The Nature of Reality

Metaphysics & Epistemology
82

Okay.

One more time I did NOT mention ‘your point 1’, under this post.

your definition for the word ‘Reality’ is WHY you people are still searching for the answer to “The Nature of Reality”.

If this is what you have chosen to believe is true, then okay.

you can ‘insist’ till the day you “die”. What I found is the best, simplest, quickest, and easiest way to get something that you would like, is to just ask for it, instead of ‘insisting’.

I have already answered this question for you as well. Maybe you missed that answer and response too.

Obviously.

If this is what you really want to believe is true, then okay. But notice how, once again, these types of adults would use the ‘childish’ word when they would attempt to insult or ‘lower’ someone. Which just goes to show what they ‘think of children’.
If you believe that you have still not yet made any ‘real claim’, then okay. However, this thread’s title is ‘The Nature of Reality’, and starting of by claiming that not just ‘the definition’ for the word ‘Reality’ is “everything that exists”, and that ‘that definitions’ IS the “average” and “common” one, some might see and say is actually an attempt at a ‘real claim’. Which, by the way, a lot of people do provide their own personal definition of words when they want to ‘try to’ make a ‘real claim’ about them. Like, for example, when they want to ‘try to’ claim what the ‘Nature’ of ‘the thing’ is, which they have just provided ‘a definition’ for, which they also ‘try to’ claim is the so-called “common definition”, for example.

What is ‘it’, exactly, that ‘you’ have asked ‘me’ to ‘back-up’?

Also, if I provide a different definition than you have, would you expect me back ‘it’ up? Have you ‘backed up’ ‘your definition’ yet.
By the way, saying or claiming that "it is the common or average definition’ is NOT backing ‘it’ up at all.

Why do you make these types of statements but put a question mark at the end of them?
I suggest that you either ask an actual question and put a question mark at the end of that, or just keep your statements question-mark-free.

AGAIN, you express a statement and claim, but put a question mark at the end of it.
Also, what ‘truth’ are you referring to here, exactly?
Was it not you who started a thread called “The Nature of Reality”, which, it could be inferred that some sort of ‘truth’ was going to be or expected to come forth and be revealed?

No. Are you?

Okay.

Yes. That was the purpose of that clarifying question I asked you.

To who, exactly?

What made you come to this understanding, exactly?
If ‘I’ informed ‘you’ that ‘I’ have not even thought this, would ‘you’ believe this?

Once again, ‘you’ have introduced another thing that has absolutely nothing at all to do ‘with me’, and then ‘you’ go onto to refute ‘your’ own introduced remark and statement.

Some who have been educated in what is called “philosophy” will know the term for what ‘you’ are very clearly doing here.

Does not every adult bear reasonsibility in ‘misunderstanding’ itself?

LOL Now it is, once again, back to ‘me’ only causing ‘your misunderstanding and confusion’.

Leaving out ‘my words’ that showed ‘the context’ here, some might consider it ‘you’ not being very sincere, open, nor honest.

Once again, I never said that ‘your’ topic title here (on its own) is misleading. So, I NEVER claimed ‘it’.

See, if ‘you’ remove ‘the words’ that showed what ‘my words’ “…, and NOT provide a misleading topic title”, were in relation to, exactly, then ‘this’ is what some people consider is very misleading, insincere, and/or dishonest. If the Truth be known.

What some here might consider to be the ‘real coward move’ might be in regard to something else entirely.

But, then again, ‘you’ may well be completely oblivious to what has actually been happening and occuring here.

Once again, anyone can ‘look back’ over ‘our words’ and ‘see’ who has actually introduced things, ‘tried to’ claim the other said or meant ‘them’, and then proceeded on, when, in fact, ‘the other’ has not even thought those things, let alone said or wrote them anywhere here.
‘I’ am NOT ‘implying’ ‘it’ AT ALL, let alone ‘heavily’. ‘you’ introduced ‘it’, and then, very unsuccessfully, have ‘tried to’ make out that ‘it’ is something ‘I’ implied.
Again, ‘your own interpretations and inferences’ are letting ‘you’ down severely here.

Again, ‘I’ did NOT claim ‘it’ NOR even mean to claim ‘it’ AT ALL.

What ‘I’ ‘see’ here is ‘you’ being very, very confused, and ‘you’ ‘trying to’ imply something that is NOT the case at all.

Yet, it is ‘you’ who says and writes things like, ‘I’ created ‘your confusion’ here.

So, if ‘misunderstanding’ is a “two-way road” as ‘you’ call ‘it’, then WHEN is ‘your confusion and misunderstanding’ NOT going to be ‘my fault’ NOR what ‘I’ created?

