Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Dlaw
Posts: 474
Joined: January 7th, 2014, 1:56 pm

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Dlaw »

Am I wrong in thinking that the Universe can be locally be locally "unreal" or uncertain at the micro level but perfectly factual at the macro level? Just because an apple can't be "red" without our perceiving it has no effect on the apple. Likewise, just because physicists perceive a collider result statistically doesn't mean it's true. It might mean it's predictive but that might be baked in to the observation process.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
value wrote: November 11th, 2022, 7:20 pmIn ontological realism the assumption is made that the quality 'be definite/determinate' (i.e. that it exists) is able to be denoted meaningfully which means that one is obligated to explain the origin of that ability.
Biochemistry and organic evolution explain that ability pretty well.
The denoted ability is a philosophical ability.

In ontological realism one poses that an external world exists intrinsically without mind. You confirmed to have a similar belief (as part of physicalism) with the following statement as quoted in the OP:

'Explaining the existence of the "sensory facility per se" is precisely the purpose of "physicalist theory." It postulates an external world with mechanisms for producing conscious creatures. And it does a pretty good job of it.'

It would be invalid to pose that conscious creatures would conjure up the intrinsic existing quality of the external world subjectively because the ability to meaningfully denote anything at all is directly derived from the idea 'intrinsic existence without mind'.

GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
It is nonsensical to presuppose that an external world would stand meaningless and independent from a mind that is to 'find' meaning in that world.
It will be "meaningless" is there are no sentient creatures to whom it has meaning. "Meaning," like "good," and "value" are relative terms --- they denote relations between some thing and some sentient creature. There is nothing "nonsensical" about a universe which harbors no sentient creatures. In such a universe "good," "value," "meaning," etc. would have no application; they'd denote nothing.
It is correct that good and value denote relations and what is argued is that those concepts are applicable - philosophically - to any relation in general (any pattern in the cosmos).

Good is a relation that involves an unforeseen future. Good precedes value as a concept that refers to the aspect that makes value possible (the origin of existence turned around as the purpose or 'goal' of existence would be 'good').

Value would denote anything of empirical nature - anything that can be 'seen' in the world - as a simple term to denote 'beholder of a meaningful relation'.

GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pmWe assume there to be an external world, postulate one, in order to supply a cause for the experiences we have, for our own existence. Though we have no direct knowledge of that world (only the indirect knowledge we gain via sensory experiences), we construct a conceptual model of that world. We consider that model to be the "real world" as long as it enables us to predict, modify and manipulate future experiences.
How can it be said that that external world exists intrinsically and causally produces mind (experience)?

GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
With 'reality' I meant 'the external world' that supposedly posseses the nature intrinsic existence without mind.
"Reality" (per common usages of "real") embraces both the phenomena of experience AND the postulated external world.
Considering that experience is to be causally produced by the external world that would make no difference.

GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pmAgain, "meaning" and "value" are relative terms, which relate things to persons (or other sentient creatures). And, no, "anything that can be seen" is not "value." That is a misuse of that term. Anything may HAVE value to some person or other, but without the valuer there is no "value."
The idea is that for there to be a relation of any kind - a pattern - it implies value that indeed requires a valuer which therefore must be a priori to the cosmos. That valuer cannot be valued itself since that would be absurd.

Valuing is signification - the act of assigning meaning.

GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
The idea that value (e.g. an intrinsic existing external world) can be the origin of itself is absurd.
There is no need for it to have an origin. It may well be eternal:

"Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore something has always existed."
---Robert Nozick (which argument he attributes to his 9-year old daughter)
That reasoning is a fallacy. At question would be how a philosophical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

I've discussed this in depth in the past with Terrapin Station.
Terrapin Station wrote: April 28th, 2021, 5:01 pmFor any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.
Do you agree with TP that there would be just two options to 'choose' from? If so, how would that reasoning potentially explain that choice?

GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
You do not agree with my use of the term meaning. The basis is the idea that meaning is only applicable from within a subjective perspective relative to an intrinsic existing external world.
Meanings, of the external world, or things in it, or of anything else, are indeed subjective (different things will have different meanings to different people). What I denied above are "a priori meanings," which you seem to be using to denote a "meaning" which exists in the absence of any sentient creatures.
The denoted 'a priori meaning' does not 'exist' since it precedes existence (i.e. the external world).

GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
My primary argument has been that the idea of value - all of which it can be said to exist or to be empirically evident - to fundamentally be the origin of itself is absurd. Value requires the assignment of meaning (signification) and without that an 'external world' cannot be meaningfully relevant.

Therefore there must be a 'meaning' that is relevant a priori to existence.
Well, that argument is simply a non sequitur. The term "value" does not denote "all of which it can be said to exist or to be empirically evident." It denotes a relation between something and some valuer. That something X exists does not entail that it has any value, and it will have none unless some valuer assigns one to it. And there certainly need not be a valuer to assign a value to some X in order for X to exist.
Anything in the cosmos is meaningfully relevant and requires a value-explanation. It is the 'why' question of the cosmos.

Why does force X have a value of Y?

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life:

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008, life would not have been possible.

https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

When you believe in physicalist theory and intrinsic existence without mind those values will require a causal explanation. Simply the idea of that requirement should make it impossible to consider those values meaningless because for a cause to arise from nothing or pure randomness is an absurd idea.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

Dlaw wrote: November 26th, 2022, 10:55 pm Am I wrong in thinking that the Universe can be locally "unreal" or uncertain at the micro level but perfectly factual at the macro level? Just because an apple can't be "red" without our perceiving it has no effect on the apple. Likewise, just because physicists perceive a collider result statistically doesn't mean it's true. It might mean it's predictive but that might be baked in to the observation process.
Perhaps it depends the type of certainty that one aspires. Fundamental certainty or 'determinism' might not be valid while within a complex of meaningful relations one can retro-perspectively find a level of certainty with 'the facts of science' (repeatability) being an example.

What would be wrong in my opinion is to believe that the facts of science are valid without philosophy (without a perspective).

Many people today believe that facts are intrinsically different from truths on a fundamental level. It is called a 'dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism'.

Facts vs truths - dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism?
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =1&t=17038
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

value wrote: November 28th, 2022, 2:05 pm
GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
value wrote: November 11th, 2022, 7:20 pmIn ontological realism the assumption is made that the quality 'be definite/determinate' (i.e. that it exists) is able to be denoted meaningfully which means that one is obligated to explain the origin of that ability.
Biochemistry and organic evolution explain that ability pretty well.
The denoted ability is a philosophical ability.
I'm sorry. What is a "philosophical ability"? Whatever it may be, all human (and other animal) abilities are adequately explained via biochemistry and evolution.
In ontological realism one poses that an external world exists intrinsically without mind. You confirmed to have a similar belief (as part of physicalism) with the following statement as quoted in the OP:

'Explaining the existence of the "sensory facility per se" is precisely the purpose of "physicalist theory." It postulates an external world with mechanisms for producing conscious creatures. And it does a pretty good job of it.'

