Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

Arising_uk wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:11 am Ignoring the philosophers ask them if the external world exists and I'm betting all would answer "yes".
You've fallen into the "confirmation bias" trap. You are asking a question but you already expect the answer to be "yes".

Epistemology is about disconfirmation, not confirmation. Disconfirmation results in new information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

But more than that the question (and answer) is incomplete, because if we are going to sub-divide the world into "internal" and "external" categories then we also need to ask the question "Does the internal world exist?". I too am betting that the answer would be "yes".

So this begs the question: If the internal and external worlds exist - what are their respective essences and essential differences?

And I am betting you can't answer this question because you don't actually have "internal" and "external" conceptions/representations of reality, even though you claim the "external worlds exists" (whatever that means).

At best - our collective perception is our non-transcendental reality.
Arising_uk wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 11:11 am Whilst I take your points you appear to think this world depends upon our models?
Even ascribing "dependency" to the world is already a model!

Dependencies are human constructs.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:19 am
uwot wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:01 pm Big if. Nope, I'm pretty old school about this. My thought is that "reality" refers to the journal, rather than phenomenal.
If by the "journal" you mean the ledger which records the correct ordering of causes and effects (e.g events in time), it sure begs the question.
Ya know, when this thing posted I thought 'Oh look what silly old predictive text has thrown up. Shall I change it? Nah, people aren't stupid, they'll work out I mean nominal.' Oh look this time noumenal comes up as nominal.
Skepdick
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:14 am Ya know, when this thing posted I thought 'Oh look what silly old predictive text has thrown up. Shall I change it? Nah, people aren't stupid, they'll work out I mean nominal.' Oh look this time noumenal comes up as nominal.
I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt here...

All the worse for you then, because this is exactly the flaw in the real=noumenal position. Science is about phenomenology, not noumenology ( i just made this word up ).

Epistemically speaking, to believe in the noumenal is to believe in the unknown/unknowable. In as much an atheists rejects believing in God idea, an agnostic rejects believing in noumena - for the exact same reasons.

So it's pretty funny watching you grand-stand against IC on this point.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:54 am
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:14 am Ya know, when this thing posted I thought 'Oh look what silly old predictive text has thrown up. Shall I change it? Nah, people aren't stupid, they'll work out I mean nominal.' Oh look this time noumenal comes up as nominal.
All the worse for you then, because this is exactly the flaw in the realist position.

Epistemically speaking, to believe in the noumenal is to believe in the unknown/unknowable. In as much an atheists rejects believing in God idea, an agnostic rejects believing in noumena - for the exact same reasons.
The 'noumenal' is simply whatever causes the phenomenal. My own position is that the most likely cause of the phenomena that suggest there is an external universe which is made of some stuff, is that there exists a universe made of some stuff. Thinking the most obvious explanation is a good place to start is not the same as believing that explanation. Who knows? Maybe Berkeley was right and the noumenal really is the mind of god.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:54 amSo it's pretty funny watching you grand-stand against IC on this point.
Glad you enjoy it.
Skepdick
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:13 am The 'noumenal' is simply whatever causes the phenomenal.
Yes. That's what IC says. God is whatever caused The Big Bang.

Despite all your differences in vocabularies - your common ground is the causal framework (and all of its flaws).

In both of your conceptual models there is this unknown/unknowable cause. So mystical!
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:13 am My own position is that the most likely cause of the phenomena that suggest there is an external universe which is made of some stuff, is that there exists a universe made of some stuff.
But you don't know what stuff it's made of. You don't know ANYTHING about the noumenal world, so whatever you say about it, whatever properties you ascribe to it - they are your own, mental projections.

No different to projecting omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience onto a God.
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:13 am Thinking the most obvious explanation is a good place to start is not the same as believing that explanation. Who knows? Maybe Berkeley was right and the noumenal really is the mind of god.
No... it's your mind. Projected.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:18 am
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:13 am The 'noumenal' is simply whatever causes the phenomenal.
Yes. That's what IC says. God is whatever caused The Big Bang.

