What is the Empirical World?

@paulhanke,

[QUOTE=paulhanke;114926] If the empirical world is what can be observed, and what we observe includes properties like "red" which, when we point our trans-human prosthetic senses at them, turn out to "not exist" except as phenomenal perception, what does this say about the phenomenal perception that is space? time? causality? ... [/QUOTE] We do not "experience" external "reality" except as it is filtered through our senses and molded into the conceptual abilities of our minds. Our "knowledge" of reality is thus always partial incomplete and filtered. Our experience of space and time is Cartesian in nature. Newtonian physics with its point matter model and rigid and independent conception of time and space has served us quite well in the world in which we live and breathe.

[QUOTE=paulhanke;114926] given that general relativity and quantum mechanics have thrown metaphysical monkey wrenches at these phenomenal perceptions, they start to look a lot less "real" and more akin to "red" ... and is general relativity and quantum mechanics merely the tip of the iceberg? ... that is, will the concepts of space, time, and causality come to be seen as phenomenal relics as the prosthetically accessible empirical world diverges more and more from the humanly accessible phenomenal world? ... [/QUOTE] The current efforts to combine quantum theory (which has unified the nuclear strong, the nuclear weak and the electromagnetic forces) with general relativity (our working theory for gravity) is the holy grail of physics. The only game in town for the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), the Theory of Everything (TOE) or Unified Field Theory UFT at the moment is some version of string theory or the more modern synthesis of string theory M-theory. It would appear that the point model of general relativity is wrong. The most fundamental unit of matter is not a point but a vibrating string. Space and time are not continuous or independent of the mass and energy which seem to occupy them. At the finest of detail the space time continuum is in constant flux, quantum foam. At this level of detail we have no way of directly conceptualizing this "level of reality". We can talk of 11 dimensions but we can not picture them in our mind in any meaningful way.

[QUOTE=paulhanke;114926] what credence (if any) does this lend to the transcendental idealism of Kant/Schopenhauer? - as each new "layer" of the empirical world is unpacked via improvements in our prosthetic senses, and as each layer turns out to be more unexpected and stranger than the last, are we piling up inductive evidence for it? ... will we ever be able to say that our prosthetic senses have achieved direct contact with something "real" (as opposed to yet another perception)? - or will our prosthetic senses always be limited by our imagination (like the congenitally blind man who cannot imagine phenomenal sight even when it is described to him)? [/QUOTE] The use of probes (instruments) has allowed us to increase our understanding of the "universe" external reality by giving us information which is not available to us solely through our sensory apparatus. There are both practical and theoretical (probably real) limits to the size and energy of probes that are available to us. The smaller and more energetic the probe the more detailed the information gained from the experiment. In fact these limits would theoretically involve quantities derived from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantities which can be calculated or related to Planck's constant (quanta) the so called Planck mass, Planck energy and Planck length. General relativity breaks down on distances and scales this small and the equations give results which are nonsense: infinite. The point of bringing this up at all is that our "knowledge" of the fine structure of the universe will reach a point where no further information is available to us and no increase in technology will be able to overcome it. There are aspects of the "external reality, the universe) will forever be beyond our grasp. Even what we know now exceeds our ability to conceptualize. Who can visualize or conceive of the eleven dimension reality of M-theory. Do we probe the "real" yes? Do we have "knowledge of the real", yes? Is our knowledge ever more than partial, incomplete and filtered through the limits of our conceptual abilities? In this sense Kant and Schopenhauer have an important message for us. Complete knowledge is not ours to have in practice or in theory and we should remain forever humble and open to possible aspects of reality beyond our probes, our senses, and our conceptual abilities.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;115330 wrote:

... personally, I am in complete agreement - technology is littered with examples of repeated failures ending in success, and science itself is a method for the continuous expansion and refinement of knowledge ... but does that also mean that the question of whether or not "the real" is knowable in principle isn't worth pursuing? ... that is, should Godel have simply taken Hilbert's word for it that formal systems can explain everything? ...

I don't think that any question is not worth pursuing, provided it makes sense and is not a pseudo-question. (I don't really see how your last sentence connects up with the sentence before it, though).