It would be invalid to pose that conscious creatures would conjure up the intrinsic existing quality of the external world subjectively because the ability to meaningfully denote anything at all is directly derived from the idea 'intrinsic existence without mind'.
Sorry, but that is circular, and thus meaningless. It seems to amount to, "The ability to conjure up an external world is directly derived from the idea of an external world." I.e., that "idea" is derived from itself. Which is nonsensical.
GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
It will be "meaningless" is there are no sentient creatures to whom it has meaning. "Meaning," like "good," and "value" are relative terms --- they denote relations between some thing and some sentient creature. There is nothing "nonsensical" about a universe which harbors no sentient creatures. In such a universe "good," "value," "meaning," etc. would have no application; they'd denote nothing.
It is correct that good and value denote relations and what is argued is that those concepts are applicable - philosophically - to any relation in general (any pattern in the cosmos).
Well, no they're not. They are only applicable to particular relations between sentient creatures and various other things, namely, things some sentient creature finds desirable or worth pursuing or protecting. The terms are not applicable to "patterns" not desired or even noticed by some sentient creature.
Good is a relation that involves an unforeseen future. Good precedes value as a concept that refers to the aspect that makes value possible (the origin of existence turned around as the purpose or 'goal' of existence would be 'good').
Exactly wrong. "Good" is a pseudo-property applied by sentient creatures to things they desire, to which they assign some value, or of which they approve. It is not a real property of anything. Nor does it exist in the absence of valuer who applies it to something. Calling something "good" is merely placing a personal "stamp of approval" upon it. What stamps of approval are applied to which things are entirely subjective and idiosyncratic, varying from person to person. Nor does "good" involve any "unforeseen future." Normally one "stamps" something "good" just because he foresees deriving some benefit or satisfaction from it.
Value would denote anything of empirical nature - anything that can be 'seen' in the world - as a simple term to denote 'beholder of a meaningful relation'.
Also incorrect. Many things may have "meaningful relations" with someone without being deemed valuable by them. "Value" denotes a particular relation between a person and thing, namely, the relation of the thing being desired or sought by the person.
How can it be said that that external world exists intrinsically and causally produces mind (experience)?
I'm not sure what you mean by "exists intrinsically," but an external world is postulated to exist prior to and independently from minds. How that external world produces minds is explained by the laws of physics, biochemistry, and neurophysiology. Minds are products of physical processes.
The idea is that for there to be a relation of any kind - a pattern - it implies value that indeed requires a valuer which therefore must be a priori to the cosmos. That valuer cannot be valued itself since that would be absurd.
No, it doesn't. "For there to be a relation of any kind - a pattern - it implies value" is simply false. There are all kinds of relations that have nothing to do with value. Value is a particular relation between a person (or other sentient creature) and a particular thing, as described above.
Valuing is signification - the act of assigning meaning.
No, it isn't. You're inventing your own definition of that term. Nor are all things someone deems "meaningful" also deemed "valuable" by him. To be deemed valuable the thing must be desirable to someone, not merely meaningful. Things can be "meaningful" for all kinds of reasons.
GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
"Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore something has always existed."
---Robert Nozick (which argument he attributes to his 9-year old daughter)
That reasoning is a fallacy. At question would be how a philosophical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.
Not sure to what "philosophical option" you refer. What is postulated to exist is some sort of external world, not any "philosophical option." Nor is any "magic" required to explain an eternal universe. Eternal entities require NO explanation; only things with definite beginnings or ends do.
Terrapin Station wrote: April 28th, 2021, 5:01 pmFor any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.
Do you agree with TP that there would be just two options to 'choose' from? If so, how would that reasoning potentially explain that choice?
Yes, I agree (in substance, though it isn't true for "any existent." Most existents have causal explanations). Do you mean "explain the absence of other choices"? If so, it is our inability to conceive any further options. As TP says, if you have one, please set it forth.
GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:06 pm
Well, that argument is simply a non sequitur. The term "value" does not denote "all of which it can be said to exist or to be empirically evident." It denotes a relation between something and some valuer. That something X exists does not entail that it has any value, and it will have none unless some valuer assigns one to it. And there certainly need not be a valuer to assign a value to some X in order for X to exist.
Anything in the cosmos is meaningfully relevant and requires a value-explanation. It is the 'why' question of the cosmos.
"Meaningfully relevant" to whom? "Relevant" in what way?

Until you fill in those blanks your claim there is ill-formed and incoherent. It has no determinable truth-value.

And what is a "value explanation"?
Why does force X have a value of Y?
Good question. Why the physical constants have the values they do is an unanswerable question (this is a different meaning of "value," BTW, from that discussed above).
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.
Yep. But unlikely events nonetheless occur regularly. Every time you deal a hand of Solitaire the probability of getting that particular deal is ~ 1/ 8 x 10^67 --- a number roughly equal to the number of atoms in the Milky Way galaxy. Yet it occurred. If you play another game it will occur again.
When you believe in physicalist theory and intrinsic existence without mind those values will require a causal explanation.
No, they don't. Or rather, I've just given one --- improbable events nonetheless occur regularly. In an eternal, cyclic universe the number of cycles will far exceed that large number above. One in a while the right combination of physical constants will turn up.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 9:43 pmI'm sorry. What is a "philosophical ability"? Whatever it may be, all human (and other animal) abilities are adequately explained via biochemistry and evolution.
A philosophical ability has an explorative nature. It involves a search for something 'beyond' what is already there - with already there logically implying all of which is causal in nature because what is pre-determined causally it wouldn't need to be discovered because it would fundamentally be enclosed in the event (the discovery process of the conscious explorer).

The fact that causality would require events to be enclosed in the cause is the reason that causality was rejected by David Hume.

Kant and Hume on Causality
Hume famously uses an example in the Enquiry to illustrate his thesis that cause and effect are entirely distinct events, where the idea of the latter is in no way contained in the idea of the former (EHU 4.9; SBN 29): "The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

The denoted philosophical ability is an extension of the core essence of life. It can be found in the tiniest biological cells.