But, ‘it’ is something that ‘I’ have NEVER even ‘thought’, let alone said nor wrote absolutely anywhere.

Once again, ‘you’ are introducing ‘ideas’ [red herrings and strawmen] that ‘I’ have NEVER had, let alone said nor written anywhere.

Maybe ‘this way’ of conversing here might be something that ‘you’ might want to ‘look at’ and consider here.

AND, if ‘you’ wanted to KNOW, then ‘you’ would have asked ‘me’.

Just so it becomes clear, ‘I’ have NO need NOR want to ‘tell you’ if ‘you’ continue to have NO interest NOR curiosity in wanting to KNOW.

83

As I have indicated before, I am just using the term “point 1” to refer to whatever you wanted to say. “Point 1” is a label. There is no “my” point 1.

But I forgot you struggle with labels.

So your goal by pointing out point 1 or that “information about something is perceived with a delay relative to when that something happens” is to show that?

I don’t see how point 1 shows my definition to be misleading us in whatever reality is.

Do you think you are doing a good job at showing whatever you are trying to show? I don’t think so personally.

Simply a fact.

Showing a specific example of where you bear some responsibility in misunderstanding does not mean I am accusing you alone across the conversation. Why do you draw wrongful conclusions like that?

I predict that you will think of saying something like: “‘I’ have NEVER drawn such ‘conclusions!’”

Then why did you say the words you wrote in the quoted passage above?

It seems you are afraid of being held accountable for anything you say or at least for how it sounds.

You labeling me the sole inventor of what I consider justified or fair interpretations of your words.

If you do not deny that misunderstanding is a two-way road, then admit you have miscommunicated / misunderstood as well. But I call it right now:

you will not admit anything. You will continue to dodge everything.

  • My interpretation of your words is justified, even within context.
  • I am constantly trying to be sincere and honest.

You are cunning, and you know it. Whatever it is that you said, I refute it.

Who would want to learn anything from such an arrogant person?

Lastly:

  • If my definition of reality is all you wanted to know then I believe this conversation is over.
  • If feedback is of any interest to you: to me, you sound arrogant through and through, and unable to admit to your own mistakes.
84

As I indicated earlier, I did NOT want to say, and I did NOT say, what you believe and claim I wanted to say. Can you comprehend and understand this?

Which ‘labels’ do you believe I struggle with, exactly?

Once more, you made another state and claim, but put a question mark at the end.

There are quite a few things you have not seen here.

Okay.

Can you prove it is a fact?

If yes, then will do that here?

Are you sure you are not? Anyone can just go back and ‘look at’ the actual words that you said and wrote here.

Again, anyone can go back and ‘look at’ at what you actually said and wrote.

Okay.

Because of the actual words that you said and wrote below:

Here in ‘these words of yours’ you are claiming that ‘I’, alone, created 'your confusion.

Again, you are absolutely free to ‘see’ anything in any way you want to. So, if ‘this’ what ‘seems’ to you, then okay.

Well, ‘you’ are the sole inventor of your interpretations and inferences, alone.

you seem to keep forgetting that you claimed that I was the sole creator of ‘your confusion’.

If this is what you believe is absolutely true here, then okay.

you seem to be dragging this on and on and on, instead of just discussing what ‘Reality’ is, exactly, and what the ‘Nature’ of ‘that’ is, exactly?

“justified” to you, maybe. But you still are ‘trying to’ avoid the fact that you left out ‘my words’, which provided ‘the context’ you appear to still be MISSING and/or MISUNDERSTANDING.

WHY then did you leave out ‘my words’ that provided ‘the context’, exactly?

LOL “Whatever you said, I refute it”.

Here is a prime example of what I had to deal with, back in the days when this was being written.

I made a claim. you claimed to wonder about some thing. I continue to wait for those who have enough interest and through enough curiosity WILL ask question/s for clarity’s sake.

Okay. So, WHY are ‘you’ still writing and replying here?

Quite a few of you people like to make this same claim and accusation. If you are interested.

But, just like ‘the one’ who was just trying to express an actual Truth in Life, to a group of people who believed otherwise, ‘that one’ was also perceived to be ‘arrogant’ and also unable to admit “their mistakes”. However, ‘that one’ had NO mistakes and it was ‘the others’, with their False and Wrong beliefs, who were ‘the ones’ who kept making ‘the mistakes’.

85

For myself, I can’t see how “mind” is, or could be, material. It has no physical component, that I am aware of, so … how could mind be material? :thinking:

Bear in mind, please, that I am not pronouncing on the nature of mind, but only considering what I mean by “mind”, and my knowledge of what others also (seem to) mean by it…

86

This is another thing that we are in total agreement with.

