Donald Hoffman: There is No Objective Reality

[Gary Childress]

It's a fact that the sky appeared blue to me the last time I looked, I assure you.

It doesn't matter what color the sky 'really' was, it only matters that it appeared blue to me. That is a fact. I could have been mistaken but it is a fact that it appeared to be what I call blue. You can dispute that it was blue to me but you would be wrong, even though you don't have privy to my 'inner experience' and I'm the only one who knows for sure.

BTW, that dress is an interesting story I'd never heard of. Thanks for posting it.

[Gary Childress]

It's a fact that the sky appeared blue to me the last time I looked, I assure you.

You cannot claim "it is a fact" the sky appeared blue to you.

The most you can do is to claim 'the sky appeared blue to me the last time I looked'.
Then it is up to me or others to believe you or not whether what you state is true or not.
Even then it is still not a fact until you qualified it within the scientific FSK.

It doesn't matter what color the sky 'really' was, it only matters for the sake of my point that it appeared blue to me. That is a fact. I could have been mistaken (in which case it would be a fact that I was mistaken or deceived) but it is a fact that it appeared (to me) to be what I call blue. You can dispute that it was blue to me but you would be wrong, even though you don't have privy to my 'inner experience' and I'm the only one who knows for sure.

BTW, that dress is an interesting story I'd never heard of. Thanks for posting it.

[Nick_A]

This thread is similar to my thread called "Protagoras vs Socrates." Protagoras asserts that "Man is the measure of all things" So if Man can't measure objective reality, objective reality doesn't exist.

Socrates asserts that objective reality is the property of "forms" or the ideas and ideals of our source in the spiritual realm. They exist as examples in the physical realm

So what are these Forms, according to Plato? The Forms are abstract, perfect, unchanging concepts or ideals that transcend time and space; they exist in the Realm of Forms. Even though the Forms are abstract, that doesn't mean they are not real. In fact, the Forms are more 'real' than any individual physical objects. So, concepts like Redness, Roundness, Beauty, Justice, or Goodness are Forms (and thus they are commonly capitalized). Individual objects like a red book, a round ball, a beautiful girl, a just action, or a good person reside in the physical realm and are simply different examples of the Forms.

Objective reality doesn't exist for the senses of Man as he is in which fitness is dominant Can they be perceived by conscious Man in which truth is dominant? That is the question

The point with Hoffman in the OP is there is no objective reality as with Socrates and Plato.
As such, in relation to objective reality, "man is the measure of all things".

Quite true. Hoffman is in the Protagoras camp. I just can't see how one insignificant planet in the great universe houses a form of life that considers itself the measure of all things and what it doesn't sense doesn't exist. I'll stick with Socrates.

[seeds]

Noted your interesting points, except the following point;

Hoffman did not imply humans LITERALLY create “...any physical object that we see - in the moment that we see it...”
as if like waving a wand and things appear.
It is more sophisticated than that.

Yes, it is more sophisticated than that, and I thought I had made that clear in my comparing it to the laser hologram.

However, if we look again at what Hoffman actually said in the video:

“...the point of this is that we create any physical object that we see - in the moment that we see it...”

...my beef is with the “...we create...” part of that statement, for the process of our observing something does not “create” the 3-D objects of the universe, but merely explicates them from the patterns of quantum information.

And to bring another metaphor into the mix, the results of the explicating process of observation is loosely similar to how the interior workings of a DVD player explicate the 2-D features of a movie from the coded information on the disk,...



...with the point being that one cannot simply assume that the observations of conscious beings create the 3-D reality of the universe without acknowledging the existence of the informationally-based source from which that reality springs-forth (of which Hoffman does seem to allude to in his mentioning that there is “...some other reality out there...”).
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

It's a fact that the sky appeared blue to me the last time I looked, I assure you.

You cannot claim "it is a fact" the sky appeared blue to you.

The most you can do is to claim 'the sky appeared blue to me the last time I looked'.
Then it is up to me or others to believe you or not whether what you state is true or not.
Even then it is still not a fact until you qualified it within the scientific FSK.

It doesn't matter what color the sky 'really' was, it only matters for the sake of my point that it appeared blue to me. That is a fact. I could have been mistaken (in which case it would be a fact that I was mistaken or deceived) but it is a fact that it appeared (to me) to be what I call blue. You can dispute that it was blue to me but you would be wrong, even though you don't have privy to my 'inner experience' and I'm the only one who knows for sure.

