The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

@Shapeless,

True! LOL

What I know for sure about the discussion of this thread is that my concept of my reality is what I know - about 90% of the time. It doesn't matter what anyone else believes about their reality, because what matters in the long run for my reality is that the majority understand a wall is a wall, and a bee is a bee. I'll give up the other 10% to the unknowable, because it doesn't impact my life all that much.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

If it should ever dawn on you that an observer is required to measure "order" and "disorder" then you might understand the limits of your understanding of how the second law pertains to naive realism.

There you go again, acting as if you made this major discovery that observations require observers, like that was some kind of profound insight. I hardly have the heart to tell you it isn't.

The fact that the second law of thermodynamic requires an observer to make observations is hardly fatal to the notion of "naive realism," considering that both the rule and the observer assume the existence of an independent reality. I know you want to rely on scientific laws, because they have the kind of prestige and reliability that your position sorely lacks (I'm just surprised it's the second law of thermodynamics this time rather than QM -- that has always been your favorite). But let's face it, fresco, you can't knock down "naive realism" with scientific laws that rely on "naive realism." That's rather like Baron Munchhausen pulling himself up by his own pigtail.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Quote:

Can we all first accept and agree that we know this much at least... that everything in the universe is made up of the 4 basic elements, Earth, Wind, Fire and Water?
Do you think they had any idea at the time how far away from knowing "objective reality" they were then? Are we even a tiny fraction closer now?

That raises another point. Every single variation of reality we can explain are merely stories. Many are variations and combinations of stories, but the only true distinction between reality and all the other stories is belief.
Some say big bang is reality, others say creation. Both are variations of the same story. The notion of a reality "before" our senses is just another variation. I think it is a very telling point that people who reject God can still have a firm belief in "objective reality". Both are equally elusive and impossible to prove.

And what is reality without it's context? What does "moon" mean without the contexts that lend the object meaning? Were there moons before they were discovered and named?
I say that there were not. There was, however, the phenomenon which we refer to as "moons". But if we try to explain a moon without involving a whole lot of other concepts, we get an inkling of the tangled nature of reality. It also indicates the arbitrary way in which it comes to be "real".
An "unobserved reality" cannot have distinctions. It might be a void concept, since forming a concept about it is contradicting it.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I think it is a very telling point that people who reject God can still have a firm belief in "objective reality". Both are equally elusive and impossible to prove.

For me, it is a telling point that you believe both are equally elusive and impossible to prove.

In my opinion, the concept of God is far more difficult to prove.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

The second law is stated with (1)a concept of "order" as axiomatic and observer independent, and (2) that disorder increases. Thus everyday "naive realism" which assumes structure/order of "things" is persistent is consistent with (1) but inconsistent with (2) because (2) implies that things never stay the same. So the inclusion of observer variables to measure "change" as required by (2) negates the observer independence of (1).

An alternative is to think of "persistent identity" as maintenance of functional interaction between observer and observed, but that of course departs from naive realism.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
I'm not trying to prove anything... I'm saying that someone else needs to prove it for me to believe it can be proved.

Then you're holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

My response was to this. I tried to show how this assertion was untenable:

igm wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

Actually, I contend that there is a reality that is independent of any observer.

Then you'll need to show some evidence that there is a reality independent of an observer... can you?

I don't understand what that has to do with 'standards' high or low. You are yet to show your hand... you've questioned and made some minor statements but... is that enough? Is it a higher standard than I have shown in my posts?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The second law is stated with (1)a concept of "order" as axiomatic and observer independent, and (2) that disorder increases. Thus everyday "naive realism" which assumes structure/order of "things" is persistent is consistent with (1) but inconsistent with (2) because (2) implies that things never stay the same. So the inclusion of observer variables to measure "change" as required by (2) negates the observer independence of (1).

You have got to be kidding.

"Naive realism" doesn't assume that the structure/order of things is "persistent" in a thermodynamic sense. You're carrying a metaphor way too far. The realist who says "there's a brick wall over there" isn't suggesting that the brick wall will be there a hundred years from now, or that it is immune to the laws of physics. Furthermore, the notion that the second law of thermodynamics means that disorder increases for everything is a rather elementary misconception of the law.

fresco wrote:

An alternative is to think of "persistent identity" as maintenance of functional interaction between observer and observed, but that of course departs from naive realism.

Think of it however you like. The addition of the observer/observed relationship to a theory of epistemology is either a vestigial remnant of Berkeleyan idealism or it's irrelevant and should be excised via Ockham's Razor.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

I don't understand what that has to do with 'standards' high or low. You are yet to show your hand... you've questioned and made some minor statements but... is that enough? Is it a higher standard than I have shown in my posts?

You want people to "prove" the existence of the phenomenal world while you accept the existence of a noumenal world largely on faith. That's my point. If you need proof to convince you of the falsity of what you take on faith, then you are holding others to a higher standard of evidence than what you accept for your own beliefs.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I hope you don't mind me asking but... Do you believe there is a truly existent independent reality or not?

