|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Objective reality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm proposing this thread, so that we do not continue to take Creation, Evolution, and faith off topic.
In Message 437, Creation, Evolution, and faith, Stile writes:
In my opinion, these sorts of statements are usually slogans, rather than precise statements.There is "objective reality". There is "known to exist within objective reality". There is "unknown to exist within objective reality". There is "known to not exist within objective reality". Can anybody actually give a satisfactory definition of "objective reality"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Satisfactory in what way? To you specifically?
Satisfactory to you (to whoever is posting). A quick comment to all. I am out of time with limited access, so I won't be replying to most of the posts here for a few days. But do keep up the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'm back in town, so catching up with replies.
I won't individually reply to every post. I will comment on those of particular interest, and I'll add some general comments. I think it clear enough from the discussion that "objective" is not easy to define. And there seem to be two major groups. One group wants to restrict "objective" to instances with no human involvement at all, so anything dependent on human culture, including mathematics, would be excluded from what is considered objective. The second group is more permissive, and in particular is willing to consider that mathematics might count as objective (though perhaps not as reality). My phrase "shared subjectivity" (see Message 383 in thread Creation, Evolution, and faith) was intended to indicate that I agree with the second of those groups. According to Kant, we have no access to "the world in itself", and can only know the world through our mental phenomena. If we go by the first group on "objective", then Kant's view would seem to exclude everything we have access to. And that would seem to make the first group's view of "objective" unsustainable. I am not sure whether I agree with Kant. But even without that, I think the first group's view is unsustainable. Mathematicians sometime joke that a topologist cannot distinguish between a donut and a coffee cup. Note that this joke is about the surface of a donut and the surface of a coffee cup, not the materials of which they are made. Topologists say this, because the metric properties that distinguish between a coffee cup and a donut are human constructs that are not dictated by the topological properties of the surfaces. It seems to me that to use "objective" in the sense of the first group, one would have to say that what distinguishes a donut from a coffee cup (considered as surfaces) is not objective. And I think that is far too restrictive in practice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Straggler writes:
But it would seem real to those in the matrix, so it would fit what those inside the matrix mean by "real".
What is it that makes the perceived "objective reality" within the Matrix any less objective than that perceived outside the Matrix? The fact that it isn't "real".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Rahvin writes:
I will join cavediver in disagreeing with this view of mathematics, though it is one I often hear expressed by non-mathematicians.
Mathematics is just language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dr Adequate writes:
I agree with that. I'll tentatively take that to indicate that you are a fictionalist.I'll go further than that. The natural numbers don't exist. The implication is that the number pi also does not exist, and I agree with that, too. But there is still a question for the ratio pi, which I am inclined to think of as existing (though not empirical). I'll say a little about my view of where mathematics fits in another post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
tesla writes:
Great. Now all we need is a definition of "as it is".
Objective reality simply means: As it is. tesla writes:
The terms "true" and "verified" aren't that obvious either.
That the data such as:" what goes up, must come down" is true and verified by all observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Here is my take on mathematics.
