Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[inocente]

We were discussing whether thoughts are palpable.

Nope, go back through the posts, you started with tangible, if it’s that important to you.

Christians believe we are made in God’s image.

Go back through the posts, that’s what you said three or four back. I then said about Him not having a belly button and nose hair, remember?

Can a person be equated with thoughts?

You are arguing we’re not (all) physical.

Including the Creator - in whose image we are made?

Of course not, I said Creation.

Are you having a bad day or something, do you want to stop?

 

[Sair]

Materialists leave themselves out of the equation and don’t bother to investigate themselves - as will shortly become evident…

It sounds like you’re just assuming materialists have no room for investigations of self, because you’ve already convinced yourself that selves are equivalent to immaterial souls.

If we are our detectable manifestations it doesn’t make sense to refer to “our manifestations” (no matter how apparently delectable they are). It amounts to saying manifestations belong to manifestations - which explains nothing. Another entity such as “we” does not even come into the picture. Possession and possessiveness are also eliminated - as will shortly become evident…

Of course it makes sense to refer to “our” manifestations if we are manifestations of ourselves. Even if it did not, this would only be a reflection of the limitations of language, not of the reality of physically-manifested beings.

It is only materialists who claim to derive persons from particles. A materialist on this forum explained how truth is an isomorphism of atomic particles. Such illusions as truth, love, compassion, freedom and purposeful activity should be ignored because it has been explained by other materialists on this very thread that such phenomena exist only in the mind. Since the mind is itself an isomorphism of atomic particles everything is an isomorphism of atomic particles - except atomic particles themselves. Inexorable logic that many are unwilling to confront because it is too unpleasant…

It might seem unpleasant to you, but the point is simply that if this is how things are, then it is how they are. Our experiences of love, compassion, freedom and purpose don’t disappear or become irrelevant to our existence just because they are an “isomorphism of atomic particles”. From the perspective of physically manifested minds and bodies, they matter just as much as if they were a mysterious confluence of immaterial ectoplasm - probably even more so. It is only supernaturalists who think that in attempting to explain phenomena, materialists are trying to explain them away.

 

[tonyrey]

Materialists leave themselves out of the equation and don’t bother to investigate themselves - as will shortly become evident…

If you believe you don’t have an intangible self you’re obviously not going to investigate!

If we are

our detectable manifestations it doesn’t make sense to refer to “our manifestations” (no matter how apparently delectable they are). It amounts to saying manifestations belong to manifestations - which explains nothing. Another entity such as “we” does not even come into the picture. Possession and possessiveness are also eliminated - as will shortly become evident… Of course it makes sense to refer to “our” manifestations if we are manifestations of ourselves.

What exactly does that mean?

Even if it did not, this would only be a reflection of the limitations of language, not of the reality of physically-manifested beings.

It is more than that because it disposes of the unity and continuity of the mind. There is no enduring entity if there are only sets of constantly changing events.

It is only materialists who claim to derive persons from particles. A materialist on this forum explained how truth is an isomorphism of atomic particles. Such illusions as truth, love, compassion, freedom and purposeful activity should be ignored because it has been explained by other materialists on this very thread that such phenomena exist only in the mind. Since the mind is itself an isomorphism of atomic particles everything is an isomorphism of atomic particles - except atomic particles themselves. Inexorable logic that many are unwilling to confront because it is too unpleasant…

It might seem unpleasant to you, but the point is simply that if this is how things are, then it is how they are.

Unpleasant to all those who value their freedom.

Our experiences of love, compassion, freedom and purpose don’t disappear or become irrelevant to our existence just because they are an “isomorphism of atomic particles”. From the perspective of physically manifested minds and bodies, they matter just as much as if they were a mysterious confluence of immaterial ectoplasm - probably even more so. It is only supernaturalists who think that in attempting to explain phenomena, materialists are trying to explain them away.

Any reasonable person realises that nothing matters in the purposeless world of material objects. To attempt to superimpose value, purpose and meaning on that which has no value, purpose and meaning is a forlorn and futile enterprise. To admit they are subjective amounts to admitting they are illusions because they correspond to nothing in the so-called “real world”. The truth is that **our **only real world is to be found in our thoughts, emotions, choices and decisions. The material world exists but it is not the dominant factor in determining whether we are in love, happy or fulfilled. We live with ourselves constantly - and certainly far more than with material objects. I love animals (because they’re not just material objects) but I love persons far more…

 

[Sair]

If you believe you don’t have an intangible self you’re obviously not going to investigate!

