reality is

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

If there is truth it is experience but we both know experience is not infallible.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:02 pm If there is truth it is experience but we both know experience is not infallible.
I am not arguing that it is infallible. I am responding to things like
According to modern physics, our apparent reality has no base in reality,
Obsvervations, in science, work with what appears.

Sure, it's not infallible. What we perceive, on the other hand, cannot be said to have no base in reality. Or the science you are using to support your opinions, would also have no base in reality.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Do you insist that apparent reality is more than a biological readout? Spinoza knew that the body was the mind's idea, but taking it further the physical world is the body's idea. If you feel you can substantiate that physical apparent reality is more than the body's reading of energy wave frequencies, I am all ears.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:02 am Do you insist that apparent reality is more than a biological readout? Spinoza knew that the body was the mind's idea, but taking it further the physical world is the body's idea. If you feel you can substantiate that physical apparent reality is more than the body's reading of energy wave frequencies, I am all ears.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
I am arguing that our experience has some base in reality and I have pointed out the problem with saying it has none. In fact, I have been arguing mainly the latter. I have been arguing that saying our experience has no base in reality causes all sorts of problems for someone telling us what reality is like and also basing their arguments on empirical science (and pretty much anything else)
You later called it not infallible. Which is a very different assessment from it having no base in reality.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

[quote=Iwannaplato
[/quote]
I am arguing that our experience has some base in reality and I have pointed out the problem with saying it has none. In fact, I have been arguing mainly the latter. I have been arguing that saying our experience has no base in reality causes all sorts of problems for someone telling us what reality is like and also basing their arguments on empirical science (and pretty much anything else)
You later called it not infallible. Which is a very different assessment from it having no base in reality.
[/quote]

You do get the distinction between what is said to be ultimate reality and that of apparent reality? In our everyday experience, we understand the world by the effects, and read changes the physical world makes on our biology. So, the readout of what is being sensed depends utterly upon the constitution of our physical being. No one here is saying they know what physical reality is like, all I am saying is that APPARENT reality is a biological readout, a physical reaction to the unknown totality of ultimate reality. So again, the apparent reality is our sensed experience, if we had a different constitution apparent reality would appear constitutionally different. You do get the idea that color does not exist in the physical world, color is the effect of lightwave frequencies on the retina and the processes of the understanding. Just as there is no sound to a falling tree in the deep forest if there is not a biological subject in the forest to be effected by said sound wave frequencies.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: reality is

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:02 am Do you insist that apparent reality is more than a biological readout? Spinoza knew that the body was the mind's idea, but taking it further the physical world is the body's idea. If you feel you can substantiate that physical apparent reality is more than the body's reading of energy wave frequencies, I am all ears.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
I have been arguing on the basis of the above article all along. However it must be reinforced with stronger and robust philosophical reasonings.

Noted in the article;
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
4-1 Why Nature Does not Appear Compatible with Realism.
For many years, there have been attempts to rationalize physics. But, since the first part of this century the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation of modern physics has taught that [size]there is no reality [/size]* in physics.
It claims that what we perceive as real does not have its own independent existence.
It exists only in our imagination.
Descriptions in modern physics cannot be compatible with reality since some fundamental definitions are not compatible with realism.

The above does not reject reality-proper but merely reject realism, i.e. philosophical realism;
4-2 What Is Realism? [specifically Philosophical Realism]
The concept of realism was accepted and used in all fields of physics from the beginning of history until the beginning of this century.
However, since the development of modern physics, the interpretation of quantum mechanics has rejected realism.
....
Realism has been defined in various ways.
One of the definitions of realism is:
"The quality of the universe existing independently of ourselves."
However, the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation denies the existence of realism.

