Reality is That

[Parameter]

How would you characterize a link in the chain between an unphysical cause and a physical effect, or a physical cause and an unphysical effect?

For them to influence each other they would have to be connected. The linkage would have to exist. They would have to be one.

 

[Yazata]

I think we should keep in mind that there are other modes of epistemic access besides just the empirical methodology of science. Two of these are art and mathematics.

Yeah, I agree that explaining what mathematics is, and explaining precisely how it is that human beings know about mathematics, has always been a major source of problems for philosophy. The same observation applies to logic, which seems to be closely related to mathematics.

I'm more doubtful about whether the fine arts (as contrasted with things like the art of blacksmithing) is properly epistemic. In other words, I'd question whether art is concerned with knowledge, in the sense of propositions and justified true belief.

Art isn't often seen as a way of getting in touch with reality. But I think it represents a very individualistic way of learning and knowing truths that provides a contrast to the purely quantitative and measurable domains of science.

It's certainly an important and valuable aspect of human experience, one that might not reduce to science very easily.

Art focuses itself on the subjective and the qualitative in the creative expression original and novel forms of the reality.

That's part of the reason why I question art's epistemic status. I'm inclined to think that art isn't so much objective (pertaining to objects) as it is subjective (pertaining to the subjects, i.e. people, who experience the objects). 'This particular painting was painted in water colors' would seem to be objective in the sense that the proposition is either true or false regardless of what individual people feel about it. 'This particular painting is beautiful' is more subjective, since arguably it might not be about the painting at all, but rather about what the subject feels about it.

Of course, great art works do seem to have qualities that make large numbers of subjects deem them 'beautiful'. So there does seem to be some sort of objective aspect at work in this art thing too. Specifying precisely what that is, isn't easy. I think that it's probably complex, including how artworks interact with human nervous systems (symmetry, color harmony) and also lots of more culturally-specific stuff (iconographical symbolism and meaning).

When I experience a really profound object of art I feel like I am touch with a transcendental aspect of the world that wouldn't normally surface for me.

I've felt that way too. Music can do it. I feel that way in response to nature sometimes.

 

[Magical Realist]

I"m not denying it, I'm stating it. We do indeed project our subjective experience onto the tree, which is why and how we perceive it the way we do. But I would, of course, say that this is something that happens in the mind and not something that happens to the tree. You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that it's something that happens to the tree. So why is it, then, that when I encounter a tree after you have already perceived it, that the tree doesn't force your perception of it onto me? Or are there as many unique versions of this tree, out there in the world, as there are people who have perceived it?

Two people looking at the same tree are constructing the tree as out there according to the qualia occurring in their own bodies. It exists for each of them relative to their own experience. You don't experience the tree as I experience it and I don't experience the tree as you experience it. They are each separate constructs of our own perceiving bodies. Does that mean there are many "trees"? In a sense yes. But in another sense only one eigentree or "tree in itself" which exists beyond all these perceptions.

What about Grand Canyons? Are there as many of them in Arizona as there are people who have ever visited?

One eigencanyon. A million perceptual constructs of the canyon. ;-)

Of course it doesn't characterize the tree in a satisfying way. That's what we do, in our minds, when we look at it, or think about it. I was talking about the object itself. You accept that it must in some sense exist independently of our perception of it. But again, why invoke problematic ideas such as your "eigentree"? I mean, what happens when two people are perceiving it simultaneously? Does it then collapse into two definite states? Why dismiss the much simpler idea that the object we call a tree is simply a configuration of matter that persists for a time, and that the richer characterization only happens to a representation of the tree imported into our minds via our senses?

Ok then.. it's a configuration of matter that persists for a time. Satisfied?

You can't solve the interaction problem simply by positing the existence of a compatible interface, because the interaction problem exists within the interface. I certainly understand why you may want to skip over it with mere pronouncements, but that does nothing to overcome the legitimacy of this objection to dualism.