To me it also appears as the Mind has no physical component as well, so I also wonder how could the Mind be material also.

What I was doing here was just reinforcing your idea about how rare absolute certainty really is.

From every point of view I have I cannot see how the Mind could be material, but I do not say the Mind is immaterial for the simple fact that I do not have the irrefutable proof that It is immaterial.

I was just pointing out, through open questioning, of the example you provided, that you had claimed that the mind is an immaterial thing, while also noting how rare ‘absolute certainty’ really is.
We just do not yet know, and so are not yet certain, whether the Mind is material or immaterial.

This was already understood.

87

Yes, I sort-of agree, but this is a little limiting, I think? Is it not permissible to say that “I believe that mind is immaterial”, which is so, and communicates what is required? That could probably be worded better, but it will do for now. :wink: To go farther, perhaps we need E-Prime, or something similar? For absolute reasoning such as yours, above, is embedded in our language. We say “is”, but rarely “might be” or “could be”. And so on.

N.B. There are far worse examples of absolute expression than yours, which states a non-absolute belief in absolute-seeming terms. :wink:

88

Hey @Jkem33!

Here’s my answer to your original question. I will say I haven’t read all the traffic between here and there, as there seemed to be a lot of … stuff … going on in some sub-convos.

Background:

I am a theoretical physicist and computational neurobiologist by formal academic training. Perhaps surprisingly this doesn’t necessarily make me a physicalist or anything similar. (Nor am I necessarily ‘not a physicalist’: it all depends what that means!)

Preamble

So my first comment is on your:

‘my approach attempts to make no unnecessary assumption’ (emphases added)

Then you might perhaps start with the fact that all (externally-oriented) human knowledge arises first in/as/via conscious experience. This only follows though, if you’re not a ‘direct realist’. If you are, all good, but we part ways at this point:

Axiom-A1: (Representationalism about exteroceptive experience). Exteroceptive conscious experience is a brain-mediated re-presentation of an otherwise ‘unseen’ ‘physical’ reality.

I do find that many people think physicalism is obvious because we ‘see’ physical trees, stars etc. We do not, according to A1: we see ‘re-presentations’ of ‘physical’ underlyings, assuming that ‘physical’ exactly points to the unseen-underlying. (Again, other, A1-alternative, positions are fine. I just can’t find a way to hold them, coherently.)

Claim-C1 (‘Unseen-Underlying-ism’ concerning Current Science): Everything that mainstream natural science studies (up until so-called ‘consciousness science’, which is currently an oxymoron) properly belongs to what we might call the ‘unseen underlying’. That is, natural science (mostly!) studies the things/processes/‘X’ that representational-experience represents.

Again, I find many people disagree with this, because they say things like ‘no. biology studies that tree, or that cat - which we can see’. A careful account of scientific epistemology under A1-representationalism refutes this, though: we use conscious-experience in science solely as a presumptively-faithful A1-representation of the unseen-underlying; inferences then always refer to properties of that unseen.

Note that this ‘unseen underlying’/‘representational experience’ view has no (typical-philosophy) ontology at all. It does not say that the unseen-underlying ‘is’ matter, or mind, or dual-aspect or anything: it just says ‘there is some unseen natural order that gives rise to consciously-experienced regularities’: apples fall, planets circle etc. (Noting again that what we typically mean in natural-language discussions, e.g. by ‘apple’, is ‘conscious-experience of apple’.)

Claim-C2 (Effective Real-Valued Computationalism concerning current Science): all the explanatory machinery of current mainstream science (excluding consciousness ‘science’) can in principle be captured/expressed mathematically.

Again there are opposing views on this: e.g. it’s often criticized as ‘far too reductive’ etc. Note this isn’t a claim (necessarily) about reality: it just captures what current science says. (Computational-expression of all properties/processes/systems studied in science doesn’t deny emergence, although it does say current science limits itself to what I call ‘real-valued computational emergence’ as an explanatory mode: see next Claim!)

Claim-C3 (Invalidity of Real-Valued Computational Emergence for Conscious Experience): Conscious experience itself cannot be explained by real-valued computational emergence, because it is self-evidently not limited to real-values. (The experience of the red is not identical to the wavelength-of-red light, or to any aspect of the unseen/underlying-brain.)

I don’t claim that C3 is standalone or self-evident, because it involves some neuroscientific facts (e.g. the absence of a Cartesian theater) and some further reasoning about emergentist explanation-types.