According to modern physics, matter starts to exist only at the moment the observer learns about its existence.
This bizarre belief is illustrated by one of the great masters of the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. Heisenberg [4.1] states:

"But then one sees that not even the quality of being (if that may be called a "quality") belongs to what is described. It is a possibility for being or a tendency for being."
(Parentheses and quotation marks are from Heisenberg's book.)
Let us recall that Cramer[4.2]makes the same claim in different words:

"It is the change in the observer's knowledge that precipitates the state vector collapse"
Heisenberg also insists on this lack of reality in the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. He [4.3]writes:
"In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the objective reality has evaporated, and quantum mechanics does not represent particles, but rather, our knowledge, our observations, or our consciousness of particles."
But unfortunately the ignorant being stuck in the old paradigm believes the following'
If nature does not even have the quality of being, and if it is the observer's knowledge that precipitates that being, the universe did not exist before life began on earth, as suggested by Davies [4.4].
The universe will therefore cease to exist at the moment all life disappears on earth. If matter cannot have its own existence, independent of human mind, as dictated by the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation, cosmologists cannot study the birth of galaxies or the origin of the universe. There was no observer before humans started to observe. If the creation of the universe is the result of the observer's knowledge, then the universe could not exist before we did. Then the observer had to be there at the very first instant of creation in order to precipitate the creation. In other words, the universe is a creation of our mind and will disappear with it.
How can such an absurd theory be considered as the best interpretation of modern physics of the 20th century?
The philosophical realists are astounded and insist the new view of reality is absurd because they are ignorant.

This is typical of many posters here who are philosophical realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 8:30 am
Iwannaplato wrote: I am arguing that our experience has some base in reality and I have pointed out the problem with saying it has none. In fact, I have been arguing mainly the latter. I have been arguing that saying our experience has no base in reality causes all sorts of problems for someone telling us what reality is like and also basing their arguments on empirical science (and pretty much anything else)
You later called it not infallible. Which is a very different assessment from it having no base in reality.
You do get the distinction between what is said to be ultimate reality and that of apparent reality? In our everyday experience, we understand the world by the effects, and read changes the physical world makes on our biology. So, the readout of what is being sensed depends utterly upon the constitution of our physical being. No one here is saying they know what physical reality is like, all I am saying is that APPARENT reality is a biological readout, a physical reaction to the unknown totality of ultimate reality. So again, the apparent reality is our sensed experience, if we had a different constitution apparent reality would appear constitutionally different. You do get the idea that color does not exist in the physical world, color is the effect of lightwave frequencies on the retina and the processes of the understanding. Just as there is no sound to a falling tree in the deep forest if there is not a biological subject in the forest to be effected by said sound wave frequencies.
Yeah, I get those things. I can still run across an uneven field with stones and holes and generally manage to not fall down. You didn't really respond to my post. But you did restate your position. Shit, I'm not even a realist. Though I am a panpsychist so my position may differ from yours at a metaphysical level.
No one here is saying they know what physical reality is like,
Of course you are....for example....
color is the effect of lightwave frequencies on the retina and the processes of the understanding.
You have a typical and I should add realist model of perception. Lightwave frequencies (and note, these are not experienced yet) reach the retina (which is part of physical reality or?) and this leads to effects (so causation)

and here...
Just as there is no sound to a falling tree in the deep forest if there is not a biological subject in the forest to be effected by said sound wave frequencies.
Affected by the frequencies. So, there are frequencies but no one to be affected. So, presumably, nothing falls out of superposition. And in this model we have a forest with no one in it.

You talk about what one experiences being dependent on condition of the body. The body is also a thing in physical reality, if there is a physical reality. But since you mentioned it, you seem to believe there is one.

You have yet to respond to the problem of believing in the scientific models of reality, when you say that our experience has no base in reality. The research you have read is empirical research.

You also said somewhere else that Reality is experience. I am not sure how that fits in with all this.

You also said earlier...
the science of modern physics states that ultimate reality as opposed to apparent reality is a place of no things,
And that is telling us, quite openly, something about ultimate reality.

You are also assuming you know what everyone's experiences really are. Humans are a part of ultimate reality. So you are telling us about what we can and cannot know based on our biology and minds. Yes, you are not claimed to know what we are like as physical objects in reality either in entirety or exactly, but you are repeatedly telling us what ultimate reality is.

To me you are VA actually believe in realism more than I do, though it's a complicated argument. I wonder how you think the first object arose?
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas"
I have been arguing on the basis of the above article all along. However it must be reinforced with stronger and robust philosophical reasonings.[/quote

Personally, I do not know that there is this robust philosophical reasoning to reference.

