|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Objective reality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The fact that it isn't "real". As Morpheus said, "What is real?" What about the reality of the WoW universe? For me, objective reality seems to be shared experience of minds. I'm not sure that the underlying substrate is that important, whether it be the physical world or a computer-based simulation.
I... put it to you that the ultimate aim of science would be to not just understand and explain the laws of the Matrix reality but the understanding of the laws that relate to the reality in which the Matrix itself exists. I agree - but we're discussing the nature of "objective reality", not the goals of science.
The red pill or the blue pill Cavey. Which would you take? Live a self consistent and internally cohernt lie? Or discover and explore the "truth"? I think both have something to offer. I have spent literally weeks exploring the Mandlebrot set. I can do that in either. And remember the "Holodeck Dilemma"? As soon as we have affordable holodecks, we as a species are fucked...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well I would say that mathematical constructs are our way to desipher the reality we find ourselves in. I would have said exactly the same until recently. The question I would ask you is - Does a perfect circle exist? It doesn't exist empirically (I think we can agree). But do the mathematical "truths" related to such a concept "exist"?
I think it did, and I hope I answered it coherently too. I think you did if you assume that all maths is derived from empirical reality. That was my view until very recently. Now I am not so sure. Do imaginary numbers (ignore the confusing terminology) as in the square root of -1 "exist"? Does not empirical reality (i.e. QM) suggest that they do? What the fuck do we mean by a "perfect circle" or "imaginary numbers"? I ask you here because it is an interesting question. Not because I think I have some ultimate answer I am going to inflict on you or bombard you with. I think the views of the likes of Cavey, Rrhain and SG are key to this thread. Hopefully they won't mind questioning on these issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Because mathematical constructs are representations of objective reality. An alien intelligence certainly won't know the term "pi", but they'll undoubtedly know and acknowledge the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle. Only if they have the concept of a perfect circle. If the concept of a perfect circle is not objective why would they acknowledge such a relationship? Yet there is no empirically observable example of a perfect circle. That, as I see it, is the problem with the link between pure empiricism as the sole arbiter of objectivity as you seem to be portraying it. Do you disagree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Mathematics is just language. Certainly not from my perspective. When I speak of mathematics, I am refering to the formal systems, constructs, and relationships that lie behind the language.
Because mathematical constructs are representations of objective reality. An alien intelligence certainly won't know the term "pi", but they'll undoubtedly know and acknowledge the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle. But Pi does not exist in your objective reality (at least not at the level we are considering here.) Pi is the idealisation of the approximations found in the physical Universe. And it is this idealisation that is shared by us and the aliens. But it is an idealisation that DOESN'T exist in the Universe, other than in our minds, and I can devise physical experiments designed to demonstrate that the idealisation doesn't exist! So does it exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Yep, you've definitely been thinking along the right lines
Hopefully you are starting to realise the difficulty in expressing some of the ideas you have been having in standard language owing to the levels of ambiguity inherrent in most of our words. I do feel that this is largely the issue between you and nwr. In years past at EvC I have found it infuriatingly impossible to have a coherrent discussion on this topic, so I tended to avoid the subject. We found it difficult enough back at the department when we had endless coffee and blackboards at our disposal!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3922 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Do imaginary numbers (ignore the confusing terminology) as in the square root of -1 "exist"? Does not empirical reality (i.e. QM) suggest that they do? What in QM suggests that the imaginaries exist? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just asking what gave you this idea and trying to figure out how to learn more about it. My understanding of geometry makes me feel that negative numbers themselves don't really "exist" and are just conventions on the number line. This may be keeping me from just automagically getting what you are saying. In relativity the square root of a negative is the sign that logic has gone beyond merely breaking down (as in the singularity) and begun speaking about nonsense (as in traveling faster than light).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
For me, objective reality seems to be shared experience of minds. Which sounds wonderful. But what does it mean? There are those here would argue that multiple individual subjective experiences of Allah constitute objective evidence of Allah (or at least "something" supernatural). Are they wrong in your view? If so why?
I agree - but we're discussing the nature of "objective reality", not the goals of science. Yes and no. If we are in the matrix there is a science of the Matrix - sure. But are scientists ultimately trying to discover the rules of the Matrix or the rules that govern the Matrix? Is there a difference between different sciences (or different research activities) in this respect?