You asked what the interface between mind and matter was, and I suggested one. Now you're saying this is irrelevant to the interaction problem? Why did you ask me what the interface was then?

This really is a huge leap on your part, because we are largely dealing with mathematical models of reality that may or may not (and if so, to varying degrees) accurately describe the way physical events actually play out. In other words, QM demonstrates nothing of the sort.

You need to Google "measurement problem" then. This has been proven over and over in the field of QM.

Worried? Threatened? I don't get it. If you're not here to discuss your world-view, and be challenged on it, why do you spend so much time here discussing your world-view and defending it, as well as challenging that of others? Isn't that why we're all here?

I spend so much time DISCUSSING ideas with others here because that is what I'd rather be doing than defending my worldview from challenges. I'll be the first to admit that my worldview is an ongoing work in progress and by no means anywhere near complete. For instance I'm still not sure if my dualism doesn't entail some sort of transcendental monism. Do the two domains of mind and matter only superficially split to rejoin on some deeper level? Maybe so. I'm certainly open to it. That's why I discuss philosophy. To question, discuss, process, and learn.

To summarize, I don't see how any feature of the world forces one to adopt a dualist stance, and I still think it's a far more problematic way to go about trying to make sense of everything.

Good for you. I'm glad you've found your answer. I'm still working on my own.

 

[Parameter]

For them to interact, both physical and unphysical would have to be That.

 

[Rav]

One eigencanyon. A million perceptual constructs of the canyon. ;-)

And each construct, or subjective characterization of an external object (in this case landform) only exists within the mind of the person perceiving it, right?

You asked what the interface between mind and matter was, and I suggested one. Now you're saying this is irrelevant to the interaction problem? Why did you ask me what the interface was then?

Nothing you said solves the interaction problem. All you did was posit the existence of some hybrid state, without explaining how such a hybridization is even possible, which is, essentially, the nature of the interaction problem itself.

Consider this: any substance, or state ("energy", or whatever), that can form a link in a physical chain of cause and effect, is a physical phenomenon. After all, it's necessarily detectable via physical means. To continue to assert that there is an unphysical phenomenon on the other end of this causal chain is to smack face first into the problem of causal interaction again. The problem goes away if you throw out this absurd idea that reality is made up of two fundamentally different substances. Again, it's easy to do once you stop placing artificial restrictions on the phenomenality of any particular substance. I mean, you do realize that you're doing that, right?

You need to Google "measurement problem" then. This has been proven over and over in the field of QM.

I'm familiar with the measurement problem. But what you're failing to appreciate it is the fact that our present models are, at best, approximations. Making statements about the physical reality of some of the phenomena that those models suggest might be in play is a speculative exercise. If there was just one interpretation of QM, and we weren't trying desperately to make more sense of it with endeavours like string theory, then we might be able to make definitive statements about the actual nature of the quantum world.

You want QM to being saying "Hey, look, here's a spooky ethereal probability wave" instead of "here's a useful mathematical model of what matter might be doing when it's not being fucked with somehow". If the wavefunction is real, then "here's a model of what matter is definitely doing when it's not being fucked with somehow".

I spend so much time DISCUSSING ideas with others here because that is what I'd rather be doing than defending my worldview from challenges. I'll be the first to admit that my worldview is an ongoing work in progress and by no means anywhere near complete. For instance I'm still not sure if my dualism doesn't entail some sort of transcendental monism. Do the two domains of mind and matter only superficially split to rejoin on some deeper level? Maybe so. I'm certainly open to it. That's why I discuss philosophy. To question, discuss, process, and learn.

Fair enough.

Good for you. I'm glad you've found your answer. I'm still working on my own.

More like answers, plural. And no, I haven't found them. Being a physicalist hardly means you've discovered the truth about existence, or anything like that.

 

[Magical Realist]

Nothing you said solves the interaction problem. All you did was posit the existence of some hybrid state, without explaining how such a hybridization is even possible, which is, essentially, the nature of the interaction problem itself.

