Myths about reality

[Drifter]

For many years now, people have believed that what we understand as reality is just an illusion. This appears to be based on the common belief that the atoms that make up the physical matter in the universe are comprised of over 99% 'empty space'. One of the modern theories that is gaining traction among physicists posits that there is no such thing as "empty space". All space, including the space inside atoms, is theoretically made up of continuously active energy fields. I find this explanation more intuitively satisfying than the old theory of empty atoms. The variations in the energy fields inside the atoms in matter could explain why some matter is hard and heavy relative to our bodies, and why some matter is soft and light. Our perceptions about reality are not necessarily completely illusions.

Comments?

 

[Sapphyre]

I agree with the sentiment that what we understand reality to be is an illusion, precisely because our various beliefs about it (e.g. "empty space") have a tendency to keep being overturned.

 

[Drifter]

As far as reality is concerned, can we be absolutely certain that everyone's understanding of reality has to be an illusion? It seems to me that that kind of certainty, if true, would indicate that some of us do have an understanding of at least some aspect of reality. Some people believe that the understanding of reality is beyond the capability of the human mind to comprehend. Is that belief true? ... or is it also an illusion?

 

[Sapphyre]

As far as reality is concerned, can we be absolutely certain that everyone's understanding of reality has to be an illusion? It seems to me that that kind of certainty, if true, would indicate that some of us do have an understanding of at least some aspect of reality. Some people believe that the understanding of reality is beyond the capability of the human mind to comprehend. Is that belief true? ... or is it also an illusion?

I suggest the central issue is the understanding of what "truth" means, precisely. The usual concept of it (that we mainly attribute to Aristotle) is quite prone to paradox (e.g. "This statement is false" ... true or false?). By similar token, this system of philosophy precludes any reasoning to the effect that "Any statement about reality is ultimately mistaken", because such reasoning would be considered to contradict or negate itself (as you point out).

And yet...

The belief that a perfectly correct understanding of even just a part of reality is "out there" to be discovered has repeatedly fooled humanity into thinking they had found it. In many cases, the vast majority were so invested in their mistaken beliefs that they retaliated violently against anyone who dared to challenge them. This still happens with regularity, although the violence more commonly takes the form of vicious ridicule these days. And in this age of unprecedented scientific progress, "the truth" about a great many things has been changing faster than ever. Only a century ago we took the Milky Way galaxy to be the whole universe. When I was in grade school, dark energy wasn't in the textbooks... the fate of the universe was thought to possibly be eventual reversal of the Big Bang through gravitational re-contraction. Whatever we might think now... is there any reason not to expect it to change again?

So, it is demonstrably bad practice to assume that any given idea is ultimately true, even if Aristotelean philosophy requires that "something somewhere must be true".

 

[Drifter]

So, it is demonstrably bad practice to assume that any given idea is ultimately true, even if Aristotelean philosophy requires that "something somewhere must be true".

I agree. Which is why I don't believe the idea that our individual concepts of reality are entirely based on illusions. I don't accept that idea as ultimately true even though I don't have a 'true' understanding of reality myself.

 

[Sapphyre]

I agree. Which is why I don't believe the idea that our individual concepts of reality are entirely based on illusions. I don't accept that idea as ultimately true even though I don't have a 'true' understanding of reality myself.

Indeed, the concept that "our concepts are purely illusions" is, well, a concept... so implies itself to be purely illusion!

I've found it helpful to unpack the concept / definition of "true": what does it actually mean to bestow the label "true" on an understanding? What are the specific implications of that?

In my own analysis, I've found that to call an understanding of some aspect of reality "true" means, more pedantically, to expect one's evolving / growing understanding of total reality to always include that piece. To call something "true" means to expect that at no point in the future will this understanding be replaced by a better one; it will never be thought of as a mistake; it will only be added onto.

The next logical question, of course, was: Can I name any idea that I regard in this way? And if I do... should I?

And following that: Is there good reason to expect there to ever be such an irreplaceable idea about reality? Does "truth", as described by the above functional definition, actually exist?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Drifter]

One of my personal beliefs is that truth is subjective. Everyone has their own version. What some people see as scientific truth is dependent on the majority opinion of scientists, and most scientists will avoid calling it "The Truth", preferring instead to call it "theory". It is understood that theories are always subject to change.