Noted in the article;
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter4.html
4-1 Why Nature Does not Appear Compatible with Realism.
For many years, there have been attempts to rationalize physics. But, since the first part of this century the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation of modern physics has taught that [size]there is no reality [/size]* in physics.
It claims that what we perceive as real does not have its own independent existence.
It exists only in our imagination.
Descriptions in modern physics cannot be compatible with reality since some fundamental definitions are not compatible with realism.
How can no thingness be a contraction to anything but thingness. I am not trying to be rude, perhaps I am not understanding properly.

The above does not reject reality-proper but merely reject realism, i.e. philosophical realism;
4-2 What Is Realism? [specifically Philosophical Realism]
The concept of realism was accepted and used in all fields of physics from the beginning of history until the beginning of this century.
However, since the development of modern physics, t the interpretation of quantum mechanics has rejected realism.
....
Realism has been defined in various ways.
One of the definitions of realism is:
"The quality of the universe existing independently of ourselves."
Well the way I would understand this is, that the universe like ultimate reality is a place of no things, the fact that biological reactions creates things that are relative to, and only to biology. So things do not really exist, the process when you think about it is similar to evolutionary development where one condition is linked to another effecting it to change to it's changing conditions. As part of a larger condition we never get to see the whole, for the whole is not a thing but a condition.

However, the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation denies the existence of realism.
According to modern physics, matter starts to exist only at the moment the observer learns about its existence. This bizarre belief is illustrated by one of the great masters of the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. Heisenberg [4.1] states: "But then one sees that not even the quality of being (if that may be called a "quality") belongs to what is described. It is a possibility for being or a tendency for being." (Parentheses and quotation marks are from Heisenberg's book.)
Let us recall that Cramer[4.2]makes the same claim in different words:

"It is the change in the observer's knowledge that precipitates the state vector collapse"
Heisenberg also insists on this lack of reality in the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. He [4.3]writes:
"In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the objective reality has evaporated, and quantum mechanics does not represent particles, but rather, our knowledge, our observations, or our consciousness of particles."[/quote]

But unfortunately the ignorant being stuck in the old paradigm believes the following'
If nature does not even have the quality of being, and if it is the observer's knowledge that precipitates that being, the universe did not exist before life began on earth, as suggested by Davies [4.4].
The universe will therefore cease to exist at the moment all life disappears on earth. If matter cannot have its own existence, independent of human mind, as dictated by the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation, cosmologists cannot study the birth of galaxies or the origin of the universe. There was no observer before humans started to observe. If the creation of the universe is the result of the observer's knowledge, then the universe could not exist before we did. Then the observer had to be there at the very first instant of creation in order to precipitate the creation. In other words, the universe is a creation of our mind and will disappear with it.
How can such an absurd theory be considered as the best interpretation of modern physics of the 20th century?
[/quote]The philosophical realists are astounded and insist the new view of reality is absurd because they are ignorant. This is typical of many posters here who are philosophical realists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
[/quote]

Well again, I think one should not think in terms of reallity composed of things, but of conditions. Think of reality being compose entirely of relative conditions. for even what biological consciousness calls things are but conditions, organism itself is a condition in relation with conditions/parts and conditions/whole. We are not to consider ourselves separate observers, we ponder our place within the ultimate condition. You are obviously more well read on the topic than I, but I shall try to do some catch up.
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: reality is

Post by trokanmariel »

Reality, can be the fluctuations on the computation line (an ingenuity testing sociology) being eternity's microcosm relation to itself. The underlying literalism, of this, is the mutual awareness demonic insistence on agreement, with the symmetry definition between fluctuations and computation line being why the right-wing master is unable to see the ingenuity testing the sociology.

What is the ingenuity? It is the eternity spent creating the inspiration consciousness, for the purpose of the mutual awareness demonic's infiltration through physics into the daylight system (with the harddrive of the mutual awareness demonic being the reliance/expectation of maturity of Heaven's authority), at the point in time of Thomas Heath.

The maturity, protected by the emotion of sharing ideology from spreading out into the philosophy consciousness, of mutual awareness's creation of awkwardness from sociology construct matters, is an inferiority as simplistic version to the nowhere to go label.