Consider this: any substance, or state ("energy", or whatever), that can form a link in a physical chain of cause and effect, is a physical phenomenon. After all, it's necessarily detectable via physical means. To continue to assert that there is an unphysical phenomenon on the other end of this causal chain is to smack face first into the problem of causal interaction again. The problem goes away if you throw out this absurd idea that reality is made up of two fundamentally different substances. Again, it's easy to do once you stop placing artificial restrictions on the phenomenality of any particular substance. I mean, you do realize that you're doing that, right?

Look I already said energy shows signs of being both probablistic (that is non-physical) AND physical. That's what the word "hybrid" means, a mix of two types. That energy has a probablistic or mathematical nature to it is seen for instance in zero point energy where the jitter of the quantum vaccum is directly resultant from the uncertainty principle. The energy is a probablistic blur due to the positions of quanta not being exact. That is why energy bridges the realms of mental and physical. That is why I suggested it as an interface which is what you implied would solve the interaction problem. Now you are just arbitrarily proclaiming NO interface can solve it? I don't agree. Moving on..

I'm familiar with the measurement problem. But what you're failing to appreciate it is the fact that our present models are, at best, approximations. Making statements about the physical reality of some of the phenomena that those models suggest might be in play is a speculative exercise. If there was just one interpretation of QM, and we weren't trying desperately to make more sense of it with endeavours like string theory, then we might be able to make definitive statements about the actual nature of the quantum world.

You want QM to being saying "Hey, look, here's a spooky ethereal probability wave" instead of "here's a useful mathematical model of what matter might be doing when it's not being fucked with somehow". If the wavefunction is real, then "here's a model of what matter is definitely doing when it's not being fucked with somehow".

I don't want QM to say anything it doesn't already say. And it says the wavefunction collapses due to the act of measurement. That is not an interpretation. It is an empirically proven fact. Wavefunctions DO collapse when they are measured. That's what the math shows. That's what the experiments show. There's nothing speculative about that at all. HOW that happens IS a matter of interpretation. Everett's many worlds theory? Bohm's pilot wave theory? Cramer's retrocausality theory? Take your pick. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article on this:

"The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory."----http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

 

[Rav]

Look I already said energy shows signs of being both probablistic (that is non-physical) AND physical.

Probabilistic behaviour is part of what matter does, and is. But you're talking as if "probability" is an entity in it's own right. Why?

The energy is a probablistic blur due to the positions of quanta not being exact.

So what if there is something akin to a "probabilistic blur"? The fundamental nature of physicality is probably not quantized anyway. Particles may indeed simply be excitations of more fundamental fields. I don't see anything unphysical here. Quite the opposite.

It's as if you think anything that's not "solid" matter, or anything that is not quantized, or indeed anything you can't understand, isn't physical.

That is why energy bridges the realms of mental and physical.

We need a definition of terms here, because to me, energy is part of physical reality. So what, exactly, are you talking about?

That is why I suggested it as an interface which is what you implied would solve the interaction problem. Now you are just arbitrarily proclaiming NO interface can solve it? I don't agree. Moving on..

Again, all you've effectively done is to say that it can be solved by invoking some mysterious substance that is, itself, a solution to the interaction problem.

This substance is sort of like a "bridge", right? Physical at one end, and unphysical at the other? The fact that you don't realize that the interaction problem still exists in the bridge itself demonstrates that you don't understand the nature of the problem itself.

I don't want QM to say anything it doesn't already say. And it says the wavefunction collapses due to the act of measurement. That is not an interpretation. It is an empirically proven fact. Wavefunctions DO collapse when they are measured. That's what the math shows. That's what the experiments show. There's nothing speculative about that at all.

It's absurd for you to be speaking authoritatively on this matter while being ignorant of the fact that there is often a difference between the way we model reality, and the way reality actually works. If you've learned anything at all about the history of science, I find it hard to believe that you don't know this.

HOW that happens IS a matter of interpretation. Everett's many worlds theory? Bohm's pilot wave theory? Cramer's retrocausality theory?