I also believe there is an ultimate truth. That seems to be a no-brainer. I can't even come to the conclusion that there is no ultimate truth without that conclusion somehow becoming the ultimate truth (if true). No matter what words we use to define "truth" I think what we are looking for will always be beyond words.

For practical purposes we know enough 'truth' about things like fire, gravity, and water to help us get on with our lives.

 

[Sapphyre]

One of my personal beliefs is that truth is subjective. Everyone has their own version. What some people see as scientific truth is dependent on the majority opinion of scientists, and most scientists will avoid calling it "The Truth", preferring instead to call it "theory". It is understood that theories are always subject to change.

Exactly! Scientific theories are always subject to more rigorous testing and eventual change, that's the Scientific Method for you. By extension, the ontology described by mainstream science is always potentially subject to change.

The question is: Is there any portion of it that we can reasonably expect to never change? Does it make sense to expect that application of the Scientific Method can eventually yield an ontology that is stable over time?

I also believe there is an ultimate truth. That seems to be a no-brainer. I can't even come to the conclusion that there is no ultimate truth without that conclusion somehow becoming the ultimate truth (if true). No matter what words we use to define "truth" I think what we are looking for will always be beyond words.

For practical purposes we know enough 'truth' about things like fire, gravity, and water to help us get on with our lives.

I've learned to be especially wary of apparent no-brainers... they can make it impossible to comprehend situations such as that described by the Ladder "Paradox".

This is exactly why I found it helpful to unpack what exactly is meant by the label "truth". It enables things to be framed in a way that doesn't seem paradoxical. When speaking of "ultimate truth", the label implies permanent supremacy (in the sense of predictive validity) over any other idea. Throughout history, there have been innumerable "practical truths" that have since met their sunset, even eliciting sneering from modern day students. When people believed Earth was at the center of the universe for example, the planets' motion was described by Spirograph-like "epicycles", and people believed this is actually how the planets were moving. For all practical purposes it was "true", the planets' observed motion could be predicted with great accuracy. Yet we know now that such an idea is not even remotely correct; the planetary epicycles have never existed outside the realm of humanity's imagination. The list of scientific ideas that have followed this same trajectory is long indeed...

Do you believe that we have (or will ever) encounter ontological ideas or scientific theories that do not eventually meet their sunset, like the epicycles? Why or why not?

I used to believe that we would find such ideas... that humanity's collection of ultimately true knowledge was increasing with time. Upon reflection, however, this belief became hard to justify to myself.

 

[Kittyinpink]

Your title says 'myths about reality ' . Isn't the use of the word myth a bad choice? Myth is , as far as I'm aware a grouping of knowledge conglomerated by the ancient Greek tribes as they explored there....... sorry I couldn't resist! I am just mucking about! This stuff is far to much for me to understand!!

 

[Drifter]

Do you believe that we have (or will ever) encounter ontological ideas or scientific theories that do not eventually meet their sunset, like the epicycles? Why or why not?

No, I don't believe that. I don't believe reality can ever be adequately described by words. I believe there are people who have gained a nonverbal understanding of reality - but... that's just a belief on my part. I try to avoid putting too much faith in my own beliefs.

 

[Hockeyczar]

One of my personal beliefs is that truth is subjective. Everyone has their own version. What some people see as scientific truth is dependent on the majority opinion of scientists, and most scientists will avoid calling it "The Truth", preferring instead to call it "theory". It is understood that theories are always subject to change.

I also believe there is an ultimate truth. That seems to be a no-brainer. I can't even come to the conclusion that there is no ultimate truth without that conclusion somehow becoming the ultimate truth (if true). No matter what words we use to define "truth" I think what we are looking for will always be beyond words.

For practical purposes we know enough 'truth' about things like fire, gravity, and water to help us get on with our lives.

Agree, and throw in some cash to mix and it becomes even more subjective and less about an ultimate truth.

 

[tiny]

One of my personal beliefs is that truth is subjective.
...
I also believe there is an ultimate truth.

Isn't that a contradiction?

 

[Sapphyre]

No, I don't believe that. I don't believe reality can ever be adequately described by words. I believe there are people who have gained a nonverbal understanding of reality - but... that's just a belief on my part. I try to avoid putting too much faith in my own beliefs.