I see mathematics as about methods, rather than about objects. Take number theory (or elementary integer arithmetic). I see that as the study of counting. We invent numbers, as useful fictions, in order to exercise our counting methods in an ideal environment. Empirical counting is messy - for example, it gives rise to hanging chads as in the 2000 US presidential elections as contested in Florida. Idealized counting is perfect - ideal - so it does not run into the same hanging chad problem. A study of idealized counting is scientifically valuable, because whenever empirical counting differs from idealized counting, that difference tells us something interesting about empirical reality. Similarly, I see geometry as a study of measuring methods. Euclidean geometry is, in some reasonable sense, an idealization of the use of a portable measuring rod for determining distance. If reality objective, then a study of the methods for dealing with reality should be considered objective. And, in that case, the study of idealizations of those methods should also be considered objective. And if the ratio pi shows up as important in those idealized methods, then that would lead us to also consider the ratio pi as objective, even if we think of numbers as merely useful fictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
cavediver writes:
I am distinguishing between ratios and numbers.Are you treating the ratio Pi as something more "real" other than your fictional numbers, or is it as much a fiction as say the integers? If I say that my window is 30 inches wide, then I am using the number 30 as part of my representation of the width. But I could represent the width in centimetres, or in hand spans, or in some other unit. The numbers used would be different, depending on the unit used. The width is a quantity (in this case a length quantity), and the use of numbers to represent it is a convenience of our choice. Likewise, I say that a ratio is a quantity, though in this case it is a dimensionless quantity. But I still distinguish between the quantity (i.e. the ratio) which is not a fiction, and the number we use to represent it (which is a fiction). Roughly speaking, numbers are names that don't actually name anything, and they are fictions precisely because they don't actually name anything. Having names that don't name anything is very useful, for we can transfer those names to wherever we want to use them. Mathematics works because we have chosen highly systematic naming systems for such uses, and the rules of mathematics are the laws of system for those naming systems. Presumably a different intelligent civilization might come up with a very different systematic naming scheme, so might not have anything that corresponds to our numbers. But ratios that arise from idealizing empirical methods would likely be shared, so the pi as a ratio might be known to that civilization, even if they don't use anything that is quite the same as our numbers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
cavediver writes:
Winding numbers give you integers, though there might be some exotic way of getting non-integer values there. And pi is not an integer.But I can generate the integers in a number of ways that are blatently dimensionless. Topological winding numbers for example. A question that I remember thinking about many years ago, was how do we know that the integer 3, as obtained in counting, is the same 3 as we get in measurement? Or, to put it differently, how can we know that the integers are a subset of the reals? The correct answer, I think, is that this is a matter of executive fiat. We get the integers by an idealization of counting. It is a method where we start with one and build up combinatorially. We get the reals from geometry. We think of a line as a continuum, and we divide it up. It isn't obvious that these give rise to the same numbers. The Greeks and the Egyptians had different ways of dealing with these. Our current way of looking at them comes from Arabic notation. Roughly speaking, we forced the two systems to be the one system. With that forcing, we get all of the problems of the infinite that bother the constructivists. As a pragmatist, I don't personally have a problem with it - it seems to work well. But I don't think it is a forgone conclusion that intelligent alien civilizations would similarly force measuring and counting into a single system. And if they don't so force them, then ratios would be part of the measuring system rather than part of the counting system. In that case pi might show up as an equivalence of different dimensionless ratios, so pi as a ratio would still be important. But it might never be reduced to the form of a number.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dr Adequate writes:
Ontological status is an aspect of ontology.Could we at least fill in the ontological status of math as an afterthought? Ontology is a branch of metaphysics. Metaphysics is nonsense. But then, I am agnostic toward analytic philosophy (the religion of the academy).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
cavediver writes:
My view is that those show the pragmatic virtue of forcing the integers (counting numbers) and the reals (measuring numbers, the continuum) to be a single unified system. They don't show that a connection exists, but they show that we benefit from forcing that connection.I think we see clues to an intimate connection in my previously mentioned winding numbers - think of the Cauchy residue formula and the Gauss Bonnet formula. The Greek geometers resisted connecting them due to the problems of dealing with the irrationality of sqrt(2). The pragmatic virtues of combining them was attractive to the physicists, but led to problems such as the Banach-Tarski paradox. It took a lot of inventive art to find ways of combining them that kept us from those potential paradoxes. I should add that my own mathematics area (before I went to computer science) was analysis and point set topology. So it is an area that I find of endless interest. And it is certainly not anything I am criticizing. I am just saying that there is a substanial artistic component there, and it is not guaranteed that an intelligent alien civilization would come up with the same art.
cavediver writes:
There's no need to rush the discussion. Have a good sleep.