Actually, many-worlds holds that wavefunction collapse doesn't actually occur. And I'm sure you'd be surprised to know that the reality of the wavefunction itself has been an open question in physics for a long time. There is recent evidence to suggest that it's real, but even if it is it doesn't affect my argument. There's far more to QM than just the wavefunction, and there are many open questions about the reality of some of the other physical events that our models suggest are occurring. As such, you need to be cautious when examining implications, because sometimes they are just artifacts of an incomplete or at least partly inaccurate model.

But aside from all that, and as touched on earlier, I don't see how wavefunction collapse, even if it's a real physical event, demonstrates the reality of some other unphysical realm anyway. Just because matter can behave probabilistically when left alone, and settle down into more definite states when poked and prodded, doesn't mean there is something unphysical about it.

Unless, of course, you're placing artificial limits on its phenomenality. Funny how that keeps popping up. Why don't you try this for a while: stop doing it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Rav, it's taken something like 5 posts to explain and re-explain to you my dualist ideas. And all you do is assert the contrary. I'm clearly wasting my time with you. I suggest reading up on dualism for a better education on what it proposes. Ah but then you can't really quibble semantics with Wikipedia articles can ya? That'd be NO fun at all would it?

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Yeah, that's basically what I was getting at when I opined that 'why' questions might not really apply to most of the objects and events in the universe. I was questioning the teleological aspect. I'm not convinced (as Aristotle may or may not have been) that all quantitative and/or qualitative change in the universe is headed somewhere, towards realizing some end, some perfection particular for whatever it is that happens to be changing and perhaps some grander ultimate perfection for the universe as a whole.

Human beings (and perhaps animals more generally) certainly have purposes for most of their actions. And biological theorizing has traditionally made use of teleological explanations. (Why do we have hearts? To pump blood.) Aristotle was a biologist, and that mode of thinking probably came naturally to him. It's clear that teleology isn't entirely out of place, leaving us with the question of determining when teleological explanations are and aren't appropriate. (That's an active topic of debate in the philosophy of biology.)

I happen to believe that there is a God, and that He has designs (purposes) for everything He's created. That's a religious belief, yes, and it informs my philosophies. So I do believe all things work toward some purpose, whether it be a purpose unto itself or for some other thing.

If we do take this as true, yet separate the question away from a religious context, I think it has some interesting connotations regarding cognition. It seems to imply that the mind is able to intuitively grasp at once that things ought to have substance, mechanism, agency and purpose. There is a fifth element, though, that isn't normally addressed, because I think it's a little more mysterious, and that is 'meaning.'

I have heard it said that the purpose of intercourse is propagation, but the meaning is love. In ancient thought, everything in the universe had meaning. Nature was something to be read and interpreted. It was signatory, and ominous. This element seems to be lost to today's world, and I think it has to do with the idea that the universe is fundamentally mechanistic, rather than living expression. After all, devoid of spirits and gods, the universe is simply matter and animals. Thus, the element of everything that relates specifically to the mind (as opposed to the brain), that is, meaning, vanishes (except, of course, where we ourselves ascribe meaning). I think the modern mind ascribes meaning, whereas the ancient mind ascertained meaning.

Yes. Though I'm not convinced that it's necessary to think that mind must always be the source of teleology. There's the traditional 'acorn growing into a tree' sort of example. I guess that it's possible for an Aristotelian to imagine the unfolding-of-essences idea (which I don't entirely understand) simply as a fundamental metaphysical process of some sort, a process that contributes a teleological aspect to all naturally occurring change without everything being the result of some conscious plan. But yeah, even if the Aristotelian doesn't posit a "greater mind", he/she would still be positing some final and ultimate state for the universe in which its potentialities have all finally been actualized. (Or something like that.) And that's (arguably) kind of a divine state, maybe.