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115461 wrote:

I don't think that any question is not worth pursuing, provided it makes sense and is not a pseudo-question. (I don't really see how your last sentence connects up with the sentence before it, though).

... poor phrasing on my part Smile

... try replacing "that is" with "as an analogy" ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;115479 wrote:

... poor phrasing on my part ... try replacing "that is" with "as an analogy" ...

Doesn't help...........................

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115481 wrote:

Doesn't help...........................

... if Godel hadn't ignored Hilbert's assertion that formal systems paved the golden road to explaining everything, we might not know that there are limits to what formal systems can explain ... likewise, the only way we will ever know if there are limits to what can be known about "the real" is if someone ignores scientific realism's basic presumption that to know scientifically is to know "the real".

It's too bad that the form of Godel's proof doesn't apply here ... Godel's proof demonstrated that what is mechanically knowable is only a subset of what is humanly knowable, and he did this by showing a particular reflexive case where mechanical knowing breaks down ... unfortunately, human knowing is inherently reflexive, so Godel's tactic can't be used to probe the limits of human knowing.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;115488 wrote:

... if Godel hadn't ignored Hilbert's assertion that formal systems paved the golden road to explaining everything, we might not know that there are limits to what formal systems can explain ... likewise, the only way we will ever know if there are limits to what can be known about "the real" is if someone ignores scientific realism's basic presumption that to know scientifically is to know "the real".

It's too bad that the form of Godel's proof doesn't apply here ... Godel's proof demonstrated that what is mechanically knowable is only a subset of what is humanly knowable, and he did this by showing a particular reflexive case where mechanical knowing breaks down ... unfortunately, human knowing is inherently reflexive, so Godel's tactic can't be used to probe the limits of human knowing.

The point of calling a presumption a presumption is that it is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". That is, the burden of proof is on the person who holds that scientific realism is not true, and unless it can be shown to be not true, we have to assume it is true. So, if scientific realism is, indeed, a presumption, you have your work cut out for you.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115528 wrote:

The point of calling a presumption a presumption is that it is "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

... which is precisely why I used that word Smile

... scientific realism "presumes real until proven ideal" whereas the opposite take would be to "presume ideal until proven real" ... in both cases, the "ideal" is epistemological, not metaphysical (it is always "the real" that is metaphysical) ... this seems to me to be a convergence away from untenable positions - naive realism on the one hand, and solipsism on the other - toward a common ground ... and since there is no "innocent" to protect, either presumption can be made without collateral damage ... but from my perspective, the presumption "presume ideal until proven real" is a more fertile philosophical ground, leading quite naturally to questions such as "is 'the real' humanly knowable in principle?" Smile

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;115576 wrote:

... which is precisely why I used that word ... scientific realism "presumes real until proven ideal" whereas the opposite take would be to "presume ideal until proven real" ... in both cases, the "ideal" is epistemological, not metaphysical (it is always "the real" that is metaphysical) ... this seems to me to be a convergence away from untenable positions - naive realism on the one hand, and solipsism on the other - toward a common ground ... and since there is no "innocent" to protect, either presumption can be made without collateral damage ... but from my perspective, the presumption "presume ideal until proven real" is a more fertile philosophical ground, leading quite naturally to questions such as "is 'the real' humanly knowable in principle?"

There are very good reasons, some logical, some scientific, some technical to think that there are limits to the degree to which we can probe and understand the nature of reality. One can of course make the claim that what is unaccessible to us does not really "exist" for us but I would see that as a form of naive realism.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;115578 wrote:

There are very good reasons, some logical, some scientific, some technical to think that there are limits to the degree to which we can probe and understand the nature of reality. .

Maybe that is true. But it is not very helpful unless we can know what those limits are, and to tell when they have been reached. So far, science has done quite well, don't you think?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

[QUOTE=kennethamy;115587]Maybe that is true. But it is not very helpful unless we can know what those limits are, and to tell when they have been reached. So far, science has done quite well, don't you think?[/QUOTE]The logical limits have to do the limits of our perceptive tools or instruments and Kantian notions about undetected and undetectable properties (of which I think mind and experience are good examples). Our ability to meaningfully conceive of such notions as tears in the fabric of space time, multiple dimensions and or universes and informational loss in black holes, etc.