(2017) Cells sense their environment to explore it
It was thought for cells to be able to "measure distances" and therefore people had hypotetized about the existence of some pattern molecule. This study opposes this hypothesis, since it shows that cells sense their surroundings more rather than seeing them.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 125821.htm

The tiniest biological cells perform something similar to scientific discovery or philosophy from within their own perspective.

The 'beyond' of a philosophical ability (the 'to be explored' in the explorative sensing ability in life) has a certain philosophical plausible ground of significance.

At question is: What is being sensed?

In your reasoning it is posed that intrinsic existing causal historic nature would be a plausible ground for sensing but you use a magical belief in the form of Kant's apodectiy certainty - mere intuition within experience - to pressupose that space and time are intrinsically real - as ground for your reasoning and in my opinion it is not justified to use that belief.

In my opinion, the only possible philosophical plausible ground of significance is truth or good - the origin of existence - in a form that is not an existent. That truth or good cannot be valued (is not repeatable or empirical of nature) but is evidently meaningfully relevant.

In my opinion it is simple logic that something of a nature Otherwise than Being must precede Being fundamentally and that that aspect cannot be of the nature of an existent.

Do you know the work Otherwise than Being by French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/252 ... nd_Essence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherwise_than_Being
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 9:43 pm
In ontological realism one poses that an external world exists intrinsically without mind. You confirmed to have a similar belief (as part of physicalism) with the following statement as quoted in the OP:

'Explaining the existence of the "sensory facility per se" is precisely the purpose of "physicalist theory." It postulates an external world with mechanisms for producing conscious creatures. And it does a pretty good job of it.'

It would be invalid to pose that conscious creatures would conjure up the intrinsic existing quality of the external world subjectively because the ability to meaningfully denote anything at all is directly derived from the idea 'intrinsic existence without mind'.
Sorry, but that is circular, and thus meaningless. It seems to amount to, "The ability to conjure up an external world is directly derived from the idea of an external world." I.e., that "idea" is derived from itself. Which is nonsensical.
It is the magical belief in the form of Kant's apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) - the belief in the realness (non-disputableness) of space and time - that you have adopted as ground for your reasoning.
GE Morton wrote: November 8th, 2022, 1:15 pmI'm basically a Kantian.
Kant's self-proclaimed achievement is the second main step in his effort to answer the question: “How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?” The first step was the argument offered in the Transcendental Aesthetic, to the effect that space and time are a priori forms of intuition. As such, Kant argued, they make possible judgments (propositions) whose claim to truth is justified a priori by the universal features of our intuitions. Such propositions are thus both synthetic and a priori.

Kant's definition of apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) is the certainty of a knowledge (Erkenntnis) in connection with the consciousness of its necessity.


The idea seems to be intended solely to provide a foundation for certainty for causality. The idea followed as a reply to David Hume's criticism of causality in an attempt to save causality.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

With apodictical certainty (intuition within experience) based reasoning it is seen that the intrinsic existing quality of the external world is presupposed to be meaningful before a mind supposedly existed to assign meaning to the idea.

My primary argument is: how can the concept 'meaningfulness' stand independent from an observer?

Perhaps it would be best to start with the question: what is the origin of the intuition that you use to base your reasoning on?

Kant's theory of intuition is assumptuously based on the concept reason and he never went into depth about the nature of reason.

"we might note that Kant rarely discusses reason as such. This leaves a difficult interpretative task: just what is Kant’s general and positive account of reason?

The first thing to note is Kant’s bold claim that reason is the arbiter of truth in all judgments—empirical as well as metaphysical. Unfortunately, he barely develops this thought, and the issue has attracted surprisingly little attention in the literature."


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason/

I actually searched for Kant's view on (the origin of) reason myself and the reference that I noticed in the Critique of Pure Reason was that reason is 'given' by nature to serve a purpose.

Kant: "Nevertheless, reason is given to us as a practical faculty, that is, one that is meant to have an influence on the will."

Not more is said about reason and thus your Kantian 'intuition within experience' is a magical belief in my opinion which also doesn't make much sense.

In my opinion, what underlays intuition fundamentally must be beginning-less (true Infinite) of nature and that which is beginning-less of nature cannot be a foundation for the idea 'intrinsic realness' or 'certainty of space and time'.

Quantum retrocausality provides a clue that causality and space and time are not 'really real' and that the use of an intuition about its realness is not justified.

