Does Science Discover or Create Reality?

The human mind is a good example to use for this discussion. While the minds of modern man invents, discovers, creates, much of it is new wine in old wine skins. If the human mind is so much better today - why is man still trying to answer questions of old? So isn't the mind of man, trying to figure out how everything works a proof of a fixed, definable reality?

No, rather I would think it proves my point. If there was a fixed reality then possibly man could figure out 'how everything works'. But because reality is forever changing and not fixed {except for relative periods of time and in relation to the current paradigm} we probably will never figure out 'how everything works'. Further what we figure out that works becomes part of the then current paradigm of reality. We are part of the existence of and the creation of any paradigm of reality which functions and appears to hold true at that time. I can not define an eternal concept of reality and so far in this discussion no one else has, but can predict that the day reality can be defined as an absolute you can cash in your chips for that will mark the end. This is 2012; You know what they are saying about 2012? So if someone out there has an absolute definition of reality now is the time to express it or forever face new realities created by alien minds and expressed by their humans friends.

-- Updated June 22nd, 2012, 4:43 pm to add the following --

Once we’re clear on what theories do and don’t prove, and what does and doesn’t prove theories, it’s clear that they don’t create reality.

What of theories that in the past precipitated paradigm shifts? Aren't they scientific 'discoveries' that 'create' or at the very least shake and change our sense of what is real?

e.g. 1 - the discovery that if a woman lay with a certain man nine months ago, he's almost certainly the biological father of her child

e.g. 2 - the earth goes round the sun

Of course, such large theories might be a limiting case. But small 'discoveries' (which I take to be hypotheses that become largely accepted as valid) also change our ideas about ourselves and the world around us. Which parts of this we call 'reality' doesn't matter a great deal to me though it may to some

It is pleasing that at least one human on the planet earth understands the nature of what reality is {or isn't} and how it has an effect of the paradigms of the day.

-- Updated June 22nd, 2012, 4:56 pm to add the following --

I say that any reality in fact does not exist until it is postulated and proven to exist. I understand what that sentence means but don't understand what you are asking. Sounds to me like you do not want to understand.

The statement implies there is nothing we do not know, that is, if there were something we did not know, it would not exist because it had not been postulated and proven to exist. In other words we know everything that exists. Now this may be a nice mystical belief, but it contradicts common sense and experience.

Apparently there is a misunderstanding. What I am actually saying is there may be a tremendous amount {if not infinite amount} of things we do not know. BUT until they can be defined and incorporated in our current reality paradigm, they are meaningless and have no 'real' existence. The existent world and the reality thereof is related to who, what, where, and when it is being defined. There may be many realities but without scientific validation they remain fantasy and science fiction, when hypothesized, theorized, and proven to be true they become new realities {or new dimensions of the old reality if you do not believe in multiple realities}. Some modern physicists are agreeing that the observer is part of the equation.

Apparently there is a misunderstanding. What I am actually saying is there may be a tremendous amount {if not infinite amount} of things we do not know. BUT until they can be defined and incorporated in our current reality paradigm, they are meaningless and have no 'real' existence. The existent world and the reality thereof is related to who, what, where, and when it is being defined. There may be many realities but without scientific validation they remain fantasy and science fiction, when hypothesized, theorized, and proven to be true they become new realities {or new dimensions of the old reality if you do not believe in multiple realities}. Some modern physicists are agreeing that the observer is part of the equation.

That's significantly better than your original statement.

Apparently there is a misunderstanding. What I am actually saying is there may be a tremendous amount {if not infinite amount} of things we do not know. BUT until they can be defined and incorporated in our current reality paradigm, they are meaningless and have no 'real' existence (to us). The existent world and the reality thereof is related to who, what, where, and when it is being defined. There may be many realities but without scientific validation they remain fantasy and science fiction, when hypothesized, theorized, and proven to be true they become new realities {or new dimensions of the old reality if you do not believe in multiple realities}. Some modern physicists are agreeing that the observer is part of the equation.

Now I agree with you!

change our sense of what is real

change our ideas about ourselves and the world around us.

Indeed. Our sense changes, and our ideas change. What is real, and the world around us, remain much the same

change our sense of what is real

change our ideas about ourselves and the world around us.

Indeed. Our sense changes, and our ideas change. What is real, and the world around us, remain much the same

Well, that's not a leap I make By that time, the time the changes have happened, the 'us' have long become quite different people, so I don't see how 'we' can know one way or the other whether the real and the world around 'us' are much the same. But I live in hope that some of the rules of chemistry and biology will still apply! And maybe a few melodies played on simple flutes will linger too.

change our sense of what is real

change our ideas about ourselves and the world around us.

Indeed. Our sense changes, and our ideas change. What is real, and the world around us, remain much the same

Well, that's not a leap I make

I didn't think you would, and I'm glad you've confirmed that I'm sure though that some might take that unwarranted leap from what you said.

