There are no material objects

[Toontown]

How is this ultimate reality any different than the reality I see around me?

The reality you 'see' around you is a mock-up, created by your mind in response to sensory input. The real thing is nothing like what you 'see'.

For one simple example, consider the color blue. In reality, the color blue is not a color at all. It is a distance - a wave length. The distance between the wave tops of the light entering your eyes determines the 'color' your mind will mock up for you.

And it would be even more confusing if your mind wasn't so adept at mocking up an understandable reality for you. In reality, the wavelengths are a function of the energy content of the light. So the color blue is actually a duality - a distance and an energy density. And to make matters even more confusing, the wave form will morph into particles - photons - when an interaction calls for it. The people at Bell Laboratories could tell you stories about photons you would not believe. Like the time they used a flirty photon to trick a quantum computer into solving an algorithm when the quantum computer wasn't even running. Actually, the quantum computer didn't exactly solve the algorithm. The answer just appeared as if by majic - what would have happened if the computer actually had run, and did happen, even though the computer didn't run.

Never underestimate a photon femme fatale.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How is this ultimate reality any different than the reality I see around me?

Toontown just gave you the answer. Question; did you read, at all, what "naive realism" is at Wikipedia?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

For one simple example, consider the color blue. In reality, the color blue is not a color at all. It is a distance - a wave length. The distance between the wave tops of the light entering your eyes determines the 'color' your mind will mock up for you.

When it comes to color, it's even worse than that since different wavelengths can appear of different color under different conditions. And it's not just the wavelength; color is an interaction between light and photoreceptors and the pattern of activation of those receptors.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I lean that way myself. Maybe elements of pragmatism but I need to read more on that. These kinds of "soft" epistemologies seem to do away with a lot of problems and refocus some debates that we see around the forums, like evolution.

I read back about what you said on the coherent narratives within frames of reference and see that you are not arguing that they all have equal validity.

Indeed, its a more sophisticated realism that plain old materialism. Indeed, I was not arguing that, thank you for being able to read and not throw the straw man fallacies that are accustomed by other members. A frame of reference like current quantum physics, for instance, can explain and predict a whole lot more facts than classical physics, to put an example, still, when calculating the trajectory of a spacecraft, you don't need more than classical mechanics equations.

When they allow us to explain a wide variety of phenomena, as say a model like atomism or evolution does, aren't we justified in saying they are about the "ultimate reality". I can't help but thinking back to Lorenz on that. Our models are shaped by the "ultimate reality" however limited in aspect or accuracy.

It can be said that it is an "epistemological trap" of some sort. Our models are shaped by known facts, by the way we relate them together in a coherent theory. No "ultimate reality" is needed.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How do we model this ultimate reality and how is it different than our mundane reality?

ETA: If the model matches the results then how is it (arbitrary)?

First answer is right there in Wikipedia, under "naive realism".

Regarding the arbitrarity, I gave you the answer weeks ago. Why the Ptolemaic model works?. Because, it accurately predict some phenomena and explain many facts. The same goes for every other model we know. Some of them adjust better to the (known) facts, but nothing precludes that a new model will render them obsolete at some point, integrating more facts in to the scope.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It can be said that it is an "epistemological trap" of some sort. Our models are shaped by known facts, by the way we relate them together in a coherent theory. No "ultimate reality" is needed.

A very alluring trap. So what are our narratives about then? Don't they need something to be about? They are not purely about our experiences.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

A very alluring trap. So what are our narratives about then? Don't they need something to be about? They are not purely about our experiences.

Yes, fascinating isn't it? its all about how we experience facts. Nothing more can be said, ontologically speaking. It sounds shocking, because we are used to believe in this "real world" that is "really really there" just like we imagine it. That sort of gives us peace of mind, but if we examine it carefully, we find that is just like a shared belief. Our narratives are buoys in a deep fog, not maps about (real) territories.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes, fascinating isn't it? its all about how we experience facts. Nothing more can be said, ontologically speaking. It sounds shocking, because we are used to believe in this "real world" that is "really really there" just like we imagine it. That sort of gives us peace of mind, but if we examine it carefully, we find that is just like a shared belief. Our narratives are buoys in a deep fog, not maps about (real) territories.