I think that's a good practice, and try to do the same.

Many people believe that we can approximate the ultimate truth of reality with words and concepts, even if we can never capture it perfectly. It is often believed that scientific progress is bringing us incrementally closer to "the truth", even if we may never quite get all the way there.

Myself, I think again about examples like the epicycles... "true" for all practical purposes at the time they were devised, but based on completely wrong assumptions. They are a useful tool that humanity invented, a mental technology if you will, but are not at all a reflection of true reality. In physical technologies (especially in the modern era), it's fairly intuitive to see that anything we're currently using will eventually be completely obsolete, and can be replaced by something new and totally different that can accomplish the desired task more effectively. It is not widely believed that technology is approaching any final state of ultimate perfection (What would "perfect technology" be anyway?), but rather that it can be improved (through obsolescence of older methods) essentially ad infinitum. I tend to see scientific theories and ontological concepts much the same way. Invented technology for the mind.

What do you think?

 

[Kittyinpink]

Isn't that a contradiction?

Not if the Ultimate truth is in its self contradictory!

 

[Kittyinpink]

I think that's a good practice, and try to do the same.

Many people believe that we can approximate the ultimate truth of reality with words and concepts, even if we can never capture it perfectly. It is often believed that scientific progress is bringing us incrementally closer to "the truth", even if we may never quite get all the way there.

Myself, I think again about examples like the epicycles... "true" for all practical purposes at the time they were devised, but based on completely wrong assumptions. They are a useful tool that humanity invented, a mental technology if you will, but are not at all a reflection of true reality. In physical technologies (especially in the modern era), it's fairly intuitive to see that anything we're currently using will eventually be completely obsolete, and can be replaced by something new and totally different that can accomplish the desired task more effectively. It is not widely believed that technology is approaching any final state of ultimate perfection (What would "perfect technology" be anyway?), but rather that it can be improved (through obsolescence of older methods) essentially ad infinitum. I tend to see scientific theories and ontological concepts much the same way. Invented technology for the mind.

What do you think?

Yup. An evolving system of technology... I can't imagine an end to that! I think Darwin understood.. every thing is a constantly evolving form, nothing stays the same.. our "world" as we perceive it is changing all the time.. as we are.. as .... well... everything .

 

[tiny]

Not if the Ultimate truth is in its self contradictory!

If it self-contradictory, it cannot be ultimate truth.

 

[Drifter]

Isn't that a contradiction?

Yes, it was. Let me rephrase that. I believe that what people normally think of as "truth" is based on words, and, at best, words can only be an artificial substitute for truth. They aren't the real thing. Yet I still believe there must be an ultimate truth to the universe. Something exists even if we can't define it due to our inadequate vocabulary and faulty, physical perceptions.

 

[Drifter]

What do you think?

I think we are pretty much on the same page, but I'd like to hear your opinion on something I believe: Despite the amazing advances in modern science, which I have no problem believing are true enough for practical reasons, I believe that since the dawn of mankind, many people could have attained an understanding of the true nature of the universe that is infinitely superior to that of our best, modern scientists.

 

[Yuu]

Well, there was a time I believed my house was burning down and I jumped out the window. I believed that but it wasn't true.

 

[Sapphyre]

I think we are pretty much on the same page, but I'd like to hear your opinion on something I believe: Despite the amazing advances in modern science, which I have no problem believing are true enough for practical reasons, I believe that since the dawn of mankind, many people could have attained an understanding of the true nature of the universe that is infinitely superior to that of our best, modern scientists.

I think there is basically only one major reason that anyone believes this to be impossible... namely, the assumption that genuine understanding requires the acquisition of external ontological information.

Seeing "external ontological information" as being constructed by humanity, like technology, rather undermines this assumption. Surely, to whatever extent there can be said to be a "truth of reality", it will not be made any clearer through studying our own somewhat arbitrary creations.

I suggest a better approach is to study the mechanisms by which we experience, investigate, and form conclusions about reality... recognizing that such mechanisms have much power to shape the experience of reality... and furthermore, that any notion of "true reality beneath experience" falls into the category of constructed ideas (or "mental technologies").

Notably, this approach has always been available at every point in history.