matrix?, g_d's thoughts?, ??

As wasp pointed out, epistemology doesn't depend on a chosen label.

 

[Toontown]

Create philosophical gaps. Fill gaps with God.

Who said philosophy and religion don't mix? They mix like salt and water. What doesn't mix is philosophy, religion, and common sense.

 

[punshhh]

Why is ignorance your favorite position?


Your main insight seems to be just how dumb we humans are.

This would include you.

My major insight is the truth of the situation.

Anyway with humility dumb is not all that bad.

 

[dafydd]

You have an example of epistemology supporting one's pre-selected choice of ontology? I've never seen that case.

I repeat "'Kick a rock' does not prove Berkeley wrong unless you've already chosen materialism (and g_d does not, cannot, exist) as the ontological choice." And other possible choices do exist; matrix?, g_d's thoughts?, ??

As wasp pointed out, epistemology doesn't depend on a chosen label.

I was thinking in practical terms about a real prediction that a 'mystic' has made.

 

[dafydd]

My major insight is the truth of the situation.

Anyway with humility dumb is not all that bad.

Mysticism is dumb.