This means a person could actually make a choice that causes their past - or so to speak 'change causality of the past'. This means that causality is not true in time.
https://medium.com/the-infinite-univers ... ed9530509c

What do you think of the concept Otherwise than Being that would describe a concept that is meaningfully relevant as origin of existence and not 'nothing' in the sense of the idea of existing turned around into an opposite?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherwise_than_Being
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

value wrote: December 29th, 2022, 9:00 am
GE Morton wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 9:43 pm
In ontological realism one poses that an external world exists intrinsically without mind. You confirmed to have a similar belief (as part of physicalism) with the following statement as quoted in the OP:

'Explaining the existence of the "sensory facility per se" is precisely the purpose of "physicalist theory." It postulates an external world with mechanisms for producing conscious creatures. And it does a pretty good job of it.'

It would be invalid to pose that conscious creatures would conjure up the intrinsic existing quality of the external world subjectively because the ability to meaningfully denote anything at all is directly derived from the idea 'intrinsic existence without mind'.
Sorry, but that is circular, and thus meaningless. It seems to amount to, "The ability to conjure up an external world is directly derived from the idea of an external world." I.e., that "idea" is derived from itself. Which is nonsensical.
It is the magical belief in the form of Kant's apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) - the belief in the realness (non-disputableness) of space and time - that you have adopted as ground for your reasoning.
What is the "it" which you're calling a "magical belief"?

But yes, I take time and space to be "real," and do so for the reasons Kant gave --- because those concepts are "built-in" to the human cognitive apparatus. It is simply not possible to imagine or conceive their absence. Nor is is possible to formulate any theory of ontology which does not assume them. You can't even deny them without assuming them with the very utterance of that denial.
Kant's self-proclaimed achievement is the second main step in his effort to answer the question: “How are synthetic a priori judgments possible?” The first step was the argument offered in the Transcendental Aesthetic, to the effect that space and time are a priori forms of intuition. As such, Kant argued, they make possible judgments (propositions) whose claim to truth is justified a priori by the universal features of our intuitions. Such propositions are thus both synthetic and a priori. Kant's definition of apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) is the certainty of a knowledge (Erkenntnis) in connection with the consciousness of its necessity.
Correct.
The idea seems to be intended solely to provide a foundation for certainty for causality. The idea followed as a reply to David Hume's criticism of causality in an attempt to save causality.
No. Causality is a separate category, or "intuition," also built-in to our cognitive apparatus. Explanation of anything consists in finding causes for (observable) effects, for the phenomena of experience.
With apodictical certainty (intuition within experience) based reasoning it is seen that the intrinsic existing quality of the external world is presupposed to be meaningful before a mind supposedly existed to assign meaning to the idea.
Er, no. There is no "presupposition" that a (postulated) external world is (intrinsically) "meaningful." Being "meaningful" has no application if there are no minds to whom it has meaning. "Meaning" and "meaningfulness" are relational terms, relating some thing to some person (some mind). And what does this have to do with Kant's analysis of cause and effect?
My primary argument is: how can the concept 'meaningfulness' stand independent from an observer?
It can't. You are the one who has been suggesting that it is.
Perhaps it would be best to start with the question: what is the origin of the intuition that you use to base your reasoning on?
The origin of all of Kant's categories is wiring patterns --- evolved innate programming --- in human and other animal brains. They are analogous to BIOS parameters in a computer operating system. (Though Kant never delved into the physical basis for those patterns).
Kant's theory of intuition is assumptuously based on the concept reason and he never went into depth about the nature of reason.
Reason is the process of drawing conclusions from premises (analytic), or inferring causes from observable effects (synthetic a priori, with the a priori supplied by innate cognitive programming). What do you think Kant overlooked?
The first thing to note is Kant’s bold claim that reason is the arbiter of truth in all judgments—empirical as well as metaphysical. Unfortunately, he barely develops this thought, and the issue has attracted surprisingly little attention in the literature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason
Because it is self-evident. What other "arbiter" can you imagine, or would you suggest?
I actually searched for Kant's view on (the origin of) reason myself and the reference that I noticed in the Critique of Pure Reason was that reason is 'given' by nature to serve a purpose.

Kant: "Nevertheless, reason is given to us as a practical faculty, that is, one that is meant to have an influence on the will."