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

I hope you don't mind me asking but... Do you believe there is a truly existent independent reality or not?

I'm satisfied that all the evidence points to the existence of a reality independent from us. Furthermore, we all act as if there is an independent reality, which, in pragmatic terms, is much the same thing. That's sufficient for me.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:

I hope you don't mind me asking but... Do you believe there is a truly existent independent reality or not?

I'm satisfied that all the evidence points to the existence of a reality independent from us. Furthermore, we all act as if there is an independent reality, which, in pragmatic terms, is much the same thing. That's sufficient for me.

If you are independent of reality how can you know this reality... that by definition you are separate from?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

"Naive realism" doesn't assume that the structure/order of things is "persistent" in a thermodynamic sense.

When is a wall not a wall ? That is the question that functionality attempts to answer and naive realism fails to answer.

I specifically spoke of everyday naive realism which assumes "things persist" without any reference to thermodynamics. However that very notion of "persistence", whatever its "duration", underpins the thermodynamic concept of "order".

No-one in real-life doubts "persistence" or entertains thoughts of historical decay in normal contexts. Yet it is the naive extrapolation of that notion of persistence beyond ephemeral experience which supports the belief in an independent reality.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

If you are independent of reality how can you know this reality... that by definition you are separate from?

Why would that be a problem? I know plenty of things that aren't me. That's how I can know what's me and what isn't.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

When is a wall not a wall ? That is the question that functionality attempts to answer and naive realism fails to answer.

I'm not sure why anyone would need to answer that question, except maybe a brickmason. Functionality is irrelevant to epistemology.

fresco wrote:

I specifically spoke of everyday naive realism which assumes "things persist" without any reference to thermodynamics.

How can you say that you didn't make a reference to thermodynamics? YOU BROUGHT IT UP!!

fresco wrote:

However that very notion of "persistence", whatever its "duration", underpins the thermodynamic concept of "order".

You do realize that your previous posts can still be checked, don't you? I mean, what you write in them doesn't just magically disappear as soon as you post your next message, and that they can be checked against any subsequent denials or evasions. You're aware of that, right?

fresco wrote:

No-one in real-life doubts "persistence" or entertains thoughts of historical decay in normal contexts. Yet it is the naive extrapolation of that notion of persistence beyond ephemeral experience which supports the belief in an independent reality.

That's only because, as extrapolations go, it's a particularly robust one.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

You do realize that your previous posts can still be checked

Your lawyer's zip is undone ! Wink

I specifically said that everyday naive realism ignored the second law.

Quote:

That's only because, as extrapolations go, it's a particularly robust one.

Said the lawyer...but not the cognitive scientist, or philosopher !

3 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

I specifically said that everyday naive realism ignored the second law.

I don't understand why theoretical physics should govern discussions of epistemology.

1 Reply

It seems to me that ontologically speaking the "Wall" has no effective existence relative to a neutrino (and many other sufficiently small entities and forces) and virtually none as a barrier to a tidal wave or atom bomb. But it is virtually as good as absolutely real when I crash into it--this is, of course, a statement of its relativity as well. Pragmatically all that counts is that I avoid crashing into it or that it effectively separates "sides". But when we reduce our discussion to the wall's pragmatic implications we are simply removing ourselves from consideration of its epistemological status.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
If you are independent of reality how can you know this reality... that by definition you are separate from?

Why would that be a problem? I know plenty of things that aren't me. That's how I can know what's me and what isn't.

But the question is do you also know that you are independent of these things or are you dependently linked to the thing that you say you are independent of?

I am saying that reality is not independent; for example in order for me to see a brick wall there needs to be a light source, the light bounces off the object and enters the eye which impinges on my retina. The inverted image causes the cones and rods to send nerve impulses to the brain's visual cortex which in turn creates a picture of the object based on a two dimensional inverted image and dependent on the health of my retina and my visual cortex a picture appears which I am conscious of. The whole sequence was dependently linked the only evidence I have is the picture I am conscious of. So how do you draw the conclusion that there is an 'Independent Reality' when it is all dependent. If one of the links in the chain is broken a picture would not appear and even then I must infer those links from the picture alone?

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Epistemology is concerned with what we call "knowledge". One aspect of that is the empirical success of the theories of physics in terms of prediction and control. And since the second law of thermodynamics is concerned with the direction of "a timeline" along which prediction operates, that theory would appear to have particular significance. But I argue here that predictive success amounts to observers ontologically bringing forth aspects of "reality", rather than "knowing what appears to be out there". So by raising the issue of "observer status" with respect to "the measurement of order" in the second law, I am questioning not only the existence of observer independent "things" but also the nature of "time" within which "things" are deemed to have existence.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I specifically said that everyday naive realism ignored the second law.

So what?

fresco wrote:

Said the lawyer...but not the cognitive scientist, or philosopher !

I'm not sure why you'd care what a cognitive scientist would have to say, since they're all naive realists too.

1 Reply

The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know