BTW, that dress is an interesting story I'd never heard of. Thanks for posting it.

You cannot insist 'that the sky is blue' at point t1 to you' is a fact of reality.

I can agree with you, it is a fact 'Gary Childress claimed the sky was blue at t1' based on what you posted or stated [video taped],
but what you claimed is not a scientific fact that the sky is blue at t1.
until you qualified your claim to a scientific framework and system.

It is the same with the blue/yellow dress.
It was a fact some people saw the picture as yellow and some saw the picture as blue.
But what is the fact of the real color of the dress can only be confirmed by Science, example like measuring the color wavelengths emitted from the picture or real dress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Noted your interesting points, except the following point;

Hoffman did not imply humans LITERALLY create “...any physical object that we see - in the moment that we see it...”
as if like waving a wand and things appear.
It is more sophisticated than that.

Yes, it is more sophisticated than that, and I thought I had made that clear in my comparing it to the laser hologram.

However, if we look again at what Hoffman actually said in the video:

“...the point of this is that we create any physical object that we see - in the moment that we see it...”

...my beef is with the “...we create...” part of that statement, for the process of our observing something does not “create” the 3-D objects of the universe, but merely explicates them from the patterns of quantum information.

And to bring another metaphor into the mix, the results of the explicating process of observation is loosely similar to how the interior workings of a DVD player explicate the 2-D features of a movie from the coded information on the disk,...



...with the point being that one cannot simply assume that the observations of conscious beings create the 3-D reality of the universe without acknowledging the existence of the informationally-based source from which that reality springs-forth (of which Hoffman does seem to allude to in his mentioning that there is “...some other reality out there...”).
_______

I agree Hoffman's statement is a bit too loose but I understand he did not mean it literally, i.e. by mere observations we create reality out there.

I get your point with the hologram and DVD player, i.e. their internal workings that enable the emergence of reality as-it-is.
This is the same with Hoffman's analogy, i.e. the icons on your computer screen as an interface - as analogous to the 3D external world is dependent on the internal processors [CPU], all other internal parts and the softwares that enable the icons on the screen.

In the case of humans and the emergence of reality, what is behind and enable the emergence of reality are the neural algorithms in the physical brain and body which is deterministically connected back to the Big Bang, which spiral back to the emergence of reality.

As for reality, Hoffman as a scientists has to [imperative] ASSUMES there is a fundamental reality which he term 'consciousness' with 'conscious agent', else his whole theory cannot work.
He insisted this consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God, creative intelligence or any thing theistic BUT is merely and ASSUMPTION.

I don't agree with Hoffman's need for the above assumption, but as a scientist he has no choice but to assume that to enable his theory to work.

[Gary Childress]

You cannot claim "it is a fact" the sky appeared blue to you.

The most you can do is to claim 'the sky appeared blue to me the last time I looked'.
Then it is up to me or others to believe you or not whether what you state is true or not.
Even then it is still not a fact until you qualified it within the scientific FSK.

It doesn't matter what color the sky 'really' was, it only matters for the sake of my point that it appeared blue to me. That is a fact. I could have been mistaken (in which case it would be a fact that I was mistaken or deceived) but it is a fact that it appeared (to me) to be what I call blue. You can dispute that it was blue to me but you would be wrong, even though you don't have privy to my 'inner experience' and I'm the only one who knows for sure.

BTW, that dress is an interesting story I'd never heard of. Thanks for posting it.

You cannot insist 'that the sky is blue' at point t1 to you' is a fact of reality.

I can agree with you, it is a fact 'Gary Childress claimed the sky was blue at t1' based on what you posted or stated [video taped],
but what you claimed is not a scientific fact that the sky is blue at t1.
until you qualified your claim to a scientific framework and system.

It is the same with the blue/yellow dress.
It was a fact some people saw the picture as yellow and some saw the picture as blue.
But what is the fact of the real color of the dress can only be confirmed by Science, example like measuring the color wavelengths emitted from the picture or real dress.

I wasn't talking about "scientific" facts, anyway, unless it is a scientific fact that I typed earlier in this thread that the sky looked blue to me at t1. But it is a fact (presumably unverifiable by you) that the sky looked blue to me at t1. By the same token, you could say that the sky looked X color to you at t1 and that is equally a fact (albeit only verifiable by you).