I don't think I am under the illusion that the world is as we see it in the naive realist sense, but I think models with wide explanatory and predictive power are justification to say more. Yes, the territories themselves are constructs - they are marked according to our needs. But the buoys are not placed arbitrarily - they are marking something in the fog in a way that allows us to successfully predict new territories.

I hope that makes some sense. I am not really comfortable with that analogy and will think more about it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't think I am under the illusion that the world is as we see it in the naive realist sense, but I think models with wide explanatory and predictive power are justification to say more. Yes, the territories themselves are constructs - they are marked according to our needs. But the buoys are not placed arbitrarily - they are marking something in the fog in a way that allows us to successfully predict new territories.

I hope that makes some sense. I am not really comfortable with that analogy and will think more about it.

You are rising a good point. If our theories are able to predict new territories then there is something "tangible" (to use a word) behind them. But if we examine history, we find that this is not normally the case. We stick to one theory and project it to everything, even when the actual facts cease to fit it (phlogiston, ether, ptolemaic geocentric model, dark matter, attempting to unify quantum mechanics with gravity, etc). At some point, normally a new guy, working with new ideas, is suddenly able to connect the dots and then a new paradigm emerges, a new theoretical model able to deal with all the known facts in a fresh way (and when this happens, many people will immediately believe that "this is it, we finally have it, a theory which tells us how reality "really is").

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

You are rising a good point. If our theories are able to predict new territories then there is something "tangible" (to use a word) behind them. But if we examine history, we find that this is not normally the case. We stick to one theory and project it to everything, even when the actual facts cease to fit it (phlogiston, ether, ptolemaic geocentric model, dark matter, attempting to unify quantum mechanics with gravity, etc). At some point, normally a new guy, working with new ideas, is suddenly able to connect the dots and then a new paradigm emerges, a new theoretical model able to deal with all the known facts in a fresh way (and when this happens, many people will immediately believe that "this is it, we finally have it, a theory which tells us how reality "really is").

Would it be fair to say that you think that science is too quick in accepting ideas as complete explanations?

Because I do think that has been the case in the past, but it has been less so for some time now.

 

[Chunol]

Let me see if I understand BDZ’s point of view…

BDZ says the Sophisticated Scientist understands that what is real cannot be explained by science, but it doesn’t matter what reality is, as long as things and events act in a way that IS explainable by science we can still use our scientific model because it has proven to be useful to do so.
He goes on to assert that the Naïve Scientist is one who still holds onto the “belief” that the descriptions and measurements of Scientific Knowledge are actually “real” and not only a “model”.
He equates this Naïve point of view with a Religionistic or Theological POV based upon faith alone.

BDZ’s Sophisticated Scientific point of view effectively places ontology into the category of woo.
Because it has no effect on the Scientific Model in the same way the existence or non existence of a supreme being would have no effect on the Scientific Model.

So if you accept the Sophisticated Scientific POV, then you no longer have to worry about defending the basis of all Scientific Knowledge that says “it is ASSUMED that NATURE exists”, which is an ontological assertion.

This is how I see BDZ’s argument, which by the way is still based within the world view of “Scientific Knowledge”

I, for one, ain’t buying it.

For one thing it still does not address the question of why the assertion “It is assumed that Nature exists” is an assumption and not a Scientific Fact or a Scientific Theory, which should shed some light onto this question.

And, the question everyone wants answered is, if Scientific Knowledge is ultimately based upon non verifiable assumptions, why do we still FEEL that we can KNOW what is REAL?

When Dr. Johnson kicks his rock and says “I refute it thus”, he KNOWS the rock is real, but he cannot come up with a Scientifically acceptable explanation for his experience of reality.



Thanks for your time.
Chunol

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Would it be fair to say that you think that science is too quick in accepting ideas as complete explanations?

Because I do think that has been the case in the past, but it has been less so for some time now.

That might be true, maybe some scientists are more reticent nowadays to accept ontological truths. That said, "science" doesn't have an opinion, the trick with that concept is that so many people says "science says that" that it is becoming meaningless (it is used to sell many things for instance, as a marketing tool).

