Objective reality

The obvious answer to "what is objective reality?" is "stuff" - the stuff of everyday existence: potatoes and tigers as Dr A would put it. There is an instinctive knowledge of stuff that exists, and then separately the rules that this stuff seems to follow. This view is endemic from children through to scientists of many fields. As a theoretical physicist, I am convinced that this view is not quite right.Scientists for hundreds/thousands of years have been attempting to drill down to discover of what this stuff is made, and what rules it follows. Over the past 100 years, the shocking discovery has been that when we delve deep enough, there is no more stuff, there are only rules. We can look at the mechanics of a canon ball. We can note its mass, volume, position, velocity, etc, and together with the known rules it follows, we can predict its behaviour. But underneath it all is still the canon ball itself, the "stuff" of which it is made. But when we turn to fundemental phsyics, we discover something different: the electron is not a little ball whose behaviour we can model. It is described completely by the rules it follows. There is no room left for further underlying stuff. Indeed, the very nature of the electron (its fermi-dirac "statistics") tells us that there can be nothing more (there is an astronomical scale equivalent to this, in the no-hair theorems of black holes, but that's for another post.)The everyday objects we "see" and "touch" are just massive collections of rules, which interact with the rules of our own "physical" bodies, and the real world of stuff that we perceive really does only exist in our minds. If this does sound like too much bullshit, just start to relax your grip on everyday reality with somethign simple such as your knowledge of say solidity - solidity is simply caused by electromagnetic repulsion. Every solid object you know is essentially 99.999999% empty space, and the only reason objects do not simply slide through each other is the interaction of massless photons...So to me, there are only rules. Or mathematics as I would normally say. I'm not talking about normal Platonism, as this is very much a monist approach - the Platonic realm is our world. This is why Pi is as real to me as the laptop I am typing on. This is also why I regard constructed realities such as the Matrix or WoW as real - they are just another layer up in rules creating a perceived existence. And certain ways of viewing string theory, and also the Holographic Principle, suggest that even the rules that make up our existence are just a projection of deeper rules, so perhaps we are already in a natural Matrix of our own...

No - you have missed the point which I expressed to Dr A above. Son Goku hinted at this in his post. It is immaterial that an infinitude of axioms can be posited - the objective reality is what a given axiom leads to. Ther are no circles in the Universe that will give you an answer for Pi, only approximations. Yet I can share with an alien an exact idea of Pi. This is the point that Sraggler and I were making.

From reading your post, I can agree for the most part; with what you say.There is however, one bit concerning the definitions of language, mathmatical, or otherwise, that I would ask of you.Concerning the matter of a mathmatical, or spoken, word of truth, that is by all observations: true.As an example: The Sun IS.
And; The Sun is hot.Now, we understand this empirical data from the age of youth. Yet when in debates we find many who try to cast doubt on this truth by whatever means they can to suit thier agenda. Absolute reality, Objective reality; These words were invented to solve that human desire to "win" for whatever cause, to be balanced with a win in truth. Instead of a short lived win based on suggestion and perception which can lead to false beliefs which can hinder growth and understanding of the human race.As difficult as it may be to prove emotions, they do exists. Like thought. Which does exist. We humans take most of the empirical data we percieve and based on thought and emotions, define them to agreeance. This agreeance is Objective reality when no argument can prove otherwise than what is agreed.Science teaches Objective reality to ground the science community. But if the science community does not agree on the definition, then like in its definition; rivers run backwards, gravity refuses to hold mass, and scientists start teaching string theory and mankind evolving from current apes as if its a fact and not a theory. And the masses are misled to funding vain science and fools errands. This of course stunts and limits true growth for Mankind.So this being said, I would ask; How do we define such a word as Objective reality? There must be a simple definition that doesnt have to wind out into a five paragraph report with only more food for an ambitious scientist to rip apart to fund a useless project. What simple definition will all scientists accept? Or is it a useless endeavor?Edited by tesla, : Shift key impaired.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

"Apparently Empty".As a theorist, i find it nessecary to ground myself. magnetic field or photon, it is a real force. The stuff is there, even if it seems less tangible, like water instead of rock, or air instead of water. all the stuff we touch is based on the rules of the stuff its built on.You'll never find an empty space.Hi btw long time no see.

You're missing my point. And I apologize, I think my thread-title was misleading. I couldn't really think of one and just shoved that up there.I fully agree that there are no circles in the Universe that will give you an exact answer for Pi.My point is that it's the scientific method that is used to give you those approximations to close in on the exact idea of Pi that you can share with aliens.
My point is that the "exact idea of Pi" (the objective reality of Pi) can be tested and verified through the use of the scientific method. And, indeed, that's what was used to obtain the "exact idea of Pi" in the first place. I have not missed the point which you expressed to Dr A. I've only purposefuly ignored it. I am trying to make my own point, which is different I agree with all you say. But it is all irrlevant to the point that I am trying to make. It's quite possible that the point I'm making is irrelvant to whatever you want to talk about as well... What I'm talking about doesn't depend upon an answer of "what the stuff is". Perhaps it is "stuff we haven't detected yet"... perhaps it is "just rules". Regardless of whatever it is based upon... it's still there regardless of anyone's personal subjective ideas on the matter.Given a general environment, my hand does not go through a wall. Perhaps there is "stuff" blocking it. Perhaps there is "just rules" blocking it. That doesn't really matter. My hand still does not go through the wall regardless of any and all subjective ideas that anyone may or may not possess. This is what I'm referring to as objective reality.Even (given an alternative environment) when my hand passes through the wall... if it does so because of "stuff" or because of "rules"... it doesn't matter. It will still do so regardless of anyone's personal subjective feelings on the situation. Such a situation is a part of "objective reality".My main point is simply: All things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality (as defined above in this post) are testable and verifiable through the scientific method.If you can present an idea that defies this statment, then I will agree to no longer ignore the points you're making

You know, if you'd used different words and put them in a different order, then that post might have meant something.