Despite all your differences in vocabularies - your common ground is the causal framework (and all of its flaws).

In both of your conceptual models there is this unknown/unknowable cause. So mystical!
The difference is that I know my conceptual model is a conceptual model.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:18 am
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:13 am My own position is that the most likely cause of the phenomena that suggest there is an external universe which is made of some stuff, is that there exists a universe made of some stuff.
But you don't know what stuff it's made of. You don't know ANYTHING about the noumenal world, so whatever you say about it, whatever properties you ascribe to it - they are your own, mental projections.

No different to projecting omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience onto a God.
Well, we know a fair bit about what the noumenal does, because we can see it doing it. But I'm not under any illusion that I know what the noumenal is.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:18 am
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:13 am Thinking the most obvious explanation is a good place to start is not the same as believing that explanation. Who knows? Maybe Berkeley was right and the noumenal really is the mind of god.
No... it's your mind. Projected.
Ah well, that's according to your conceptual model.
Skepdick
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:39 am The difference is that I know my conceptual model is a conceptual model.
So you are aware that your ontology (as conceptualised) is relative to you then?
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:39 am Well, we know a fair bit about what the noumenal does, because we can see it doing it. But I'm not under any illusion that I know what the noumenal is.
That's the phenomenal you are talking about...
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:39 am Ah well, that's according to your conceptual model.
According to all conceptual models I've seen. They are all confluent/equifinal when examined from an epistemic view-point.

Real corresponds to Noumenal corresponds to the Teritory corresponds to Unknowable Cause
Not-real corresponds to Phenomenal corresponds to the Map corresponds to Knowable Effects
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:55 am
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:39 am The difference is that I know my conceptual model is a conceptual model.
So you are aware that your ontology (as conceptualised) is relative to you then?
I think that would be a fair interpretation of the above.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:55 am
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:39 am Well, we know a fair bit about what the noumenal does, because we can see it doing it. But I'm not under any illusion that I know what the noumenal is.
That's the phenomenal you are talking about...
Well "we can see it doing it" is the phenomenal. It is conceivable that the phenomenal is all there is, and there is no underlying noumenon. But if the phenomenal does have some noumenal cause, I don't think it is unreasonable to infer that it behaves in some way that is consistent with the phenomenal.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:55 am
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:39 am Ah well, that's according to your conceptual model.
According to all conceptual models I've seen.
Dunno how you've missed all those 'non-duality' cranks on this forum.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:55 amThey are all confluent/equifinal when examined from an epistemic view-point.
I disagree.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:55 amReal corresponds to Noumenal corresponds to the Teritory corresponds to Unknowable Cause
Not-real corresponds to Phenomenal corresponds to the Map corresponds to Knowable Effects
Ah, so the phenomenal isn't real, but corresponds to "Knowable Effects". Effects of what?
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:54 amScience is about phenomenology, not noumenology ( i just made this word up ).
It's a bit fucking late editing a post that has already been answered, but yes, I agree and have made precisely that point at length.
Skepdick
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:42 am Dunno how you've missed all those 'non-duality' cranks on this forum.
Can you really blame them? Conceptually, the very notion of a unified and universal Truth is the defiance of dualism.

Who wouldn't pursue such a noble red-herring?
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:42 am I disagree.
Yeah, well - I disagree with your disagreement.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:55 amReal corresponds to Noumenal corresponds to the Teritory corresponds to Unknowable Cause
Not-real corresponds to Phenomenal corresponds to the Map corresponds to Knowable Effects
Ah, so the phenomenal isn't real, but corresponds to "Knowable Effects".
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:42 am Effects of what?
It's an unprofitable question. I can ask you the exact same thing about the Big Bang, and existence in general. What is "existence" the effect of?

Or we can just recognise the limits of inductive reasoning?