Not more is said about reason and thus your Kantian 'intuition within experience' is a magical belief in my opinion which also doesn't make much sense.
"Thus"? You dismiss Kant's account of the source of reason (a natural faculty or ability) as inadequate, and then conclude that the "belief" that reason is the arbiter of truth is "magical"? Did you not employ reasoning there (very poor reasoning) to draw that conclusion?
In my opinion, what underlays intuition fundamentally must be beginning-less (true Infinite) of nature and that which is beginning-less of nature cannot be a foundation for the idea 'intrinsic realness' or 'certainty of space and time'.
Well, what are the grounds for that opinion? What is the connection between "beginning-less of nature" (whatever that is), and intuitions (or any other cognitive or "mental" phenomena? What evidence can you offer for that connection or relationship? Is "underlays" there a euphemism for "cause"? How can we test that claim?
Quantum retrocausality provides a clue that causality and space and time are not 'really real' and that the use of an intuition about its realness is not justified.
No, it doesn't. Retrocausality is just one hypothesis put forward to explain some QM phenomena, and a speculative one. But more importantly, the question of what is "really real," and the "transcendental" assumption that underlies it, is vacuous. What is "real" is whatever we experience, and whatever we postulate to explain that experience --- provided it actually does explain it --- i.e., it allows us to predict, manipulate, and control future experience. Any proffered "realities" which don't confer those abilities are vacuous and useless.
What do you think of the concept Otherwise than Being that would describe a concept that is meaningfully relevant as origin of existence and not 'nothing' in the sense of the idea of existing turned around into an opposite?
I think it is just another excursion into metaphysical nonsense, of which most of metaphysics consists, with no explantory power or utility.
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GrayArea »

value wrote: November 6th, 2022, 1:40 pm
My experience has been that many users on this forum today are of the opinion that reality is really real and that consciousness is causally produced by 'the external world'.
Slightly off-topic thing that I need to self-clarify. I believe that the external world to the brain does indeed have a role in producing consciousness "within" the brain, but so does the subjective reality of the brain (something that creates and decides the properties of the brain to exist they way they do) have as much of a role in doing so. Because if there is an "external" to begin with, then there has to be an "internal".

I apologize if I wasn't clear about this in our past discussions.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Pattern-chaser »

value wrote: November 6th, 2022, 1:40 pm My experience has been that many users on this forum today are of the opinion that reality is really real and that consciousness is causally produced by 'the external world'.
That is one opinion, certainly, and it is held widely. But not by everyone, nor by everyone here.

Offering myself as an example, I would not be surprised to find that "reality is really real", as we know it could be so. But equally, the Objective Truth could be something quite different; we have no way of telling, and no way even to estimate the likelihood of any possible explanation.

Others have different views again.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GrayArea wrote: January 20th, 2023, 10:46 pmSlightly off-topic thing that I need to self-clarify. I believe that the external world to the brain does indeed have a role in producing consciousness "within" the brain, but so does the subjective reality of the brain (something that creates and decides the properties of the brain to exist they way they do) have as much of a role in doing so. Because if there is an "external" to begin with, then there has to be an "internal".

I apologize if I wasn't clear about this in our past discussions.
Can you please explain what you mean with 'subjective reality' and how that factor 'decides' and 'creates' the properties (quality) of the brain 'to exist'?

Does that factor originate from the external world causally?

If so, would the mind be 100% caused by the external world?

If so, why would the mind exist?

With a 100% causal mind the observer is to perceive that which is fundamentally already known to it. The observing mind would be given a part of that which underlays itself, which is a nonsensical situation in my opinion. It would be as if an eye is placed on top of a fountain to look back at the water that is being pushed up - the eye itself being causally produced by that water. Why...👁️?
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 22nd, 2023, 1:59 pmThat is one opinion, certainly, and it is held widely. But not by everyone, nor by everyone here.

Offering myself as an example, I would not be surprised to find that "reality is really real", as we know it could be so. But equally, the Objective Truth could be something quite different; we have no way of telling, and no way even to estimate the likelihood of any possible explanation.

Others have different views again.
I have been following your posts with great interest especially considering that you seem to be a nature lover as a self-proclaimed Gaian-Daoist (if it's not just about theory for you).

1) What would legitimize the idea that it 'could be so' that reality is really real (which the study of the OP has indicated that it isn't)?

2) What do you think of the idea non-locality to be applicable at the root of 'reality'? Besides that it would imply that reality cannot be said to be intrinsically real. What else could it mean?