But I'm drifting asleep, so this will have to be continued tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
AnswersInGenitals writes:
I used to wonder about that. If we are in a discrete quantum world, then how can continuous mathematics, such as differential equations, be useful? Yet it is useful.But what if space and time are actually discrete, which they almost certainly are. I eventually worked through that. Our basic system of weights and measures (mass, time, length, etc) is continuous. We represent reality in terms of measurements made in these continuous systems. We are actually applying our mathematics to the representation system (our system of weights and measures), rather than to reality itself. So the quantum nature of part (perhaps all) of reality does not prevent us from using continuous mathematics, as long as we use a representation system to which the continuous mathematics applies. I'll add that there are also questions as to whether the quantum picture is itself completely correct. For example, do all electrons have the same charge? Or do they have different charges that fit on a bell curve, such that the standard deviation is small? I suspect that we cannot actually tell, because measurement itself is imperfect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Straggler writes:
I didn't actually watch the movie, so you've got me on that one.
Then why did Neo take the red pill? Straggler writes:
In addition to my posts in the earlier thread (Creation, Evolution, and faith), I made some relevant comments in Message 92 of the current thread.Just tell us what you do mean. If those do not satisfy you, then I guess you will have to remain dissatisfied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Straggler writes:
In other words, you are going to be an ass about it (I'm using the American spelling for "arse").
Rather than just be an arse about this I am going to attempt to be constructive by helping you work out more specifically what you do mean. Straggler writes:
The Straggler inquisition begins. I would suggest that you consult a shrink about your obsession with conducting these inquisitions.Consider the following questions: Incidentally, none of your questions actually has very much to do with "shared subjectivity", but I'll accept that you think they do. You won't like my responses. You will think I am being evasive, though I am not.
Straggler writes:
I don't think we are conjuring up a world out of nothing.1) Do you think there is a material world that exists regardless (i.e. even in the absence of) intelligent conscious lifeforms able to subjectively experience it? One problem with the way you word the question, is that we don't really know what we mean by "material". A second problem is that many Berkeley idealists could respond "yes" to your question, as explained in that limerick usually attributed to Ronald Knox.
There was a young man who said, "God Must think it exceedingly odd If he finds that this tree Continues to be When there's no one about in the Quad." Dear Sir:Your astonishment's odd: I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be, Since observed by Yours faithfully, GOD. Straggler writes:
Whatever it is that the Andromeda galaxy is doing now, it will continue to do that even if the sun expands to a red giant and wipes out all life on earth.
If humanity (and any other lifeforms in the universe) were wiped out would the universe continue to expand, planets continue to orbit etc. etc. etc.? Straggler writes:
The words "objective", "material" and "reality" are human words that have meanings only on account of how humans use the words. The question is not meaningful unless you can come up with definitions for those terms that are not inseparably connected to their use by humans.
Is there an objective material reality that exists independently of and seperate to subjective experience in your view? Straggler writes:
That depends on what you mean by "experience". If a person were unconscious under anesthesia, and somebody put a bullet through that person's head, then the person could be said to have experienced death with no subjective involvement. That's one meaning of "experience". On a different meaning, the person would be said to have died but to have experienced nothing.
2) As conscious beings with limited perceptory apparatus do you consider it impossible for us to experience any objective material reality that may exist anything but subjectively? Straggler writes:
They may be wholly subjective, but I doubt that they are wholly experienced.
3) We both agree that dreams are wholly subjective experiences - Yes? Straggler writes:
No.
Can we share dreams in the sense of both experiencing the same dream? Straggler writes:
That depends on what you mean by "objectify". Presumably I could provide a written report that purports to be a description of my dream. And one could say that the written report is objective.
Can we objectify dreams? Straggler writes:
One obvious difference is that dreams are incoherent.
What is the difference between a dream and the material objective reality which we seem able to co-exist in, scientifically invenstigate and "share" in such a way as to consider aspects of it to have been objectified? Straggler writes:
WTF!What is the difference between a dream and the material objective reality which we seem able to co-exist in, scientifically invenstigate and "share" in such a way as to consider aspects of it to have been objectified? What is the difference between wholly subjective experience (like dreams) and aspects of reality that are considered to exist in some snes ethat we are able to "share"? You are asking me to compare incomparables.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024