PS: And yes I am a big fan of the Stargate Sci-fi series and eagerly await for continuation of the series - or, even better the opening of a real star-gate!

Oh dear... I wish you hadn't added that PS.

PS: And yes I am a big fan of the Stargate Sci-fi series and eagerly await for continuation of the series - or, even better the opening of a real star-gate!

Oh dear... I wish you hadn't added that PS.

Why is that? Does the concept of a stargate based upon a wormhole that will allow for intergalactic travel bother you? It really bothered the church when someone postulated and later proved the earth revolves around the sun. It doesn't in the least bit bother me when science fiction writers postulate potentials for a science of the future where the limitations of the currently small segment of the universe we are stuck in came be overcome. As you might have gathered if you read the rest of this post, I believe science is in fact involved in the creation of the world it is trying to understand. We are part of the equation of the world we exist in. Without imaginative thinking we might as well go back to the the sun revolving around the Earth - With imaginative thinking Stargates may be in our future.

PS: Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis I consider to be great and imaginative Sci-fi adventure series. On the other hand the final sereis Stargate Universe bombed. It was dull and unimaginative and somehow the characters/actors were not as likable as in the first two stargate series. But then again I could say that for most humans on the planet Earth - dull and unimaginative.

-- Updated June 27th, 2012, 4:07 am to add the following --

Scientists would 'probably' say their discoveries are of a physical material world and that they are discovering what is. BUT if you notice the history of science you realize that some theoretical propositions which are later proved to be correct, in fact alter our perspective of existence to such an extent that it seems they are altering reality itself. Copernicus heliocentric (sun-centered) model of our solar system and Einstein's Relativity for example changed the known world. Quantum Mechanics also changes our perspective of the so-called real world. As of today we can not travel faster than the speed of light - But say tomorrow someone 'sees' a new perspective that allows for the opening of mythical 'star-gates' that allow us to jump through space light years away; would we be discovering something that already is, or, rather would we be creating something new?

Now for the sake of ambiguity {I was accused by one poster on this thread of being ambiguous and don't necessarily deny this; might be an aftereffect of studying Taoism}, I will try to view this question from a different perspective. Most often I have been saying there is no provable and/or definitive reality and that scientific discovery is in a sense creating 'reality as it is part of the reality it is discovering. But what if this is wrong? What if in fact there is a 'real' reality and that this reality is in fact creating and discovering science and that science only appears to be discovering it? Is there an unknown plan to reality that necessitates and gives rise to science and scientific discovery?

Neither. It describes reality, in a particular way; usually utilitarian, mainly mathematically, always materially.

Neither. It describes reality, in a particular way; usually utilitarian, mainly mathematically, always materially.

For the sake of a different viewpoint I will disagree and state it this way:

Science both discovers and creates the reality it is discovering in many ways which are often utilitarian, often mathematical and usually materialistic; But science is not necessarily limited by utilitarianism, mathematics, or materialism.

For the sake of a different viewpoint I will disagree and state it this way:

Science both discovers and creates the reality it is discovering in many ways which are often utilitarian, often mathematical and usually materialistic; But science is not necessarily limited by utilitarianism, mathematics, or materialism.

Are you saying the the reality of the universe would be different if there were no humans? In which case you need to state that humans are able to change the material reality of the universe, a claim you cannot substantiate. You would be suggesting that before Copernicus the earth was the centre of the universe - are you in fact saying that?

Or are you suggesting that reality is definitively what we make of the universe. In which case you are only offering a tautology. The utilitarian, mathematical and materialist purpose of science is as far as I ma willing to go to science creating reality.

Science would not agree with your view that it creates reality. It assumes there is such a thing as an objective reality and that through the subject of science it hope to reveal that objective reality. Some would insist that it offers explanations. On that I would not wholly agree that it can answer any why questions. If you cannot re-configure your question to say "how", then the answer you get is not a scientific one but a metaphysical one.

Are you saying the the reality of the universe would be different if there were no humans? In which case you need to state that humans are able to change the material reality of the universe, a claim you cannot substantiate. You would be suggesting that before Copernicus the earth was the centre of the universe - are you in fact saying that?

Or are you suggesting that reality is definitively what we make of the universe. In which case you are only offering a tautology. The utilitarian, mathematical and materialist purpose of science is as far as I ma willing to go to science creating reality.

Science would not agree with your view that it creates reality. It assumes there is such a thing as an objective reality and that through the subject of science it hope to reveal that objective reality. Some would insist that it offers explanations. On that I would not wholly agree that it can answer any why questions. If you cannot re-configure your question to say "how", then the answer you get is not a scientific one but a metaphysical one.