In my opinion it implies that 'kind' is applicable to reality itself which would include the human mind. What do you think of this idea?

When kind is applicable to anything in the cosmos, it would prove Plato's theory of forms.
Plato wrote:According to Plato, an individual 🐕 dog, Fido, for example, since he is not 'dog as such', but only a dog, is not fully real. To be fully real, Fido would need to be the universal essence, "Dog in himself", existing in a separate world of universal Essences (subsisting forms, or Ideas).

Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real; its reality is merely a participation in the reality of the universal essence. Hence, he is merely a shadow (albeit a real shadow) of the "really" Real, the separated Form, or Idea, existing in the World of Ideas.
When 'kind' is applicable to mind it would justify the idea of a Universal mind.

There is some evidence for the idea of 'kind' (forms) being applicable to anything in the cosmos including 'species'. An example is Carcinisation and the Cambrian Explosion is interesting as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: January 22nd, 2023, 1:59 pmThat is one opinion, certainly, and it is held widely. But not by everyone, nor by everyone here.

Offering myself as an example, I would not be surprised to find that "reality is really real", as we know it could be so. But equally, the Objective Truth could be something quite different; we have no way of telling, and no way even to estimate the likelihood of any possible explanation.

Others have different views again.
value wrote: January 27th, 2023, 7:30 pm I have been following your posts with great interest especially considering that you seem to be a nature lover as a self-proclaimed Gaian-Daoist
Thank you.


value wrote: January 27th, 2023, 7:30 pm (if it's not just about theory for you).
Anyone who leaves their philosophy behind in the forum when they return to RL is wasting their life, IMO.


value wrote: January 27th, 2023, 7:30 pm 1) What would legitimize the idea that it 'could be so' that reality is really real (which the study of the OP has indicated that it isn't)?
Anything that has not been shown to be impossible is/remains a possibility, yes? That's what "legitimises" any idea, I think?

But, of course, we should remember that a possibility is very far from a certainty. 🙂
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GrayArea »

value wrote: January 27th, 2023, 7:27 pm
GrayArea wrote: January 20th, 2023, 10:46 pmSlightly off-topic thing that I need to self-clarify. I believe that the external world to the brain does indeed have a role in producing consciousness "within" the brain, but so does the subjective reality of the brain (something that creates and decides the properties of the brain to exist they way they do) have as much of a role in doing so. Because if there is an "external" to begin with, then there has to be an "internal".

I apologize if I wasn't clear about this in our past discussions.
Can you please explain what you mean with 'subjective reality' and how that factor 'decides' and 'creates' the properties (quality) of the brain 'to exist'?

Does that factor originate from the external world causally?

If so, would the mind be 100% caused by the external world?

If so, why would the mind exist?

With a 100% causal mind the observer is to perceive that which is fundamentally already known to it. The observing mind would be given a part of that which underlays itself, which is a nonsensical situation in my opinion. It would be as if an eye is placed on top of a fountain to look back at the water that is being pushed up - the eye itself being causally produced by that water. Why...👁️?
Subjective reality is the way in which any objects decide the way they react to external impulses, seen from the object's perspective.

The observer "fundamentally knowing" something is really just equal to it perceiving that something. You seem to separate those two and therefore believe that one cannot happen on top of another—but I see them as one thing.

The mind isn't 100% caused by the external world, or else it wouldn't be called "mind". Because that's just the external world. The internal world is the subjective reality, I presume.

My belief here is that while subjective reality exists for every object, each object still retains their own, separate subjective reality. Therefore, the observing mind does not have to be given a part of that which underlays itself, because that which underlays the observer, and that which underlays what the observer "observes", are separate.

Subjective reality itself is inherent to any object by nature, so its own existence cannot be created by causality. The role causality plays is simply allowing those objects to "translate" the external world in terms of their pre-existing subjective reality.

So in summary, the interactions between objects within the external world does not create the internal world of those objects, but rather only allows for the pre-existing internal world of each objects to perceive more of that external world than it is now, by using its own subjective language / means of translation.
People perceive gray and argue about whether it's black or white.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

What about question 2)?

Perhaps the study is an opportunity for pioneering philosophy. In the case that the Universe isn't locally real, ...? There might be a lot of insights waiting to be unlocked.

Some suggestions:

1) all particles in the cosmos would be non-unique fundamentally. This is quite something for many philosophical discussions.