I think there is a subtle distinction that can be made here. The final end (perhaps) of the acorn may be to grow into an oak tree. However, this doesn't necessarily speak of purpose. Taken from a definition side, I think it's clear that 'purpose' is tied to mind, as it involves intention. Whether teleology speaks to final ends, or to purposes, I'm not that involved to know. However, I think that in every day language, when people are talking about the 'end' of a thing (when asking "why?"), they're likely more referring to purpose, than merely a mechanistic finality.

 

[Rav]

Ah but then you can't really quibble semantics with Wikipedia articles can ya?

Pick an example of my quibbling over semantics and let's see if it's not, instead, more of an important distinction.

 

[MarkHolland]

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

Philosophers, mathematicians, and other ancient and modern thinkers, such as Aristotle, Plato, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Russell, have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions (thoughts of things that are imaginable but not real), and that which cannot even be rationally thought. By contrast existence is often restricted solely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do in the brain.

 

[Parameter]

I wonder if in the absence of a perceiver if reality would still be That.

 

[Parameter]

Was reality at one point a singular point and then continued expanding afterwards? What caused it?

I'll attempt to come up with an explanation for this sometime early next week.

 

[Magical Realist]

Was reality at one point a singular point and then continued expanding afterwards? What caused it?

I'll attempt to come up with an explanation for this sometime early next week.

A pure energy substrate--the quantum vaccum with its enormous levels of free zero point energy? At least that is what physicists posit as the origin of the singularity as well as of all matter:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

 

[Aqueous Id]

Was reality at one point a singular point and then continued expanding afterwards? What caused it?

No cause is possible for all models in which time itself is created.

 

[Write4U]

MR, this model was proposed by David Bohm in his book Holomovement and the Implicate Order.

Fullness Of Empty Space

Bohm's understanding of physical reality turns the commonplace notion of "empty space" completely on its head. For Bohm, space is not some giant vacuum through which matter moves; space is every bit as real as the matter that moves through it. Space and matter are intimately interconnected. Indeed, calculations of the quantity known as the zero-point energy suggest that a single cubic centimetre of empty space contains more energy than all of the matter in the known universe! From this result, Bohm (1980, 191) concludes that "space, which has so much energy, is full rather than empty." For Bohm, this enormous energy inherent in "empty" space can be viewed as theoretical evidence for the existence of a vast, yet hidden realm such as the implicate order......http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htm#CONTENTS:

 

[James R]

When I saw the title of this thread I was reminded of the following quote:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

 

[wellwisher]

If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it fall, does it still make a sound?

The answer is yes, because sound is defined as vibration and waves, which will still form in the local air, regardless, since the physical systems are sufficient to create the effect. As long as there is air and motion there will be a vibration and the transmission of sound; make a noise. Reality exists based on natural principles, even if we are not conscious of it.

If you answer the above question, no, since there is no observer to hear, you would assume reality needs the filters of the human mind to exist, and reality would not continue to exist apart from the human mind.

Reality is that which exists apart from the observer. The observer adds filters of the mind, which impacts perception of reality. In the second scenario above, the filter would be opaque when there are no sensory systems engaged.

 

[hansda]

Someone asked me to come up with a satisfactory definition of reality that is not a redundant tautology. But it is difficult to do that because science has not achieved much success at telling us what reality is exactly. At best science has explained certain laws and rules of reality but it has not told us exactly what reality is. Some people have at best said that all we know reality is that it is real. I would like to present another definition. Reality is That.

"Reality" can be seen as "real"+"ity". That means "reality" can be considered as the "quality" of "the truth". As far as "truth" is concerned, there are two kinds of truth.
One is "Absolute Truth". Second is "relative truth". Science mostly deals with the relative truth, which is based upon our perception. "Absolute Truth" is in the domain of spiritualism(not science), where it is believed that GOD is absolute.

Anyway what do you mean by "That"?

 

[Parameter]

Anyway what do you mean by "That"?

What I mean by " Reality is That" is its ultimate nature. The point at which reality exists in its highest form. Kind of like an upside down V who's meeting point represents the convergence between reality and perception.