 

[punshhh]

Yes, fascinating isn't it? its all about how we experience facts. Nothing more can be said, ontologically speaking. It sounds shocking, because we are used to believe in this "real world" that is "really really there" just like we imagine it. That sort of gives us peace of mind, but if we examine it carefully, we find that is just like a shared belief. Our narratives are buoys in a deep fog, not maps about (real) territories.

You present an interesting argument, however if one delves deeper into this fog, one realises that the impermeability of this fog is also an aspect of mind and darkness or lack of light is a more appropriate analogy.

If an extremely bright light is brought into a dark place, it will illuminate a great vista of "facts". Where as if the same light is brought into a fog, it will be a very bright white out.

Illumination requires fire or friction, and a lens with which to perceive the "fact"

 

[punshhh]

Let me see if I understand BDZ’s point of view…

BDZ says the Sophisticated Scientist understands that what is real cannot be explained by science, but it doesn’t matter what reality is, as long as things and events act in a way that IS explainable by science we can still use our scientific model because it has proven to be useful to do so.
He goes on to assert that the Naïve Scientist is one who still holds onto the “belief” that the descriptions and measurements of Scientific Knowledge are actually “real” and not only a “model”.
He equates this Naïve point of view with a Religionistic or Theological POV based upon faith alone.

BDZ’s Sophisticated Scientific point of view effectively places ontology into the category of woo.
Because it has no effect on the Scientific Model in the same way the existence or non existence of a supreme being would have no effect on the Scientific Model.

So if you accept the Sophisticated Scientific POV, then you no longer have to worry about defending the basis of all Scientific Knowledge that says “it is ASSUMED that NATURE exists”, which is an ontological assertion.

This is how I see BDZ’s argument, which by the way is still based within the world view of “Scientific Knowledge”

I, for one, ain’t buying it.

For one thing it still does not address the question of why the assertion “It is assumed that Nature exists” is an assumption and not a Scientific Fact or a Scientific Theory, which should shed some light onto this question.

And, the question everyone wants answered is, if Scientific Knowledge is ultimately based upon non verifiable assumptions, why do we still FEEL that we can KNOW what is REAL?

When Dr. Johnson kicks his rock and says “I refute it thus”, he KNOWS the rock is real, but he cannot come up with a Scientifically acceptable explanation for his experience of reality.



Thanks for your time.
Chunol

Yes, I also assert that nature exists and that we are intimately acquainted with it.
However this in no way asserts what nature is or is up to.

We know what is real from our current position within that reality, which is real, however to perceive of the true nature of that reality would require far greater insight than we currently have.

 

[dafydd]

You present an interesting argument, however if one delves deeper into this fog, one realises that the impermeability of this fog is also an aspect of mind and darkness or lack of light is a more appropriate analogy.

If an extremely bright light is brought into a dark place, it will illuminate a great vista of "facts". Where as if the same light is brought into a fog, it will be a very bright white out.

Illumination requires fire or friction, and a lens with which to perceive the "fact"

Some people's minds are not fogged by mysticism.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, I also assert that nature exists and that we are intimately acquainted with it.
However this in no way asserts what nature is or is up to.

We know what is real from our current position within that reality, which is real, however to perceive of the true nature of that reality would require far greater insight than we currently have.

Why would nature be 'up to' anything? It is just there. Reality is reality.

 

[Resume]

Illumination requires fire or friction, and a lens with which to perceive the "fact"

No, it requires careful, cautious, rigorous examination, not flowery psuedo-poetry.

 

[dafydd]

Why should nature have a purpose and be up to something?

 

[dafydd]

No, it requires careful, cautious, rigorous examination, not flowery psuedo-poetry.

Friction does not always give off light. Another fail.

 

[dlorde]

If an extremely bright light is brought into a dark place, it will illuminate a great vista of "facts".

Only if there is a great vista of "facts" to be illuminated.

Illumination requires fire or friction, and a lens with which to perceive the "fact"

Fire or friction are not necessary for illumination, nor is a lens necessary to perceive a "fact".

You're spouting nonsense again.