Roughly speaking, C1-to-C3 ‘imply’ C4:

Claim-C4 (Minimal Components of an Internally-Coherent Science-Congruent Reality-View): ‘Reality’ can be conceived of as a collection of conscious-experiential ‘representational-bubbles’ plus an underlying-unseen that can be most parsimoniously encapsulated in terms of mathematics. For an internally-coherent picture, it must be that certain mathematically-characterized states in the underlying then lead to experiential-‘projection’ that represents other underlying-states (e.g. ‘brain-encoded data’, where we understand ‘brain’ to refer an aspect of the underlying).

Note that ‘parsimonious encapsulation’ does not all imply a purely-mathematical ontology for the unseen-underlying: it is an epistemological claim. (And I understand that person-A’s parsimony can be person-B’s abstract-gobbledygook.)

So having said all that :smiley: : if you want to make ‘no unnecessary assumption’ you would (in my definitely-culturally-situated opinion) end up in C4! Not starting with matter, but with conscious experience and the mathematical regularities that appear to inhere to the unseen-underlying ‘behind’ conscious experience.

Back to Your View!

Let’s turn this around, and make it (a bit!) less about my view: let’s look at your view, with my C4 in the analytical-background.

Your suggestion - if it can be made to cohere with mathematical regularities e.g. in current physical theory - is one perfectly unobjectionable way to conceive of (part of) the unseen-underlying.

But that word, ‘one’, carries a lot relative to your desire for ‘no unnecessary assumption’. Of course, necessity is in the eye of the beholder; you may find my C4 bereft of your necessities. (One common complaint is: ‘Yes but what computes the C4-mathematics? Mind, matter, something else?’. The C4-answer is exactly that to postulate a computational-medium is to add an unnecessary feature. But C4 does not forbid such elaborations!)

So matter-as-waves is, as some have said, broadly consistent with quantum field theory. Good enough. (Although C4 says matter-as-math is simpler. 'Nuff said on that!)

The bits of ‘reality’ you have not yet addressed though are gravity, and conscious experience. You could say matter is waves, these waves cause other gravity waves, the gravity waves then affect the matter waves. Perfect! That’s a schematic outline of a future unified quantum-gravity theory.

Then you ‘have to’ (if you’re not a direct realist or some sort of eliminativist with respect to conscious experience) give an account of the relation of conscious experience with respect to a wavey-brain.

That’s fine: you can just say ‘reality is’ matter-waves and gravity-waves, and then some configurations of matter-waves (e.g. what we call ‘brains’) seem to be associated with experiential-projection! (As C4 does, more-or-less, but without the matter/gravity-as-waves-‘in something’.)

So ‘all’ I really wanted to say is: you leave out conscious experience; and, here (via a version of C4) is an internally-coherent, ontologically-mostly-agnostic way to bring that in! :smiley:

(Although I guess I also wanted to point out that your assumption of matter as a process ‘in something’ could be seen as an unnecessary ontological-elaboration.)

Hope this helps you to think in new and useful ways, and/or support your exploration in general!

Edits: to complete the last few sentences, and then proof-corrections and formatting, plus multiple attempts to tag the OP: new user, first post!

89

I’d be happy to hear you expand on what you understand physicalism to mean, and where you’d consider yourself to stand.

Regarding the rest of your post:

  • About A1. I agree with the general idea. There is a sense in which we do not perceive external reality exactly as it is. But I think there is a lot of things to say about it. First, let me ask, is A1 true because our senses supposedly add a filter / bias to what we receive? (1) Or is it because we do not see what ultimately makes up a given observable object? (2) Or perhaps both?

  • Precisely. Said ontology is what I am attempting to figure out. I am in agreement with C1-C4, but it doesn’t answer my question in all honesty. My follow-up question would be: What are the conscious-experiential ‘representational-bubbles’ and the underlying-unseen?

  • Since you reached C4 by striving to not make any “unnecessary assumption,” perhaps I should not reject those, as they may not only be unavoidable, but also bring some flavor and creativity to the discussion. I have a hunch that creativity will turn out to be useful in figuring all of this out. I originally wrote it partly to ensure that the conversation stays on rational ground, but feel free to make unnecessary assumptions now haha.

  • I’d like to elaborate on why, even though subjective (granted), my approach is one of least “unnecessary assumption.” I like to reason in terms of binaries. That is, I identify two options (typically opposed to each other) that, by the law of non-contradiction, cannot both be true at the same time. Then, reasoning by the absurd, I weed out the least likely one out of the two. Repeating the process above would yield a view of least “unnecessary assumption.” That is partly how I came to conceptualize of “the fabric of reality.” Happy to elaborate further. That being said, I do not deny that information should and will be used to derive further information about the world. Of course, I myself rely on existing information to come up with new theories.

