Myths about reality

[Kittyinpink]

I totally agree! Only because I have experienced being on the wrong side of 'mob rule!' The majority in the past has been highly misogynistic, racist, anti gay

Sorry. Pressed wrong thingy , half way through! Full answer below.

 

[mistykitty]

after rereading what kittyinpink and drifter wrote all things considered truths of reality are kind of subject to the beliefs of those that establish them so i guess they are more subjective by nature when you think about it. that being said i'm going to drop out of this discussion though everyone keeps making solid reasons for each side and i feel everyone here is valid. my final note is just going to be going back to my schrodingers cat post because i think that is probably a good example at least partially of how aspects of reality work.

 

[SleepyTyrant]

Actually, what tiny pointed out is that "there is ultimate truth" contradicts "all truth is subjective".

This is actually the motivation behind my earlier suggestion to unpack "truth" in terms of actual functional meaning. The idea of "truth" is otherwise too nebulous to entertain the nuance being considered here. Hence the contradiction in Drifter's earlier posting.

To say "There is a truth beyond words, but anything expressible by words is subjective" may seem far-fetched depending on one's mindset, but is not self-contradictory.

From such a perspective, the Scientific Method is indeed of quite limited use in discovering "the truth", but is of very much use in creating useful theories and models that enable us to do new things, and improve our ability to predict observables.

Notably, the ability to falsify hypotheses does not depend upon the existence of a singular "true" hypothesis that can be stated.

As somewhat of an aside, peer review is of mixed value as it stands. Too much weight is given to the names on the paper rather than its contents. Historically, the system has punished some of the brightest minds for their contributions to Science (Boltzmann, Turing, Cantor, the list of casualties goes on...).

Science corrected science tho. Never claimed peer review was perfect. Sometimes faulty publications slip through the cracks and over time it becomes more abundantly clear how it doesn't fit with the observations being made; and vice-versa. Science takes time especially since there's fewer scientists who peer review vs publish findings.

 

[mistykitty]

Sorry. Pressed wrong thingy , half way through! Full answer below.

its alright stuff happens

 

[Sapphyre]

Isn't this exactly what Descartes did? As I understand it, he basically concluded all of our known mechanisms for understanding reality were faulty. He built on that conclusion to 'prove' the existence of God.

I agree. I believe that all beliefs fall into the category of constructed ideas (aka: words), including the belief that the scientific method is the best approach to understanding reality, and the beliefs that God exists or doesn't exist. But without beliefs, I'm left with no perceivable foundation for my inquiry into the true nature of reality. Maybe that is the way it's 'supposed' to be.

Haha, like you say, Descartes felt that he had "proven" an idea that lies behind experienced reality (namely, that there exists a thinker)... and I agree with you that such ideas are merely constructed models. I would say, perhaps his heart was in the right place...

There are a few ways to possibly proceed from this point insofar as contemplating reality. One way is to ask the "next logical question" ... if every idea that can potentially be articulated falls short of capturing reality, and falls short even of approximating reality ... why is that? Can you spot a limitation that all ideas have in common?

Another approach might be to consider the implications of negating the assumption that "an ultimately correct belief or concept is possible": to conceptualize a phenomenon means precisely to imagine it in isolation, occurring all by itself. If you think about it, any phenomenon that can potentially be 100% isolated from the rest of reality can also potentially be conceptually modeled perfectly... it must be possible to replicate in a model what is happening inside that isolated bubble to an arbitrary degree of precision. Therefore, by modus tollens, denying that any idea about worldly phenomena is an approximation of true reality implies denying that worldly phenomena can be meaningfully considered in isolation. That is, it suggests locality is not possible...

Yet another might be to consider the implications for "multiple-choice" questions, such as "Is the universe infinite in size?". Every answer choice is a constructed idea (and I certainly see room for more than two answer choices!)... what does it mean to have doubts about all of them?

Do share your thoughts!

 

[SleepyTyrant]

Sounds like an undefined question.

 

[Drifter]

Bias does exist. But confronting those biases are welcomed provided they have sound basis. Science is a refinement process. Every scientific theory has been challenged multiple times over. If it required agreement, scientific progress wouldn't even happen.

What matters in science isn't a scientist's opinions, only the results of their research. The media may give you the other impression but that is not how science functions.

How do people decide if a basis is "sound", or if "the results of their research" are accurate, if not by expressing a subjective opinion? The opinions of scientists involved in scientific peer reviews should take precedence over the opinions of political and religious leaders, but we know that isn't the way it actually works. Despite the human factor involved which makes questionable judgements at times, scientific research is still a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion. We just have to be careful that we don't go overboard and sanctify science too much.