And here’s where we get to the crux of the matter - if a self is immaterial, how can it be investigated? The fundamental physicalist assumption is that all things that have detectable effects are physical. Therefore the mind and its processes are physical, and susceptible to scientific elucidation.

What exactly does that mean?

Simply that we are self manifesting. We are what we are. Tautological I know, but sometimes the obvious needs to be pointed out.

It is more than that because it disposes of the unity and continuity of the mind. There is no enduring entity if there are only sets of constantly changing events.

The unity and continuity may simply be products of memory and information processing.

Unpleasant to all those who value their freedom.

If your concept of freedom requires libertarian contra-causal free will, then yes, I suppose it must be unpleasant to confront the idea that we don’t have this, but only think we do because we are not consciously aware of all the processes that lead to our decisions.

Any reasonable person realises that nothing matters in the purposeless world of material objects. To attempt to superimpose value, purpose and meaning on that which has no value, purpose and meaning is a forlorn and futile enterprise. To admit they are subjective amounts to admitting they are illusions because they correspond to nothing in the so-called “real world”. The truth is that **our **only real world is to be found in our thoughts, emotions, choices and decisions. The material world exists but it is not the dominant factor in determining whether we are in love, happy or fulfilled. We live with ourselves constantly - and certainly far more than with material objects. I love animals (because they’re not just material objects) but I love persons far more…

Well of course none of our experiences matter in the sense of having some far-reaching, universal or eternal significance. When we “superimpose” value or meaning onto our experiences, all we are doing is allowing them to affect our beliefs and behaviour such that we treat them as significant. To ascribe meaning is simply to say, “If x is true, how does this affect reality as I see it?” That can only be done subjectively, but that doesn’t make it a pointless or futile or false exercise - it affects the way we live our lives. If you are going to claim that meaning is “objective”, you’ll need to be ready with an explanation of how it obtains in the absence of subjective interpretation.

And I think you’ll find that our real worlds are somewhat broader than the insides of our own heads. We are constantly processing information from the world outside our skin, even if we aren’t consciously aware of doing so. It would be very difficult to be in love, happy or fulfilled without external objects. As I’ve asked before, if the only reality were our thoughts, what could we possibly think about?

 

[Justinian_III]

If you read Summa, you’ll find Thomas concluding that light is instantaneous, for his impeccable logic rules out that it’s just very quick. Dead wrong, and that’s the problem, reason without testing gets it wrong, which is how come philosophers can’t agree on anything to do with reality without science to guide them.

But how do we know what REALITY is without correct epistimology?

 

[Gaber]

But how do we know what REALITY is without correct epistimology?

That is an excellent question!

 

[inocente]

But how do we know what REALITY is without correct epistimology?

How do you know which is the correct epistemology? How do you know there is a correct epistemology? How do you know that it’s possible to have a correct epistemology? How do you know that it’s possible to know that it’s possible to have a correct epistemology?

I think science avoids any need for this infinite regress of philosophical assumptions. The body of scientific knowledge is like a jigsaw, where each piece must fit perfectly with the others. For example, relativity and quantum theory both make predictions born out in high precision, but they don’t acknowledge each other and from this we know further work is needed.

 

[Solus_vistor]

But how do we know what REALITY is without correct epistimology?

This is the point I tried to make in post #397 when referring to Hawking and Mlodinow’s model-dependent realism: science (physics) does not need the hypothesis of the existence of a theory independent (physical) reality although practically all scientists believe in it.

One has to assume that there is an objective, observer-independent, reality that scientific models/representations refer to, in order to make sense of science. The same as one has to assume (believe) that there is an objective, believer-independent, reality that religious models (constituting e.g. the Christian Creed) refer to, in order to make sense of one’s faith.