An example:
Terrapin Station wrote: January 27th, 2022, 8:45 am
Greta wrote: April 10th, 2014, 10:02 amThere are no truly unique processes;
We don't at all agree on this. Oh my view, every process, every bit of matter, every relation, and thus every property as well is truly unique. None of it is literally the same as any other process, any other bit of matter, any other relation, any other property.

That makes everything truly unique--every bit of matter, every relation, every process, every property is literally, in terms of its extramental existence, the only one of its "kind."

Considering numerically distinct things the same, or the same kind is only a mental abstraction--it's a fiction of sorts, gained by glossing over details and pretending that two or more unique things are instead two instances of just one thing.

So no. There is no property that obtains in one entity that literally also obtains in another.
2) it means that all particles in the cosmos are entangled.

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

3) it might explain the Cambrian Explosion and incite new types of scientific exploration.

The Cambrian Explosion hasn't been explained until today. It was a mystery in Darwin's time but he said that science would find the missing fossils, which haven't been found. So it seems that a quite mysterious event took place by which complete animal building plans - for all animal categories that exist today - instantly arrived on earth.

When it is proven that kind is applicable to reality (Plato's theory of forms) that might lead to new answers.

What Is Plato’s Theory of Forms?
https://owlcation.com/humanities/An-Int ... y-of-Forms
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: December 30th, 2022, 3:40 pm
Kant's theory of intuition is assumptuously based on the concept reason and he never went into depth about the nature of reason.
Reason is the process of drawing conclusions from premises (analytic), or inferring causes from observable effects (synthetic a priori, with the a priori supplied by innate cognitive programming). What do you think Kant overlooked?
Did Kant address the 'why' question of reason?

GE Morton wrote: December 30th, 2022, 3:40 pm
The first thing to note is Kant’s bold claim that reason is the arbiter of truth in all judgments—empirical as well as metaphysical. Unfortunately, he barely develops this thought, and the issue has attracted surprisingly little attention in the literature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-reason
Because it is self-evident. What other "arbiter" can you imagine, or would you suggest?
When the 'why' question of reason isn't answered, it cannot be said that reason is fundamentally the arbiter of truth.

GE Morton wrote: December 30th, 2022, 3:40 pm
I actually searched for Kant's view on (the origin of) reason myself and the reference that I noticed in the Critique of Pure Reason was that reason is 'given' by nature to serve a purpose.

Kant: "Nevertheless, reason is given to us as a practical faculty, that is, one that is meant to have an influence on the will."

Not more is said about reason and thus your Kantian 'intuition within experience' is a magical belief in my opinion which also doesn't make much sense.
"Thus"? You dismiss Kant's account of the source of reason (a natural faculty or ability) as inadequate, and then conclude that the "belief" that reason is the arbiter of truth is "magical"? Did you not employ reasoning there (very poor reasoning) to draw that conclusion?
The quote that reason is the arbiter of truth originated from plato.stanford.edu. I didn't argue that it was magical.

What I intended to denote was that Kant never went into depth about the origin of reason per se. Kant argued that reason is a 'practical faculty' that is given by nature and that it is intended to achieve a higher purpose of life, which is to 'produce a will that is absolutely good in itself'. If that is all information that is provided then it seems to be pretty vague.

Kant argued that will is practical reason. So when Kant refers to will he refers to reason. This might be a helpful insight for more information.
Emmanuel Kant wrote:Everything in nature works according to laws. Only a rational being has a will - which is the ability to act according to the thought of laws, i.e. to act on principle.

To derive actions from laws you need reason, so that's what will is - practical reason.
Reason is to produce an absolutely good will without qualification.
Emmanuel Kant wrote:If the question means 'What is there objectively, i.e. distinct from himself, that determines his will in this case?' the only possible answer is law.

So we have a law the thought of which can settle the will without reference to any expected result, and must do so if the will is to be called absolutely good without qualification; what kind of law can this be? Since I have robbed the will of any impulses that could come to it from obeying any law, nothing remains to serve as a guiding principle of the will except conduct's universally conforming to law as such. That is, I ought never to act in such a way that I couldn't also will that the maxim on which I act should be a universal law.
This would be where the magic comes in.

The concept 'law as such' is the foundation for the idea 'intrinsic existence' or the idea that reality is 'really real'. It seems that a foundation for that concept is completely lacking which means in my opinion that it is a magical belief.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021