 

[SleepyTyrant]

How do people decide if a basis is "sound", or if "the results of their research" are accurate, if not by expressing a subjective opinion? The opinions of scientists involved in scientific peer reviews should take precedence over the opinions of political and religious leaders, but we know that isn't the way it actually works. Despite the human factor involved which makes questionable judgements at times, scientific research is still a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion. We just have to be careful that we don't go overboard and sanctify science too much.

How exactly is it that you think peer review functions? Step by step.

 

[SleepyTyrant]

How do people decide if a basis is "sound", or if "the results of their research" are accurate, if not by expressing a subjective opinion? The opinions of scientists involved in scientific peer reviews should take precedence over the opinions of political and religious leaders, but we know that isn't the way it actually works. Despite the human factor involved which makes questionable judgements at times, scientific research is still a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion. We just have to be careful that we don't go overboard and sanctify science too much.

Non-sequiturs are objectively bad logic, correct?

 

[Drifter]

Can you spot a limitation that all ideas have in common?

My personal belief is that words are the limiting factor.

If you think about it, any phenomenon that can potentially be 100% isolated from the rest of reality can also potentially be conceptually modeled perfectly... it must be possible to replicate in a model what is happening inside that isolated bubble to an arbitrary degree of precision. Therefore, by modus tollens, denying that any idea about worldly phenomena is an approximation of true reality implies denying that worldly phenomena can be meaningfully considered in isolation.

The trouble I have with this is imagining any phenomenon to be 100% isolated from the rest of reality. So, if I understand this logic correctly, I would agree with the conclusion that worldly phenomena cannot be meaningfully considered in isolation.

Yet another might be to consider the implications for "multiple-choice" questions, such as "Is the universe infinite in size?". Every answer choice is a constructed idea (and I certainly see room for more than two answer choices!)... what does it mean to have doubts about all of them?

Words seem to be getting in the way again. "Infinite in size" seems to be a contradiction in terms. Something infinite would not have size, would it?

I think many people would have doubts about any of the possible answers to the question "Is the universe infinite". All that means to me is that many of us are so uncertain about the nature of reality that we are skeptical about any, seemingly definitive answers.

 

[Drifter]

How exactly is it that you think peer review functions? Step by step.

Since scientific research is dependent on funding, there should be no doubt that political considerations, whether intentional or not, will influence some of the steps in many peer reviews.

 

[Sapphyre]

My personal belief is that words are the limiting factor.

While words add difficulty, the ideas that they attempt to express are internally manufactured, a mental technology. The same is true of equations, or diagrams, or any other mode of expression of fixed concepts.

The trouble I have with this is imagining any phenomenon to be 100% isolated from the rest of reality. So, if I understand this logic correctly, I would agree with the conclusion that worldly phenomena cannot be meaningfully considered in isolation.

Which implies it is not possible to model "what is really happening" in worldly phenomena, because to model something means to consider it in isolation, to strip away "outside influences" and "noise" and picture an idealized scenario. Such an idealized scenario is usually considered as an approximation of reality, but this is just an assumption that in turn hinges upon the assumption of locality...

Words seem to be getting in the way again. "Infinite in size" seems to be a contradiction in terms. Something infinite would not have size, would it?

I think many people would have doubts about any of the possible answers to the question "Is the universe infinite". All that means to me is that many of us are so uncertain about the nature of reality that we are skeptical about any, seemingly definitive answers.

What I mean by "doubting" is seeing as a mistake, rather than merely being unsure.

Suppose the following are among the answer choices:
( ) The finiteness of the universe can be known with more information
( ) The finiteness of the universe is forever undecidable

Are you also doubtful of both of these "answers"? Why or why not?

 

[SleepyTyrant]

Since scientific research is dependent on funding, there should be no doubt that political considerations, whether intentional or not, will influence some of the steps in many peer reviews.

There's nothing wrong with that; as long as they state that. Which is typically required as far as I'm aware.

 

[SleepyTyrant]

How do people decide if a basis is "sound", or if "the results of their research" are accurate, if not by expressing a subjective opinion?

Peer review does not judge on the accuracy of the research per se (it would need to be wrong in an obvious way to be rejected for that. At least when being reviewed for publication.) And when errors are found after publication, ammendments are made. This just ensures that an expert or 2 in that field has had the chance to look over it to ensure the logic is sound, not using outdated science, etc.

From there its more or less a matter of reproducibility. The more research points in 1 direction the greater the accuracy of the conclusions.