  • But C4 does not claim that matter is math right? Math is just a representation of how matter and reality at large behave. Matter-as-waves does claim that matter is ultimately wave (refer to 2nd bullet point).
  • Well, as of now, I couldn’t possibly give an account of these things from my theory on the fabric of reality. It would be like attempting to explain advanced rocket physics with a limited understanding of numbers and no concept of basic arithmetic operations. I may have a hunch that numbers ultimately get us to rocket physics, but that’s about all I can say haha.

If you want some explanation regardless, here is something very hypothetical:

I think waves clashing a particular way produce a certain effect, that could in some probabilistic scenario produce another, then another, etc. Like a chain reaction, that eventually results in a temporally self-sustained field, in which matter is born and resides (like a drawing on razor-thin paper, so thin that the drawing shows on both sides, but the drawing is made from the paper shriveling lol). Then when the chain-reaction that said field is runs out, everything on it “disappears.” I think what we refer to as the observable universe may be sitting on a large field that, much like black hole, self-sustains until it eventually runs out of fuel. And that field disappearing may be like the fabric of the universe sort of untying its knots. That is all I got for now haha.

  • Consciousness though is a bit different. To me, it boils down to the inherent experience of what it is like to be “x” or the qualia of said object. It is not quite something that requires explanation in my view, hence I don’t think I am leaving it out. Happy to expand on why I believe that of course.

Thank you for engaging and welcome! :slight_smile:

90

What is the ‘this’ word here in relation to, exactly?
What do you think is a little limiting, exactly?

Again, ‘you’ are absolutely free, or permitted, to think in absolutely any way and do absolutely anything.

‘I’ do not use the ‘believe’ word here because of the connotation that can come from the use of that word.

‘I’ instead would just use the words’ view ’ or ’ think '. For example, “I think that the Mind is more likely to be immaterial rather than material”, or “In my view, the Mind would be more conducive to being immaterial than material”.

See, from my Past Experiences, the ‘view/s’ and ‘thinking’ obtained has let me to view and think ‘this way’, but obviously ‘my views’ and ‘my thoughts/thinking’ could be Wrong or partly wrong.

Now, would you believe something is true if it might not be true?

If yes, then why would you ‘believe’ something to be true if it might not even be true anyway?

What do you mean here by, “which is so”, exactly? And,
What do you mean here by, “communicates what is required”, exactly?

Honestly, you lost me there.

What do you think we need “e-prime” for, exactly?

For human beings to obtain and gain ‘understanding’, itself, which is what is needed for True Peace and Harmony, for everyone, what we need is clarification and clarity. And, HOW clarification, clarity, and understanding is obtained and gained is by being ALWAYS Honest, Open, and Wanting/Willing to change for the better, while seeking out and clarification and obtaining clarification from each other.

In the days when this is being written, people have not yet recognised and notice just how much ‘power’ and ‘control’ each and every word has over them. For example, notice how much difference there is between saying “something ‘is’ [this or that]” from “something ‘might be’ [this is that]”. A person saying the former means that they are not ‘open’, while expressing the latter one demonstrates that ‘that person’ is ‘open’, (to a degree).

Now, this is not to say that the person saying ‘is’ does not have the necessary proof and facts for the claim, but just the use of words sends signals of just how ‘open’ or ‘closed’ people are, or more correct ‘could be’. Again, until clarification is verified, through the use of open-ended clarifying questions, and Honest responses, what a person is really thinking and meaning cannot be ‘fully understood’.

Now, people can use the ‘believe’ word, as in, “I believe that they went to the shops”, while meaning, “I think they went to the shops”, (and the listener even intuitively knowing that ‘that one’ meant that they ‘think’ that the ‘other one’ went to the shops). But, if what was meant was, “I think …”, then why not just use ‘that word’ instead of “I believe …”, which obviously can have a very different meaning and connotation.

The words ‘I believe …’ can literally mean something very, very different than ‘I think …’.

1 Like
91

As others have said, it’s broadly conformant with quantum physics, with touches of your own intuitive extrapolations into areas where quantum physics isn’t yet fully defined (which are many). Existing quantum physics might support your conceptual gloss, or (as mentioned) you could try to further formalize your insights. As a kind of materialist ontology, it is so far not radically at odds with science.

1 Like
92

For anyone who would like to discuss the ‘Nature of Reality’ and come to know the ‘Nature of Reality’, exactly as ‘it is’, then they have to define these words first, and obviously in ‘a way’ that cannot be refuted. Which, obviously, means that they had already worked out, or learned, and come to know the actual True Nature of Reality, Itself.

The Nature of Reality, by the way, is becoming, or coming to be.

1 Like