As soon as we have affordable holodecks, we as a species are fucked... Yeah - I personally am a shallow bastard and can only pray that the holodec will prove more fruitful than this jar in which my brain currently resides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Does a perfect circle exist? Yes, and they are an amazing band. Seriously though... If we can agree that mathematical concepts are our subjective representation of reality, then, within that subjective framework of reality something as subjective as "perfect" can exist.
I think you did if you assume that all maths is derived from empirical reality. Well I wouldn't agree that it is derived from, I would say that it represents empirical reality. Would that change your position?
What the fuck do we mean by a "perfect circle" or "imaginary numbers"? The same thing that we mean when we say beautiful. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I do feel that this is largely the issue between you and nwr. My own (highly subjective view) of Nwr is that he spouts a lot of bollocks and has no idea what he means by most of the words he uses. He never takes an actual position and instead attacks the position of others by bearing down on the semantical use of terminology within the conventionalist limitations he has set himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If we can agree that mathematical concepts are our subjective representation of reality, then, within that subjective framework of reality something as subjective as "perfect" can exist. Can it? Can you imagine a perfect circle? Can you imagine infinity? Can you imagine all the real numbers between 0 and 1?
Well I wouldn't agree that it is derived from, I would say that it represents empirical reality. I used to agree. As a physics graduate this is what I was taught. But is it true? How much maths can be derived irresopective of empirical investigation? Do the laws applying to infinite dimensional sphere hold "true" in some sense regardles of the actual empirical existence of infinitely dimensional spheres?
The same thing that we mean when we say beautiful. So to say that 1 + 1 =2 is the same as saying "that is beautiful"? I am being facetious. But only to ask - What exactly is the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
There are those here would argue that multiple individual subjective experiences of Allah constitute objective evidence of Allah (or at least "something" supernatural). And I'd agree, but what we're calling "Allah" here is whatever it is that causes the shared experience. This could be a deity, or it could be a meme. The shared experience of Christians is definitely evidence of *something*. I can still speak in tongues
But are scientists ultimately trying to discover the rules of the Matrix or the rules that govern the Matrix? Is there a difference between different sciences (or different research activities) in this respect? Yes, almost the same as considering quantum physics and chemistry.
Yeah - I personally am a shallow bastard Ok, taking the UK population - what will be the male female ratio left outside the holodecks once they're switched on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Oni writes: If we can agree that mathematical concepts are our subjective representation of reality, then, within that subjective framework of reality something as subjective as "perfect" can exist.
Straggler writes: Can it? The question should be, Does it? All that you are saying here is that there is no perfect way to represent a shape that we believe can be perfect. Like say, a square.
Can you imagine infinity? No, of course not. But wouldn't doing so make it finite? I can't imagine infinity because it's infinite.
How much maths can be derived irresopective of empirical investigation? An infinite amount.
So to say that 1 + 1 =2 is the same as saying "that is beautiful"? I am being facetious. But only to ask - What exactly is the difference?
No I meant, saying something is perfect is the same as beautiful. You have to set an arbitrary parameter of what is (perfect or beautiful) and see what comes within a degree of acuracy to your set margin of perfection (or beauty). - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So is 1 + 1 =2 an objective "truth"?
Does it rely on minds to perceive or conceive this or is it true regardless? That is the question of mathematical paltonistic reality is it not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
And I'd agree, but what we're calling "Allah" here is whatever it is that causes the shared experience. Yeah. Absolutely. Fluctuations in the Matrix, temporal brain activity, telepathic dolphins or indeed any other possibity could be the cause of such phenomenon. But there still is a "shared" phenomenon that is experienced. Necessarily subjectively. But which exists external to the mind of the experiencee. Yes?
But are scientists ultimately trying to discover the rules of the Matrix or the rules that govern the Matrix? Is there a difference between different sciences (or different research activities) in this respect? Yes, almost the same as considering quantum physics and chemistry. As one who is a "pure" physicist isn't the discovery of ultimate "truths" the aim of physics? Are we happy just working out how the Matrix operates?
Ok, taking the UK population - what will be the male female ratio left outside the holodecks once they're switched on? Who cares as long as I am logged in and taking full advantage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
So is 1 + 1 =2 an objective "truth"? Yes. An apple and another apple would give you a total of 2 apples. The apple being the objective part. Numbers are our subjective representation for them when summing up the total.
Does it rely on minds to perceive or conceive this or is it true regardless? Things exist in multiples, this is true regardless. How you choose to represent it is subjective. I think this is getting a bit confusing to follow. lol - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024