The scientific and technical limits have to do with uncertainity prinicples, the size and energy of availabe probes and fundamental constants related to Plank energies, lenghts, and masses. The model of continous space time and point model of matter are probably both errors in conception.

Yes, science has done incredibly well, so well in fact that people seem to forget that science (powerful tool that it is) probably still only yields a partial and incomplete view of "ultimate reality". I would say science is the new "religion" but science inherently does not address questions of value and purpose. It is precisely questions of value and purpose that are the existential problem of primary concern to self aware self reflective creatures such as man.

I would also add that the popular conception of space time is probably still Cartesian in visualization (fixed and continuous) and the popular conception of matter is probably still atomic and Newtonian (fixed points, billiard balls) both of which while practical models for our ordinary experience do not represent the deeper truth of reality.

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;115593 wrote:

The logical limits have to do the limits of our perceptive tools or instruments and Kantian notions about undetected and undetectable properties (of which I think mind and experience are good examples).

... Schopenhauer has an interesting logical argument in this respect ... for experience itself to exist, there are certain preconditions - most notably, there must be a subject (to do the experiencing) and an object (to be experienced) ... the subject is the self ... and since the self is a precondition of experience, it cannot be part of experience ... therefore the self must be noumena, not phenomena, which proves the existence of noumena.

I'm not sure how much stock to put in this argument, however, for a couple of reasons:

1) a number of Schopenhauer's other arguments regarding noumena appear to me to be logically flawed (but that may be because I have just started reading and have yet to get to the "meat")

2) there seems to be a chicken-and-egg problem hidden in here ... that is, it seems equally valid to argue that "for a subject itself to exist, there are certain preconditions - most notably, the experience of objects" ... so if we instead assume that the subject and experience co-emerge in a loop of reciprocal causation, then each is a condition of the other, but neither is a pre-condition of the other, and so Schopenhauer's argument falls short of proving the existence of noumena.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;115593 wrote:

The logical limits have to do the limits of our perceptive tools or instruments and Kantian notions about undetected and undetectable properties (of which I think mind and experience are good examples). Our ability to meaningfully conceive of such notions as tears in the fabric of space time, multiple dimensions and or universes and informational loss in black holes, etc.

The scientific and technical limits have to do with uncertainity prinicples, the size and energy of availabe probes and fundamental constants related to Plank energies, lenghts, and masses. The model of continous space time and point model of matter are probably both errors in conception.

Yes, science has done incredibly well, so well in fact that people seem to forget that science (powerful tool that it is) probably still only yields a partial and incomplete view of "ultimate reality". I would say science is the new "religion" but science inherently does not address questions of value and purpose. It is precisely questions of value and purpose that are the existential problem of primary concern to self aware self reflective creatures such as man.

I would also add that the popular conception of space time is probably still Cartesian in visualization (fixed and continuous) and the popular conception of matter is probably still atomic and Newtonian (fixed points, billiard balls) both of which while practical models for our ordinary experience do not represent the deeper truth of reality.

The question is, of course, whether there is such a thing as ultimate reality, and even whether we know what that term, "ultimate reality" means, if anything. We cannot just assume the answer to both questions is, yes.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115628 wrote:

The question is, of course, whether there is such a thing as ultimate reality, and even whether we know what that term, "ultimate reality" means, if anything. We cannot just assume the answer to both questions is, yes.

What would the difference between "reality" and "ultimate reality" be?

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;115629 wrote:

What would the difference between "reality" and "ultimate reality" be?

You would have to ask someone who used those expressions, I suppose.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=kennethamy;115628]The question is, of course, whether there is such a thing as ultimate reality, and even whether we know what that term, "ultimate reality" means, if anything. We cannot just assume the answer to both questions is, yes.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zetherin;115629]What would the difference between "reality" and "ultimate reality" be?[/QUOTE]Well there is "reality" as we "know", "experience" and "conceive" of it and then there are those aspects of the "universe" the "world" which are beyond our experience.

Certainly for each of us as individuals there is our own personal reality and experience and then there are other things in the world which we have not experienced. Personal reality versus total reality.