[Veritas Aequitas]

I wasn't talking about "scientific" facts, anyway, unless it is a scientific fact that I typed earlier in this thread that the sky looked blue to me at t1. But it is a fact (presumably unverifiable by you) that the sky looked blue to me at t1. By the same token, you could say that the sky looked X color to you at t1 and that is equally a fact (albeit only verifiable by you).

The cross-talk here is 'what is fact' exactly.
You are misusing the term 'fact'.

The right thing is just to say, 'I personally saw the sky is blue at t1' which is easily understood by everyone.
However, philosophically [rigor required], adding the term 'fact' incorrectly and inappropriately mess up the whole thing.

Note,
What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point with Hoffman in the OP is there is no objective reality as with Socrates and Plato.
As such, in relation to objective reality, "man is the measure of all things".

Quite true. Hoffman is in the Protagoras camp. I just can't see how one insignificant planet in the great universe houses a form of life that considers itself the measure of all things and what it doesn't sense doesn't exist. I'll stick with Socrates.

It is because you have not explored deep and wide enough re 'Know Thyself'.

You cannot see the above complexities is connected to humanity is because of the inherent psychological impulse of existential crisis that drive you to Socrates' substance theory of independence.

[Iwannaplato]

In his book,
The Case Against Reality:
Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes

and video,
Donald Hoffman | The Case Against Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

Donald Hoffman postulated there is NO [edited] such thing as Objective Reality.

... our perceptions of snakes and apples, and even of space and time, do not reveal objective reality.

We encounter a startling “Fitness-Beats-Truth” (FBT) theorem, which states that evolution by natural selection does not favor true perceptions—it routinely drives them to extinction.
Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.

The FBT Theorem tells us that the language of our perceptions—including space, time, shape, hue, saturation, brightness, texture, taste, sound, smell, and motion—cannot describe reality as it is when no one looks.

Space, time, and physical objects are not objective reality.
They are simply the virtual world delivered by our senses to help us play the game of life.

At this point Hoffman hypothesis would agree with the following threads I raised;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Despite postulating there is no objective reality, Hoffman is driven by the same fundamental psychological impulse to think there is still some thing more fundamental, i.e.

Physics and evolution point to the same conclusion: spacetime and objects are not foundational.
Something else is more fundamental, and spacetime emerges from it.

If our senses hide reality behind an interface, then what is that reality?
I don’t know.

Hoffman then speculated the basic of that reality could be 'consciousness'.

Perhaps the universe itself is a massive social network of conscious agents that experience, decide, and act.
If so, consciousness does not arise from matter; this is a big claim that we will explore in detail.
Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness—as a perceptual interface.

Note in the video Hoffman stated, the consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God or creative intelligence.

What he stated was, such consciousness and conscious agents are merely ASSUMPTIONs necessary for his theory to work.

My take from Hoffman's book is there is no independent objective reality or objective facts out there.
In contrast to my take, people like Peter Holmes et. al. insist there is a real objective feature of reality, i.e. facts that we make factual assertions [descriptions] about.

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific framework and system of reality [FSK] constructed by humans and thus objective in that sense and it is interdependent with the human conditions.

It seems like this position as a whole is taking a number of objective ontological stands. Wouldn't the theory itself be a claim about 'the way things are objectively'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It seems like this position as a whole is taking a number of objective ontological stands. Wouldn't the theory itself be a claim about 'the way things are objectively'.

This theory exposed this point,

Generally, philosophical realists claim what is perceived as real is represented by objective reality that is independent of the human conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical realism is a broad family of philosophies regarding the properties and contents of reality.
Realism may refer to a number of positions within metaphysics and epistemology, which express that a given thing exists in reality independently of knowledge or understanding.

What the OP theory exposed is,
there is no such objective reality that is independent the human conditions.
The 3D objects human perceived that is represented by its objective reality [referent] independent of human conditions, are not independent, but somehow entangled with human beings.

[Iwannaplato]

What the OP theory exposed is,
there is no such objective reality that is independent the human conditions.
The 3D objects human perceived that is represented by its objective reality [referent] independent of human conditions, are not independent, but somehow entangled with human beings.