Trade of socialism cynicism, and its relation in the philosophy matter machine's possession of physics' preparation of philosophy arrangements for the evil backlash against the democracy of scale meta, that overcoming the external sociology by the personal truth is possible, isn't able to comprehend the scale of the Thomas Heath truth: all I have to do, to win, is to rely on using physics from knowing the mutual awareness demonic.

Earlier this evening, I spoke to meta, about the data chaos of society, of TV adverts being a microcosm of the problem, and the understanding of ideas that can be presented as solutions to the data chaos was a secret activator of my power to be a perfection over magic's reliance on sociology.

Moreover, since then, I've ruminated on the visual as absence to visual as absence analysis sector of philosophy, specifically, the revelation that free algebra machination ideology (the principle of sorting out answers using the algebraic method) is a basic version of fluctuations on the computation line, the ironic of course, given the evil assessment politics from said complexity.

Which brings me to the next assessment politics:
body glamour's rumination, on sociology, as a fear of awakening the beast of magic imparting sociology criticism via the safety to machines, is an obvious dichotomy analysis of traditional gravitation to body glamour reality.

Gravitation to body glamour: what are some particulars, about it?

for one, does it use cloning as back to front numbered sequences (for Apex, of the Dml Universal abnormal house)?

I just now altercated, via the technology in my biology, with Sasha Troy from Face/Off; her imparting of biology criticism was an access story, which finally led to me (and her) coming to an understanding, of the analysis that when the criticism symmetry is exact, the ulterior to the reality is that there's no conspiracy meta.

The criticism symmetry - it is a bold label, it is a lucky reference, indeed, and moreover, it is my pinpoint to not have to use physics against magic in the future.

To close:
The sex awareness, of needing a story to tell, is magic's analysis as one and the same as logical, thus, the evil mathematical influence of the experience to the reality participant.


Thomas Heath, to Sasha Troy - you can be my next master




For Eve Archer, and Sasha Troy
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Reality/read apparent reality is an emergent quality it is a biological reaction and meaning is realtive to a conscious subject not to a meaningless world, for the world is meaningless until biological consciousness bestows that meaning upon the world as apparent reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: reality is

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 7:25 am Well again, I think one should not think in terms of reality composed of things, but of conditions. Think of reality being compose entirely of relative conditions. for even what biological consciousness calls things are but conditions, organism itself is a condition in relation with conditions/parts and conditions/whole. We are not to consider ourselves separate observers, we ponder our place within the ultimate condition. You are obviously more well read on the topic than I, but I shall try to do some catch up.
The rest of the post are entangled in messy quotes.

On the above I can agree with you.
I have been propounding on such a basis, i.e. reality is grounded on conditions, which is fundamental to Buddhism [2500 years ago] and lately Quantum Mechanics via Rovelli.
  • Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which treats the state of a quantum system as being observer-dependent, that is, the state is the relation between the observer and the system.
    This interpretation was first delineated by Carlo Rovelli in a 1994 preprint,[1] and has since been expanded upon by a number of theorists.
    It is inspired by the key idea behind special relativity, that the details of an observation depend on the reference frame of the observer, and uses some ideas from Wheeler on quantum information.

    As Rovelli puts it:
    "Quantum mechanics is a theory about the physical description of physical systems relative to other systems, and this is a complete description of the world".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationa ... _mechanics
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34154
Carlo Rovelli - What Exists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gtdIB7VpwQ
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: reality is

Post by popeye1945 »

Viritas

Interesting stuff, thanks for the references. I'll check them out. It sounds like we were saying the same thing only differently.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: reality is

Post by Advocate »

[quote=popeye1945 post_id=573064 time=1652673304 user_id=21999]
[quote=Advocate post_id=572851 time=1652555306 user_id=15238]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=572842 time=1652553552 user_id=3619]

Yes, it seems like you are both confusing the epistemological issue with the ontological claim made that Reality is experience. Could someone actually say what that means?[/quote]

It means that apparent reality is the product of biological consciousness, that we come to know the world through our bodies, kind of like an interface to ultimate reality, apparent reality is what we are capable of sensing of ultimate reality.