No, that would be practically everything I've posted on this thread. Yes. I await your counter-arguments with interest.The laughing smiley face doesn't quite cut it.

I'm tempted to interpret this as meaning that we simply lack the instruments (and possibly the concepts) that would be needed to provide a relatively direct "view" of sub-atomic particles and their behaviors. So far, we're only able to "see" the effects they have on other things, and don't really "see" the particles themselves.But I'm neither a physicist nor a mathematician. I have no clue whether the current state of these fields is such that they've hit some sort of absolute limit for objective description, and are certain to go no further. Considering how things have been going with physics over the last few hundred years, it seems unlikely that there would be such an absolute limit on our ability to see farther / deeper and to restructure our understanding of what we've seen up to now.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

It sounds like you haven't been paying attention, or haven't understood most of what people have posted in this thread. That's reason enough to be sad. You should be praying about your own eyes -- not that it's likely to do any more good than praying about ours. (Actually learning about stuff tends to be a lot more effective than praying. That has been mankind's common, objectively shared experience since the beginning of the Enlightenment.) God is imaginary. (At least, the one you pray to is, given that such prayers have absolutely no impact on objective reality.)Edited by Otto Tellick, : fixed markup

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

God is imaginary. (At least, the one you pray to is, given that such prayers have absolutely no impact on objective reality.)

---

I'm a little surprised at your smear. or jest. You have no proof that say's God is not. Therefore, you ignore objective reality for the sake of your own opinion. Who is the greater fool? Edited by tesla, : TypoeEdited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

better?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Well join the club. Although I suspect you are more informed than most here and I have no doubt at all that you are more informed than me. Let's consider pi again. Now I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that there are ethereal perfect circles floating around in some sort of non-empirical plane of reality. So I guess the question of "does pi exist" or "do perfect circles exist" comes down to what we mean by "exist".What is it about the relation between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter (even the concept of a circle itself) that we think an intelligent alien species from light years away would recognise? Why would they?Is pi in some sense a property of our universe?
Is pi an objective property in the sense that it remains a property of our universe independently of whether or not any minded entity realises that this is the case? Or even if any minded entities exist to realise that this is the case?
Yet a non-empirical property in the sense that the actual number pi is dependent on the mathematical construct of perfect circles that can never be physically observed except to approximation.I dunno. But it seems to me an argument could be made for this position and that it would be at least as strong as arguing that pi is simply a useful calculation construct.Or maybe those aliens won't have the foggiest clue as to what the significance of this number is and will wonder why we keep bomabarding them with our meaningless drivel? What each of them perceives is only relevant to the point of consistency. As long as each can correctly identify the same wavelength with the same label the internal subjective perception of it all is essentially unknowable.I know London buses are red and so do you. But who knows whether our individual internal subjective perceptions of red buses bear anything but the loosest relation. All we can really point out is the consistent ability to independently label some aspect of reality that (presumably) exists externally to both our own minds.

I think that pi, as with all other numbers and mathematics, is a subjective concept, not an objective reality. It's a conceptual tool we use to help us model and understand objective reality; despite the fact that perfect circles do not appear to exist in nature, pi is nevertheless useful to us in attempting to describe reality.I think that all of mathematics is the same - it's a subjective conceptual tool that we use. As a model and because its only tie to objective reality is our own minds and senses, mathematical concepts will not perfectly match objective reality - but through continued observation, we have made some of our conceptual models accurate enough to make predictions that turn out to be very close to reality. We used purely subjective mathematics along with objective observations of anomalous orbits to predict the presence of both Pluto and Neptune, and those predictions turned out to be accurate.But mathematics is not only used to model objective reality. It;s also used in purely subjective pursuits, like economics. The amount of money I have in my bank account is completely subjective - without the human mind to give money value, it's a worthless combination of paper, metals, and computer hardware.As a conceptual tool, mathematics can be used both to model what we determine to be objectively real and for completely subjective purposes, and neither detracts from the usefulness of the other.

Do you think aliens would have the same concept of pi as us?If so why?

Assuming we're talking about aliens capable of abstract thought who have developed mathematics?Yes. Pi is a concept derived from objective observations. The conceptual "perfect circle" is an idealization of naturally occurring circles, and it's inevitable that sufficiently advanced mathematics systems will attempt to determine the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle - it's simply too pragmatically useful not to.I think mathematics is a prime example of why "shared subjectivity" does not define objective reality. Multiple people can independently arrive at similar or even identical subjective conceptual conclusions, but without those people and their minds, the concepts do not exist, and therefore do not exist independent of the individuals, even if the concepts are attempting to describe something that does exist objectively.