The concept of ultimate reality is the limits of what humans can possibly know, experience and conceive versus all that exists. It is of course another form of Kant's phenomena versus nouemenon.

For practical purposes Cartesian notions of space time and Newtonian notions of point particles and mechanical interactions suffice in our "reality". Man is not the measure of all things in the notion of "ultimate reality". Just because we can not directly experience or conceive of an "entity" does not mean it does not exist.. It may as a pragmatic matter or matter of argument not "exist" for us . The world "exists" with our without us and the universe has properties independent of our ability to detect, experience or conceive of them; or so the notion of "ultimate reality" declares.

The empirical world does not equal "ultimate reality".

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;115663 wrote:

The empirical world does not equal "ultimate reality".

What is naive about naive realism?

Scientific realism is not the view that nothing exists except what is detectable by science. It is that whatever we can know about the world is best known though science. It does not say there is nothing else in the world.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

prothero wrote:

The concept of ultimate reality is the limits of what humans can possibly know, experience and conceive versus all that exists. It is of course another form of Kant's phenomena versus nouemenon.

The limits of what humans can possibly know and experience, versus all that exists? I'm not sure what that means. Can't we know, and experience, things which exist?

Quote:

Certainly for each of us as individuals there is our own personal reality and experience and then there are other things in the world which we have not experienced. Personal reality versus total reality.

What makes you think each consciousness has its own personal reality? Isn't it possible that every one is subjectively experiencing the same reality? That seems to me to make the most sense.

And what does acknowledging that there are things we haven't experienced do? Why should it lead us to believe there is a "total reality" contrasted with a "personal reality"? All it seems to say to me is that we haven't experienced X in reality.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;115685 wrote:

What is naive about naive realism?

... the belief that if the world were swallowed by a black hole tomorrow that, say, "red" would still exist as a property of "the real" ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;115886 wrote:

... the belief that if the world were swallowed by a black hole tomorrow that, say, "red" would still exist as a property of "the real" ...

I have no idea about black holes, but isn't a red ball in the light also a red ball in the dark?

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;115881 wrote:

The limits of what humans can possibly know and experience, versus all that exists? I'm not sure what that means. Can't we know, and experience, things which exist?

... yes, we can experience things which exist ... but that does not imply that this experience runs to any great depth - for example, you will never be able to know me like I know me ... nor does it imply that this experience is anything more than a sensory distortion of the "thing-in-itself" - for example (and to beat a dead horse), "red" ... so when you experience a thing which exists, does that exhaust all there is to know about it?

Zetherin;115881 wrote:

Isn't it possible that every one is subjectively experiencing the same reality?

... it's more than a possibility - that's the way things are ... every one is subjectively experiencing the same mind-independent reality, but every one has his own subjective experience (the phenomenal world) ... and together, we construct an inter-subjective experience (the empirical world) ... there is considerable overlap between the the latter two, but they have their differences - as for the first, there's really not a whole lot we can infer about it (Schopenhauer tries to, but I think his logic is flawed) ...

Zetherin;115881 wrote:

And what does acknowledging that there are things we haven't experienced do?

... that's not quite the point ... the point is that our experience of what is mind-independently real is an aggregate of sensory impressions (the phenomenal world) which we know for a fact (through the social construction of the empirical world) does not exhaust all there is to know about the mind-independently real ... that the social construction of the empirical world is a work in progress also indicates that the empirical world does not exhaust all there is to know about the mind-independently real ... the question regarding whether or not the empirical world can ever be exhaustive, if answered, would simply give us an idea as to the limits of human knowledge (much like Godel's proof gives us an idea as to the limits of computable knowledge) ...

---------- Post added 12-31-2009 at 10:06 AM ----------

kennethamy;115887 wrote:

but isn't a red ball in the light also a red ball in the dark?

... this is just the old question, "If a tree fell in the forest and there was no one to hear it, would it make a sound?" in new clothes ... the answer to that question is "no" ... when the tree falls it still makes pressure waves in the atmosphere, but since there is no human subject equipped with the sensory apparatus to convert those pressure waves into the human sense of "sound", there is in fact no sound ... and likewise for color ...

1 Reply

What is the Empirical World?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know