 

[Kirisin]

Sometimes perception is reality except when it's not reality but somebody's perception

 

[Kirisin]

Let me try that again
Sometimes perception is reality except when reality is only someone's perception of it. For example Enstien's perception that the universe was constant. While Hubble proved in realty it was expanding with his discovery that Andromeda was a Galaxy and not a Nebula. And was able to calculate distances using Super Nova's.

 

[Drifter]

What I mean by "doubting" is seeing as a mistake, rather than merely being unsure.

Suppose the following are among the answer choices:
( ) The finiteness of the universe can be known with more information
( ) The finiteness of the universe is forever undecidable

Are you also doubtful of both of these "answers"? Why or why not?

Yes, you could say I was doubtful of both those answers. Those statements are based on someone's belief rather than any kind of actual knowledge that I'm aware of. Either of those statements could be true or false depending on how "finiteness", "information", and "undecidable" are arbitrarily defined. I choose not to add either of those beliefs to the limited collection of beliefs I already have. If "information" is defined in a way that allows direct communication with the creator of the universe, assuming such a creator exists, then I would believe the first statement is a possibility. If "undecidable" is defined as "beyond the limits of the known to be faulty, human perceptions", then I would have no problem believing the second statement, too. Keep in mind that, as I see it, there is a certain level of doubt inherent in anything we label as a belief.

 

[Drifter]

Let me try that again
Sometimes perception is reality except when reality is only someone's perception of it. For example Enstien's perception that the universe was constant. While Hubble proved in realty it was expanding with his discovery that Andromeda was a Galaxy and not a Nebula. And was able to calculate distances using Super Nova's.

Einstein and Hubble both relied mainly on their perceptions to develop their theories. Trying to show that Einstein's theories on relativity were not based on 'reality' won't be a simple task. Many geniuses have tried.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I think most of us will agree that, while are perceptions are part of reality, they do not always (or ever) accurately depict the true nature of reality.

 

[Drifter]

Peer review does not judge on the accuracy of the research per se (it would need to be wrong in an obvious way to be rejected for that. At least when being reviewed for publication.) And when errors are found after publication, ammendments are made. This just ensures that an expert or 2 in that field has had the chance to look over it to ensure the logic is sound, not using outdated science, etc.

From there its more or less a matter of reproducibility. The more research points in 1 direction the greater the accuracy of the conclusions.

We have different opinions on how reliable peer reviews are. While I see them as an important part of scientific research, they are all somewhat limited in the same way all human endeavors are limited.

 

[Sapphyre]

Let me try that again
Sometimes perception is reality except when reality is only someone's perception of it. For example Enstien's perception that the universe was constant. While Hubble proved in realty it was expanding with his discovery that Andromeda was a Galaxy and not a Nebula. And was able to calculate distances using Super Nova's.

This is a great example of what I was describing about ideas reaching obsolescence much like technologies.

In Einstein's time, the universe was widely believed to be stable in size (and to be finite!), neither growing nor shrinking. Einstein's theory (General Relativity) actually predicted that such stability would be impossible, so Einstein added a "cosmological constant" into his equations as a fudge factor to "fix" them. He later called this his "greatest blunder".

The idea of the stable universe went the way of the planetary epicycles... and scientists thought the universe was expanding, but losing kinetic energy as it spreads out. There were debates about whether or not the expansion would slow down enough to allow gravity to pull everything back together again.

Then, more recently, scientists have found that "in reality" (BIG quotation marks !!) the universe is expanding faster and faster. Einstein's "greatest blunder" has been re-introduced, this time as a negative value, to model "dark energy" using the Hubble constant.

Only, much more recently, scientists have begun to question the existence of "dark energy", or whether that is just a misinterpretation of things. And the evidence is growing that the "Hubble constant" is not a constant after all.

So, these ideas are on their way toward the same fate as the planetary epicycles too... just more wrong guesses.

Suppose the expectation that "there exists a uniquely correct interpretation" is also a wrong guess ?

Yes, you could say I was doubtful of both those answers. Those statements are based on someone's belief rather than any kind of actual knowledge that I'm aware of.

Precisely!

Either of those statements could be true or false depending on how "finiteness", "information", and "undecidable" are arbitrarily defined. I choose not to add either of those beliefs to the limited collection of beliefs I already have. If "information" is defined in a way that allows direct communication with the creator of the universe, assuming such a creator exists, then I would believe the first statement is a possibility. If "undecidable" is defined as "beyond the limits of the known to be faulty, human perceptions", then I would have no problem believing the second statement, too. Keep in mind that, as I see it, there is a certain level of doubt inherent in anything we label as a belief.

Leaving aside the difficulty of defining terms for the moment, do you think it is possible that any belief / interpretation regarding the finiteness of the universe is more maintainable than any other? Does the question actually have an answer "in reality"?