There is nothing irrational in either of the assumptions. The first assumption is dictated by “common sense” that we all seem to share, whereas the second one requires an additional life experience, usually referred to as faith - a state of mind that goes beyond “intellectual consent”.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How do you know which is the correct epistemology? How do you know there is a correct epistemology? How do you know that it’s possible to have a correct epistemology? How do you know that it’s possible to know that it’s possible to have a correct epistemology?

Exactly. Speaking as one who has experienced altered states of awareness, I know for a fact that “reality” for any given person is relative. Even those who believe reality is not relative have no way to prove it. I can establish criteria by which I win.

I think science avoids any need for this infinite regress of philosophical assumptions. The body of scientific knowledge is like a jigsaw, where each piece must fit perfectly with the others. For example, relativity and quantum theory both make predictions born out in high precision, but they don’t acknowledge each other and from this we know further work is needed.

If we could put a halt to “new discovery” and spend the next 127 years crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s, and making everything match up, we would still have need for philosophy and for more discovery. Nature is clearly a step ahead of any attempt for us, its creatures, to discovery her absolutes. Who really thinks “string theory” is going to be the end-all ToE? Only the weak and timid … those among the honest, anyway.

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

If you believe you don’t have an intangible self you’re obviously not going to investigate!

The self cannot be investigated directly but its activity is constantly investigated by everyone who thinks about themselves - unless one believes we can never think about our mental activity and draw conclusions about ourselves! There is of course the alternative that thoughts and emotions are also illusions…

What exactly does that mean?

Simply that we are self manifesting. We are what we are. Tautological I know, but sometimes the obvious needs to be pointed out.

Unless you explain what the self is no one is any the wiser.

It is more than that because it disposes of the unity and continuity of the mind. There is no enduring entity if there are only sets of constantly changing events.

The unity and continuity may simply be products of memory and information processing.

In that case a person no longer exists. There is simply an impersonal computer composed of atomic particles - no more no less.

Unpleasant to all those who value their freedom.

If your concept of freedom requires libertarian contra-causal free will, then yes, I suppose it must be unpleasant to confront the idea that we don’t have this, but only think we do because we are not consciously aware of all the processes that lead to our decisions.

Even consciousness becomes an illusion if we are impersonal computers. Consciousness becomes a term full of sound and fury signifying nothing. (William would approve because he obviously wasn’t fond of Macbeth or such a view of life!)

Any reasonable person realises that nothing matters in the purposeless world of material objects. To attempt to superimpose value, purpose and meaning on that which has no value, purpose and meaning is a forlorn and futile enterprise. To admit they are subjective amounts to admitting they are illusions because they correspond to nothing in the so-called “real world”. The truth is that our only real world is to be found in our thoughts, emotions, choices and decisions. The material world exists but it is not the dominant factor in determining whether we are in love, happy or fulfilled. We live with ourselves constantly - and certainly far more than with material objects. I love animals (because they’re not just material objects) but I love persons far more…

Well of course none of our experiences matter in the sense of having some far-reaching, universal or eternal significance.

Why “of course”? Is it an established fact - as Macbeth thought?

When we “superimpose” value or meaning onto our experiences, all we are doing is allowing them to affect our beliefs and behaviour such that we treat them as significant. To ascribe meaning is simply to say, “If x is true, how does this affect reality as I see it?” That can only be done subjectively, but that doesn’t make it a pointless or futile or false exercise - it affects the way we live our lives. If you are going to claim that meaning is “objective”, you’ll need to be ready with an explanation of how it obtains in the absence of subjective interpretation.

If all meaning were entirely subjective then science would refer to nothing! Our thoughts wouldn’t correspond to reality because there would be no guarantee that anything exists beyond our thoughts…

And I think you’ll find that our real worlds are somewhat broader than the insides of our own heads. We are constantly processing information from the world outside our skin, even if we aren’t consciously aware of doing so. It would be very difficult to be in love, happy or fulfilled without external objects. As I’ve asked before, if the only reality were our thoughts, what could we possibly think about?

As I’ve answered before we could think about what is occurring in our personal world. Reality is not only our thoughts but also our emotions, intuitions, choices, decisions and perceptions - in addition to which there is the physical world we interpret and infer from our perceptions.