Let me repeat what I said a few posts back in this thread when debating another:

Apparently there is a misunderstanding. What I am actually saying is there may be a tremendous amount {if not infinite amount} of things we do not know. BUT until they can be defined and incorporated in our current reality paradigm, they are meaningless and have no 'real' existence. The existent world and the reality thereof is related to who, what, where, and when it is being defined. There may be many realities but without scientific validation they remain fantasy and science fiction, when hypothesized, theorized, and proven to be true they become new realities {or new dimensions of the old reality if you do not believe in multiple realities}. Some modern physicists are agreeing that the observer is part of the equation.

Again let me emphasize: Some modern physicists are agreeing that the observer is part of the equation.

I have no idea what reality or existence means without a human mind to define it. Can you prove there is any existence without the human psyche observing and defining it?

Again let me emphasize: Some modern physicists are agreeing that the observer is part of the equation.
?[/i]

You have simply either misunderstood, or misinterpreted what the physicists are saying, There is a vast difference between the claim, that they do actually make, that the observer and the observation of an event can effect the result, and your false claim that science 'creates reality'.

And so I'll ask you again. When Copernicus offered his heliocentric hypothesis at what point did the heavens turn round and move the earth from its original central position? And when Phogiston was shown to be superseded by the discovery of oxygen how did that 'change reality'?

You have simply either misunderstood, or misinterpreted what the physicists are saying, There is a vast difference between the claim, that they do actually make, that the observer and the observation of an event can effect the result, and your false claim that science 'creates reality'.

And so I'll ask you again. When Copernicus offered his heliocentric hypothesis at what point did the heavens turn round and move the earth from its original central position? And when Phogiston was shown to be superseded by the discovery of oxygen how did that 'change reality'?

Since you asked this question reality has changed. The extent of the change may be small and insignificant, but it has changed. The sun, the earth and all the heavens have changed. You are no longer in the same exact place you were when you asked this question a few minutes ago. All we know and communicate of the nature of reality is based upon symbolic words, numbers, and symbols and we can not prove that they reflect what reality is. By the same token when those words, numbers or symbols are adjudicated to have different meanings the representative reality has changed. But if you want to say has 'actual reality' changed, my answer is I do not know because I do not know what actual reality is. Do you?

I have gone through this debate on the none provable nature of an actual reality {fixed and definable} before and enjoy the debate but I'm still waiting for someone to prove the existence of a solidly definable reality. Until that day I will continue to maintain that in discovering new ideas, concepts and definitions as to the nature of reality we are for all intensive purposes changing that reality. As an hypothetical question can you see the possibility of an advanced alien being seeing what we call reality with such a greater depth of understanding so as to compare how humans see reality to ants in an ant colony? But the question as to the ultimate nature and definition of reality might still be open and undefinable - And might always be relative.

Please see the other thread I started on this forum:

There is No Provable Reality

at this link: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6513&start=45

Since you asked this question reality has changed. The extent of the change may be small and insignificant, but it has changed. The sun, the earth and all the heavens have changed. You are no longer in the same exact place you were when you asked this question a few minutes ago. All we know and communicate of the nature of reality is based upon symbolic words, numbers, and symbols and we can not prove that they reflect what reality is. By the same token when those words, numbers or symbols are adjudicated to have different meanings the representative reality has changed. But if you want to say has 'actual reality' changed, my answer is I do not know because I do not know what actual reality is. Do you?

That is not "science creating reality." I did not ask you about minor everyday changes I asked you whether or not he heliocentric hypothesis upturned the entire solar system. The reason you are avoiding this question is that it makes your claim absurd. If you really believe that a theory changes reality, then please state exactly when the solar system changed configuration. Was it when Copernicus wrote his thesis, or when Kepler mathematised it? And did Hershel invented Uranus? Did it spring into existence from his imagination? And when there are competing theories such as Aristotle's cosmology and Ptolemy''s how is reality configured?


I have gone through this debate on the none provable nature of an actual reality {fixed and definable} before and enjoy the debate but I'm still waiting for someone to prove the existence of a solidly definable reality. Until that day I will continue to maintain that in discovering new ideas, concepts and definitions as to the nature of reality we are for all intensive purposes changing that reality. As an hypothetical question can you see the possibility of an advanced alien being seeing what we call reality with such a greater depth of understanding so as to compare how humans see reality to ants in an ant colony? But the question as to the ultimate nature and definition of reality might still be open and undefinable - And might always be relative.

Please see the other thread I started on this forum:

There is No Provable Reality


I'd rather not bother if it's al the same to you. If science creates reality, then you ought to be able to prove it exists. If reality cannot be proved then you cannot tell if science is creating it or not. That means you are in a state of contradiction or confusion.

All you are doing, it seems is confusing the practical and pragmatic claims of Idealism that suggests that reality is a subjective experience with another claim (Realism) made by science that suggests that we cannot know all of objective reality but that our science can observe it with accuracy. When you have sorted these two things out maybe you will revise your claim that science creates reality, which is palpably wrong.