Or we can simply recognise that time is a relativistic/human construct. Physics does not prescribe an arrow on time.
Last edited by Skepdick on Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:12 pm
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 9:54 amScience is about phenomenology, not noumenology ( i just made this word up ).
It's a bit fucking late editing a post that has already been answered, but yes, I agree and have made precisely that point at length.
So if science is the limits of any methodist epistemology, and science is about phenomena - what principle are you using to justify your belief in noumena?

Since they can't be demonstrated and all...
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 12:24 pmSo if science is the limits of any methodist epistemology, and science is about phenomena - what principle are you using to justify your belief in noumena?

Since they can't be demonstrated and all...
'Ere, ya missed a bit:
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 10:13 amMy own position is that the most likely cause of the phenomena that suggest there is an external universe which is made of some stuff, is that there exists a universe made of some stuff. Thinking the most obvious explanation is a good place to start is not the same as believing that explanation. Who knows? Maybe Berkeley was right and the noumenal really is the mind of god.
And this:
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:42 amIt is conceivable that the phenomenal is all there is, and there is no underlying noumenon. But if the phenomenal does have some noumenal cause, I don't think it is unreasonable to infer that it behaves in some way that is consistent with the phenomenal.
Skepdick
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:42 am It is conceivable that the phenomenal is all there is, and there is no underlying noumenon.
Anything is conceivable - only imagination is the limit.

But we are back to under-determination. You can't distinguish a universe with noumena from one without. They are observationally equivalent.

Hence my claim of equifinality/confluence of all philosophy (which you disagreed with).
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:42 am But if the phenomenal does have some noumenal cause, I don't think it is unreasonable to infer that it behaves in some way that is consistent with the phenomenal.
And under-determination again.... You would have no way of telling if the noumenal was inconsistent with the phenomenal.

In fact - you could SAY that the noumenal is consistent with the phenomenal. And I could SAY that the noumenal is inconsistent with the phenomenal.

And both philosophies would still be phenomenologically equifinal.

Whether Berkley was right or not - we have no way of knowing, but if I am to follow your precedent - it seems we could say whatever we want about the unknowable.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:12 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:42 am It is conceivable that the phenomenal is all there is, and there is no underlying noumenon.
Anything is conceivable - only imagination is the limit.
Yup. It is conceivable that the world is flat.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:12 pmBut we are back to under-determination. You can't distinguish a universe with noumena from one without. They are observationally equivalent.
I know.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:12 pmHence my claim of equifinality/confluence of all philosophy (which you disagreed with).
Well, if ya take the flat earth example, I don't have to waste my time constructing extremely convoluted theories for why we are being duped.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:12 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 11:42 am But if the phenomenal does have some noumenal cause, I don't think it is unreasonable to infer that it behaves in some way that is consistent with the phenomenal.
And under-determination again.... You would have no way of telling if the noumenal was inconsistent with the phenomenal.

In fact - you could SAY that the noumenal is consistent with the phenomenal. And I could SAY that the noumenal is inconsistent with the phenomenal.
And then we could do the experiment.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:12 pmAnd both philosophies would still be phenomenologically equifinal.

Whether Berkley was right or not - we have no way of knowing, but if I am to follow your precedent - it seems we could say whatever we want about the unknowable.
Well, if yer gonna insist that any two philosophies are equifinal, you already have.
Skepdick
Posts: 5282
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Does Ontological Relativity undermine Absolute Truth?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:33 pm Well, if ya take the flat earth example, I don't have to waste my time constructing extremely convoluted theories for why we are being duped.
And that would be swell, if you could tell us why you've chosen Ocam's razor over Hickam's dictum as a principle.

Why do you believe nature can be explained "simply"?
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:33 pm And then we could do the experiment.
Both theories describe the exact same phenomena - what do you expect to achieve with an experiment?

That is literally what "observational equivalence" means.
uwot wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:33 pm Well, if yer gonna insist that any two philosophies are equifinal, you already have.
If two philosophies produce observationally-equivalent consequences - what else should I conclude?

That is literally what confluence and equifinality mean.
Post Reply