To say "The 3D objects human perceived that is represented by its objective reality [referent] independent of human conditions, are not independent, but somehow entangled with human beings." is to make an objective claim about the nature of reality. It is an ontological claim positing what objective reality is. You are a human making a claim about what objective reality is. It is somehow entangled with humans (who themselves of course are a part of reality).

[Gary Childress]

You are misusing the term 'fact'.

No. I'm not.

[bahman]

In his book,
The Case Against Reality:
Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes

and video,
Donald Hoffman | The Case Against Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

Donald Hoffman postulated there is NO [edited] such thing as Objective Reality.

... our perceptions of snakes and apples, and even of space and time, do not reveal objective reality.

We encounter a startling “Fitness-Beats-Truth” (FBT) theorem, which states that evolution by natural selection does not favor true perceptions—it routinely drives them to extinction.
Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.

The FBT Theorem tells us that the language of our perceptions—including space, time, shape, hue, saturation, brightness, texture, taste, sound, smell, and motion—cannot describe reality as it is when no one looks.

Space, time, and physical objects are not objective reality.
They are simply the virtual world delivered by our senses to help us play the game of life.

At this point Hoffman hypothesis would agree with the following threads I raised;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Despite postulating there is no objective reality, Hoffman is driven by the same fundamental psychological impulse to think there is still some thing more fundamental, i.e.

Physics and evolution point to the same conclusion: spacetime and objects are not foundational.
Something else is more fundamental, and spacetime emerges from it.

If our senses hide reality behind an interface, then what is that reality?
I don’t know.

Hoffman then speculated the basic of that reality could be 'consciousness'.

Perhaps the universe itself is a massive social network of conscious agents that experience, decide, and act.
If so, consciousness does not arise from matter; this is a big claim that we will explore in detail.
Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness—as a perceptual interface.

Note in the video Hoffman stated, the consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God or creative intelligence.

What he stated was, such consciousness and conscious agents are merely ASSUMPTIONs necessary for his theory to work.

My take from Hoffman's book is there is no independent objective reality or objective facts out there.
In contrast to my take, people like Peter Holmes et. al. insist there is a real objective feature of reality, i.e. facts that we make factual assertions [descriptions] about.

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific framework and system of reality [FSK] constructed by humans and thus objective in that sense and it is interdependent with the human conditions.

What we call objective reality is an illusion made of mind.

[Eodnhoj7]

In his book,
The Case Against Reality:
Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes

and video,
Donald Hoffman | The Case Against Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

Donald Hoffman postulated there is NO [edited] such thing as Objective Reality.

... our perceptions of snakes and apples, and even of space and time, do not reveal objective reality.

We encounter a startling “Fitness-Beats-Truth” (FBT) theorem, which states that evolution by natural selection does not favor true perceptions—it routinely drives them to extinction.
Instead, natural selection favors perceptions that hide the truth and guide useful action.

The FBT Theorem tells us that the language of our perceptions—including space, time, shape, hue, saturation, brightness, texture, taste, sound, smell, and motion—cannot describe reality as it is when no one looks.

Space, time, and physical objects are not objective reality.
They are simply the virtual world delivered by our senses to help us play the game of life.

At this point Hoffman hypothesis would agree with the following threads I raised;
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25316

Despite postulating there is no objective reality, Hoffman is driven by the same fundamental psychological impulse to think there is still some thing more fundamental, i.e.

Physics and evolution point to the same conclusion: spacetime and objects are not foundational.
Something else is more fundamental, and spacetime emerges from it.

If our senses hide reality behind an interface, then what is that reality?
I don’t know.

Hoffman then speculated the basic of that reality could be 'consciousness'.

Perhaps the universe itself is a massive social network of conscious agents that experience, decide, and act.
If so, consciousness does not arise from matter; this is a big claim that we will explore in detail.
Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness—as a perceptual interface.

Note in the video Hoffman stated, the consciousness and conscious agents has nothing to do with God or creative intelligence.

What he stated was, such consciousness and conscious agents are merely ASSUMPTIONs necessary for his theory to work.

My take from Hoffman's book is there is no independent objective reality or objective facts out there.
In contrast to my take, people like Peter Holmes et. al. insist there is a real objective feature of reality, i.e. facts that we make factual assertions [descriptions] about.

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a specific framework and system of reality [FSK] constructed by humans and thus objective in that sense and it is interdependent with the human conditions.

Observating "observation" itself is absolute and unconditional given it observes itself through itself.