The physical world doesn’t interpret itself - nor does it interpret anything else. It has its own laws and we have ours - unless of course we interpret ourselves as computers. That solution is indisputably economical but it is also circular: it amounts to computers interpreting computers! One cannot even be sure that is logically possible but it is undoubtedly a hypothesis for which there is not one jot of evidence or rational justification.

 

[WandererLD]

Unless you explain what the self is no one is any the wiser.

Is it impossible for the self to be entirely subjective as well? Isn’t science just a system of subjective interpretations built over time with which other people “agree” to? We can “understand” the physical world only with a system which allows us to communicate, but once again, isn’t language entirely subjective?

-lemondiesel

 

[tonyrey]

Is it impossible for the self to be entirely subjective as well? Isn’t science just a system of subjective interpretations built over time with which other people “agree” to? We can “understand” the physical world only with a system which allows us to communicate, but once again, isn’t language entirely subjective?
-lemondiesel

Welcome! What do you put in your fuel tank when you are wandering?

Science is a system of subjective interpretations but its resounding success - sometimes with unexpected/undesirable consequences - is evidence that it refers to objective reality.

If the self is entirely subjective it is also a subjective interpretation and what is doing the interpreting?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Is it impossible for the self to be entirely subjective as well? Isn’t science just a system of subjective interpretations built over time with which other people “agree” to? We can “understand” the physical world only with a system which allows us to communicate, but once again, isn’t language entirely subjective?

-lemondiesel

Yes.

All of the above. I can’t emphasize enough that reality itself is subjective. The one many people call “reality” is just one that they claim to have agreed on.

“Reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistent one” – Albert Einstein

Alan

 

[Julia_Mae]

No. Some people (on CAF) tell me the human mind is supernatural but have never (and I do mean never) provided one word of explanation or reasoning, they just tell me I’ll go to hell if I don’t accept their mantra.

Who told you that you were going to hell? Link to the post, please.

 

[tonyrey]

Is it impossible for the self to be entirely subjective as well? Isn’t science just a system of subjective interpretations built over time with which other people “agree” to? We can “understand” the physical world only with a system which allows us to communicate, but once again, isn’t language entirely subjective?

If the self is entirely subjective everything is entirely subjective. In that case solipsism is true because everything exists in the mind of the subject.

 

[tonyrey]

Nope, go back through the posts, you started with tangible, if it’s that important to you.
Go back through the posts, that’s what you said three or four back. I then said about Him not having a belly button and nose hair, remember?
You are arguing we’re not (all) physical.
Of course not, I said Creation.

The basic discussion began with your rejection of the statement:

Physical explanations of God and God’s activity rule out the spiritual nature of God.

Do you disagree with that statement?

In other words can science in principle explain the whole of Reality?

 

[WandererLD]

tonyrey:
If the self is entirely subjective everything is entirely subjective. In that case solipsism is true because everything exists in the mind of the subject.

How can I truly know the self if it is always changing? How can I even truly know about the physical reality if it and our knowledge based in it is always changing?

My fuel tank is run on curiosity but is emptied often with my confusion about the degrees of certainty to which we “know.”

-lemondiesel

 

[tonyrey]

How can I truly know the self if it is always changing? How can I even truly know about the physical reality if it and our knowledge based in it is always changing?

My fuel tank is run on curiosity but is emptied often with my confusion about the degrees of certainty to which we “know.”

I don’t believe the self is always changing. If it were we wouldn’t know it is always changing. What would we have to compare it with?

The same applies to knowledge. If we don’t know anything for certain how could we be certain everything is uncertain?

 

[inocente]

If we could put a halt to “new discovery” and spend the next 127 years crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s, and making everything match up, we would still have need for philosophy and for more discovery. Nature is clearly a step ahead of any attempt for us, its creatures, to discovery her absolutes. Who really thinks “string theory” is going to be the end-all ToE? Only the weak and timid … those among the honest, anyway.

Science is focused on one explanation of reality, and so the fault lines between theories are visible, spurring new work. It’s also clear to a researcher when she’s rubbing against the unknown. I don’t see how philosophers bring anything to the party.

As for string theory:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
xkcd.com/171/

 

[inocente]

Who told you that you were going to hell? Link to the post, please.

Oh, several over the last two years. It seems sooner or later all fundamentalists will put me in hell, it’s like a Turing Test for detecting fundamentalists.