Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

I'm working on some physics, but I'm finding that my philosophy and metaphysics are so different from most other's that trying to present a physics built on my different views doesn't make sense to nearly everyone I talk to.

So, I would like discuss that metaphysics.

I'd like to hear honest opinions on whether this is agreeable, or what specifically makes its crap.

Thanks.

On Reality

Some very basic philosophical points need to be stated and some terms need to be defined before anything else is attempted.

For starters, look around you.

That is your conscious experience.

You have an observation; you have a thought or a theory or a belief; you have an emotional feeling or a physical sensation; you have language and cultural laws and scientific laws.

All of this is known to you thanks to your consciousness. From within this conscious experience, emerging out of your unique collection of observations and knowledge, there is a world.

In addition to this experience human beings have long supposed, perhaps many even unknowingly, that beyond this subjective world is a world external to the one in our minds.

So we can speak of two worlds, the subjective one and the objective one. The intention of this paper is to present the most complete and consistent description of reality yet, and at this point, there is something that is not quite clear. Is reality subjective or objective?

To tackle this question thoroughly we need to assume that the words "exist", "real", and "something" are all synonymous; as well as "existence", "reality", and "everything." Something is real and exists; reality is made up of everything in existence.

So back to the question. Is existence subjective or objective or both?

It is common to assume that existence should be objective. After all, the subjective experience is merely an individual's personal and inaccurate view of the objective world. One might ask how reality could be flawed by perception.

But consider what it would mean for existence to be purely objective. Then our observations of the world are not real as we experience them; our feelings and emotions are only real in the sense that they are chemical reactions, and they cannot be real in the unique way that we experience them. But those things seem so real to me. Should I deny that they are real even when they seem so real?

Also, consider the consequences of this decision on the existence of other things, such as knowledge. If something is objective, then human beings know nothing. On the other hand, if something is subjective, then human beings do know something, but it's not absolute knowledge, which leaves reality somewhat fragile. Personally, I think that knowing something that is probably wrong is a more optimistic take than knowing nothing, if only because it allows something to evolve into something better.

It is important to realize that the word "real" is just a label. We invented it as a tool, and we should be using it the way that serves us best.

This paper takes the position that reality is subjective. What you see, what you feel; what seems real is real. That means that every consciousness has their own reality.

The objective world still serves a purpose in this conjecture: it is the superset of all our subjective realities. But it must be understood that its presence is purely hypothetical.

To summarize here are the terms that I will use throughout this paper:

the universe: the hypothetical, objective world external to our consciousness

nature: the subjective reality; a subset of the universe unique to every observer

That should be enough for now. We'll get to the rest after finding the weaknesses of what I've posted so far.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 132

Mike, again, I dont think that your ideas are hard to understand at all. And I don't think that they're new either. Even when thinking in terms of computed system, all we are doing is making the translation of things we have intuitively thought all along into the rigorus structure of scientific rhetoric.

So many times we make the mistake in thinking that an old mind would have the same questions as us. It really is so diffirent. The island dweller doesn't see the ships unless the shaman says that he himself sees ships.

I think that the way of looking at things you allude to predates objective thought in general. And again I'm no philosohy historian, but it seems evident to me that this belief is prominent in very indiginous cultures even today. Really, I would not be suprised if this is the prominent reality of many animals.

And in fact I have a rather simple explanation for all that concerns these two views – that the only diffirence between subjective and objective reality for any system is in the spatial mapping capabilities of the system. Although a bit mundane, it seems to go right along with our intuition of what systems would have a a subjective reality and which ones have an objective reality.

If you ask me, what really confuses people must be the use of classic metaphysical terms. I mean, it's like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence all over again. I think there are better ways of explaining what you are trying to explain, and that plain english is all that is needed.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 179

You're right, the oldest and clearest instance of these views in history are from Taoism, though the Greek monists where saying a good deal of this too.

Here is what I want to address:

"And in fact I have a rather simple explanation for all that concerns these two views – that the only diffirence between subjective and objective reality for any system is in the spatial mapping capabilities of the system."

Ah, but you see, there is one other difference.

We have laws of physics, right? Namely, the principle of uncertainty and the principle of relativity. We invented these principles based on what we saw. We tested these princples based on what we see.

They explain what see we quite while.

The difference between the objective and the subjective is that our laws of physics should only be applied to the subjective.

If this is understood, then we can do something like the following:

Create ONE model for objective reality that ignores relativity, and ignores uncertainty, allowing an absolute and determinate model. If this model of objective reality is built correctly, it should contain the many subjective realities related to each consciousness, and in each of these subjective realities you will find the laws of physics: a relative and indeterminate set of phenomena.

That important difference between the objective and the subjective changes the entire ball game of scientific research.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2003
Posts: 69

Mike,

Re. the following:

So back to the question. Is existence subjective or objective or both?

Comment:

Absent Mind, it would seem there can be no purely "subjective" existence.

Given Mind, it would seem there can be no purely "objective" existence.

Hence Shakespeare's "We are such stuff as dreams are made on"?

Gunnar

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged