Objective reality

Erm how can it make sense to not know which numbers are "known to be part of objective reality"? Just read that sentance and think about it. Well this is exactly your problem. Exactly as you have correctly identified that which you are calling "known to be objective" is actually a subjective conclusion. Hence the innate contradiction in your thinking. So what is the largest number that can be said to exist in our universe? The number of quarks in the universe? Is this number honestly more real than the number of quarks in the universe + 1? Ah you are referring to the "objectivity is just shared subjectivity" debacle. Well if you can explain what the frig Nwr means then please do. Results no. But it does make a profound difference to the way we should think about the things we have been discussing. For example it means that pi is the "truth" and that empirical measurements of pi are like examining Platos cave shadows rather than examining the underlying objective reality of which the shadows are mere manifestations. It also means that all numbers exist equally and are as real as each other regardless of how many apples or quarks or whatever anyone can count.It suggests that we should look at the things we have been discussing in almost exactly the opposite way to the way you have been advocating. It does not affect results as such. But it has enormous implications for our methods of investigation. You are talking in terms of "results" and I am trying to talk about the philosophy underlying those results. You are treating maths as idealised extrapolation of empirical results. I am attempting to get you to consider the opposite view that the empirical results are in fact nothing more than the shadows on the cave wall and that the maths is in fact the objective reality that underlies it all. You are saying examine empirical reality and the maths will follow. I am proposing (for the sake of argument at least) that we examine mathematical reality and that an understanding of empirical reality will follow from that.Does that make sense? Do you see the difference that I am trying to get at here?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I see that you have done your usual thing. Throw in the name of a famous and influential philosopher in a sort of vague and ambiguous way and hope that everyone is impressed enough by your loose philosophical reference to conclude that you must know what you are talking about. I remain both unimpressed and unconvinced. It remains obvious that you have no idea what you do mean by the term "shared subjectivity". Nobody said it was. It was you that said "Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway".So what did you mean by that? Pick something you consider to be objective, describe the subjective component of that and tell us how it is shared. That is all you have to do to explain what you mean. One example. I am not disagreeing with you (how can I if I don't have a friggin clue what you mean?) I am simply asking you to explain what you said. 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. Consider the following questions: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? 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.? Is there an objective material reality that exists independently of and seperate to subjective experience in your view?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?3) We both agree that dreams are wholly subjective experiences - Yes? Can we share dreams in the sense of both experiencing the same dream? Can we objectify dreams? No? Why not? 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 can guess my answers to the above. I am not asking you to agree. I am asking you to try and work out what the hell you actually mean by "shared subjectivity". Once that is achieved then we can either agree or disagree. You can of course stop responding anytime you so choose. But if you think I won't continue to pursue this until you either stop evading the issue or just stop responding then you obviously don't know me very well.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

I wanted to ask you about the role of mathematical elegance. As I understand it mathematical/theoretical physicists are often driven by the underlying belief that nature is in some sense mathematically elegant.Now I am frankly too mathematically ignorant to even really know what is meant exactly by "mathematical elegance". Also "elegance" by it's very nature would seem to be a highly subjective quality. But this approach does seem to have borne much fruit. Einstein and Dirac spring to mind as two obvious examples of those who have achieved an immense amount with this abstract and highly non-empirical approach.Now I am not saying that ultimately empirical verification can be anything but the ultimate arbiter of reality. If the maths says one thing but empirical reality says another then empirical reality wins (would you agree with that?) BUT having said that.......It is my understanding that with one postulate (the constancy of the speed of light), an assumption of the universality of the equivalence principle and a notion of mathematical elegance it is possible to derive the whole of relativity (special and general) along with all of the predictions of relativity (Big Bang, black holes, gravitational time dilation etc. etc. etc.) just by sitting in a room manipulating equations. No need for a single observation or experiment or even for our mathematician in a room to have ever even expereinced gravity himself. Is that right?Now Einstein didn't exactly do that. Practicalities of human endevour are never that black and white. But he did revoloutionaise science with his approach. An approach that strongly suggests that maths can lead the investigation rather than simply model observations. And that is where this more platonic view of reality is derived from.Is that how you see it?

No. I am asking you why you think they are incomparable.So?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. So what is an example of something that we do perceive? What is it that makes some things able to be experienced as a result of perception and some things (like dreams) not? You seem to be simply making the rather obvious statement that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively. A statement I would wholly agree with.Except that cannot be the case because you have previously made it quite clear that is not what you mean by "shared subjectivity". The question remains - What do you mean by "objectivity is just shared subjectivity"?Or are you going to just continue to state what it is you don't mean?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Nwr initially writes:

quote:

---

"Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway".

---

Yet in two threads we have seen no argument in support of this statement and no explanation of this somewhat paradoxical phrase. Instead we have seen a great deal of squirming around evading the issue and a fair degree of philosophical name dropping. You are the one that raised perception as the defining difference between subjective experiences that cannot be shared and those that you apparently believe can be shared. This would seem to be rather key to the notion of objectivity as "just shared subjectivity". No? No. You seem unable to explain what you mean with your seemingly meaningless statement. I think this is something of a trend in your contributions here. My bullshit detector combined with a propensity for tenacious arsiness compels me to expose this. Then why do you keep throwing philosophical name-drops into your posts (Wittgenstein, Kant) and participating (even starting!) threads that are philosophical and epistemological in nature? Is this your latest evasion tactic? I thought with you having identified perception as a key factor we were at last getting somewhere. I guess you are unable to follow that line of thought without contradicting your previous statements of what you didn't mean. Oh well.

Whether he did or not the question is could the whole of relativity be derived in that manner? It also seems that this was more so in Einstein's case than you are allowing for. SR LinkAnd now (so I understand) if we add in the equivalence principle the whole of GR can be derived from Special Relativity. So with 2 postulates and the equivalanece principle it is mathematically possible to derive large swathes of modern cosmology from the Big Bang to black holes and the predicted effects of gravity. I find that friggin amazing! Dirac is probably the best example (or at least the most quotable) of a physicist who held elegance and beauty in high esteem - Dirac writes

quote:

---

"I think there is a moral to this story, namely that it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment. .... If seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete agreement between the result of one's work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to be toodiscouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further developments of the theory..."

---

I don't think maths leading the investigation into nature rather than following it really occurred until Einstein. Yeah those cave shadows are just no substitute for mathematical reality.

Please do. I get that. E=mc^2 is the most famous example I guess. Cool. Much like the whole of gravitation from a couple of postulates and the equivalence principle. "Simple but powerful ideas" as you put it previously. So we still seeking one equation that incorporates a quantum theory of all the fundamental forces. How's that going?

Yeah that is where I started from too. But I am not so sure that things are as simple as that anymore.Is mathematics rooted in observed reality? Or is observed reality rooted in mathematics? Do we invent maths to reflect observed reality? Or are the observations made in the act of discovering the logical "rules" that objectively exist and underpin what we call "reality"? Is there any actual difference between these two approaches? Or are both approaches saying exactly the same thing really? Maybe it is a bit like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first? I think the difference in approach here is that you are seeing mathematics as being derived from reality whilst the Platonistic approach is essentially to see reality as the result of the underlying mathematical relationships that exist.Or something like that. The fact that we can investigate and discover (subject to empirical verification) aspects of reality purely by working through the maths is what seems to lead those who advocate a more Platonic view to their conclusion.Whatever the case I find it quite remarkable that we can investigate the world in this way. The fact we can "discover" physical phenomenon like black holes, time dilation, anti-matter etc. etc. in this manner is quite awe inspiring IMHO.

So we could say that some aspects of mathematics are discovered through observation of empirical reality? So we could say that some maths is simply a case of remaining internally consistent with a set of axioms which were invented and which needn't have any link with physical reality at all?

Yep - I think that is how I see it too. I think we essentially agree.

How can it be "known to be part of objective reality" if neither you nor anybody else knows it? So what is the highest number that "we have actually counted and verified"?And if I add 1 to this number are you saying that I suddenly leave behind objective known to exist reality and enter a realm of theoretical numbers which may or may not exist?If so this cutoff point (i.e. the highest "known to be objective" number) would seem to be rather important to ascertain. Because use of any numbers beyond that are just theoretical and may not even exist according to you. Plato believed that it is the idealised forms of things that are the true essence of reality. To him a perfect circle is the objectively real circle and all the circles that we see in empirical reality are comparable to looking at shadows of that perfect circle on the wall of a cave. The empirical is derived from the ideal rather than the other way round. I am trying to get you to see that your assumption that maths is necessarily just an idealised extrapolation of empirical reality is the complete opposite of the Platonic view of mathematics that many mathematicians hold to. AND that this has implications for your view that the only reality that can be objectified is empirical reality.

Stile initially says:

quote:

---

I still stand by the statement of:

​

All things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality are testable and verifiable through the scientific method.

​

So far, no one has provided any example that goes against this statement.

---

Stile now says: So what aspects of an objective reality are both non-empirical and verifiable through the scientific method? Indeed. And in doing so you have led yourself into the rather ridiculous position of advocating that some numbers are known to exist and that some are not but that we don't know which are which. You fist need to explain the apparent contradiction in your thinking. Namely that ALL things which can be objectified are verifiable by the scientific method but not necessarily part of empirical reality. How does that work?

Then on what basis are you claiming that there are any non-empirical aspects of reality that can be objectified by means of the scientific method? Yes I do. Because I am taking the position that objective existence of numbers has nothing to do with "countable, real objects".You seem to be limiting objective reality to empirical reality (i.e. that which can actually be physically counted). Is this not what you are saying? Once again you seem to be saying that only that which is empirical can be objectified. The scientific method is restricted to that which is empirical is it not? Now you seem to be saying that you do not restrict objective reality to that which is empirical. I am genuinely trying. But at the moment it all seems very contradictory. Can you clarify?

Stile initially says:

quote:

---

I still stand by the statement of:

​

All things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality are testable and verifiable through the scientific method.

​

So far, no one has provided any example that goes against this statement.

---

quote:

---

If you can present an idea that defies this statement, then I will agree to no longer ignore the points you're making

---

If that is your only point then I think it has been refuted long ago in this very threadThis mathematical relationship (originally cited by Cavediver earlier in this thread) is true regardless of culture or psychology. It is true regardless of the nomenclature or symbology used. It is as true for an intelligent alien race as it is for us. Indeed it remains true even if all intelligence in the universe is wiped out. It is agreed to be, and can be verified as being, objectively true.In short the relationship is objective and it is known to exist in objective reality. However it is not able to be empirically derived. It cannot be derived from, or verified by, the scientific method.Thus your main point is refuted. No? If you say so.......Yet when I ask you which numbers are known to be in objective reality you tell me that you don’t know. So how can they be known if they are unknown? This would seem to be a contradiction in terms. But I suspect we are destined to talk in (imperfect) circles on this.The main point remains that is known to exist within objective reality and yet is not verifiable through the scientific method.Thus (I think) you are refuted.