[/quote]Do memories of experiences count? Or only as experiences of remembering? For example.What are you ruling out?
Reality is all experience, regardless of whether it's a real illusion, delusion, or later disproved. Later validation is part of a future reality. Actuality continues existing as undifferentiated stuff all the way through; identical for all intents and purposes, before during and after that experience.
[/quote]

Experience is always true to the state of the biology that has the experience whether that experience agrees with physical reality or not. If one makes changes in the biology one changes their ability to sense, as in the case of someone who is ill or physically damaged.
[/quote]

bump
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: reality is

Post by Iwannaplato »

Advocate wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:31 am It means that apparent reality is the product of biological consciousness, that we come to know the world through our bodies, kind of like an interface to ultimate reality, apparent reality is what we are capable of sensing of ultimate reality.
Is it a product of just biological consciousness or of biological consciousness AND something else? IOW is it like a dream (as we generally think of dreams) or a process of dynamic interaction between entities?
or How do I manage to run through a bumpy, uneven field with holes so well? Is it because I am dreaming the field so it is infinitely malleable to my consciousness?
Experience is always true to the state of the biology that has the experience whether that experience agrees with physical reality or not. If one makes changes in the biology one changes their ability to sense, as in the case of someone who is ill or physically damaged.
Sure, though my dog also runs through the field fairly well. Sure, we're both mammals, but it seems like our quite different biologies experience a very similar field when it comes to navigation. I see the holes and clumps of nettles he avoids. The dimensions of the fields we run through and the challenges seem extremely similar.

[
Polyphemus Arnold
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:37 am

Re: reality is

Post by Polyphemus Arnold »

A thing-in-itself (German: Ding an sich) is an object as it is, independent of observation. The concept of thing-in-itself was introduced by Immanuel Kant. The concept led to much controversy among philosophers.[1] It is closely related to Kant's concept of noumenon or the object of inquiry, as opposed to phenomenon (its manifestations).

But the fact is that the “invisible thing” becomes visible as soon as we cast over it our nets, the nets of our organs. These organs exist in function precisely of making visible that WHICH IS NOT AN IMAGE.

To say that we cannot know the thing in itself is absurd since we spend all of our time and effort doing just that. “But you always obtain images, never the thing!” Some observe. But that is not true. I can obtain “the thing”, cook it and eat it, and that is not simply an image.

If we define the thing-in-itself as that which is considered independently of being seen, and then complain that you cannot ever see it. Well…you see what I mean. An embarrassment which I had to go through with my thirteen years old daughter when I tried to explain the concept to her.

The couple, thought-reality is called a “relationship”, as if reality depended on thought. The reverse is true, there is no thought without a reality, namely of the subject that thinks, and the organs he thinks with. And also, incidentally, of a world he thinks about.

Perception is not a “relationship”, at least not a reciprocal one. It is an act upon the world that produces knowledge. How great is this knowledge, which its limits are, we do not know, and presumably, cannot know.

There is a relation, a proportionality between the real and the images we produce, otherwise, those would be useless. Our mental images are good indeed, and they allow us as real beings to act in a real-world, to act upon it, and extract from it all sorts of nourishment and companionship.
The statement, endless repeated, that “ One can only access the contents of one’s mind and not reality” is wrong in several aspects.
First of all, we find here a fallacy of ambiguity. The word “access” ( which implies the possibility of its opposite, lack of access) is used here in reference to mental images, whereas there is no way I would not have access to them, they are me, to a large extent.
When “access” is used properly (and negated), the assertion is false in many instances. The fact is that I do have an access to the real, and this access is precisely the mental images mentioned before.
So the phrase “One cannot access reality but only the contents of one’s mind” could be translated as such: “One cannot access reality but only the images that are the means to access reality”. This phrase manages to be redundant and contradictory at once.
But then there is the question of accessing reality “directly”, without any effort to explain what this would possibly mean.

Access implies means of access, and through those means, we do access reality.
Furthermore, we are reality, and we live in it. And it is not an image, so it is a grave mistake to ever treat it as an image. We may produce as many images from it as we can, but it will not make of reality an image, or from an image reality. Life is not a narrative, nature is not a book
Post Reply