Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Truth: Capital “T” and Small “t”
Theologians and philosophers deal in the world of perfection, the ideal – capital “T” Truth. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering; I deal in the world of close enough – small “t” truths.
Tens of thousands of years ago, a great scientist observed that the sun rose in the east every morning and set in the west every night and concluded that the sun rotates around the Earth. And that was close enough to allow us to do some good stuff like navigating around our world.
Tens of thousands of years later, another great scientist, after making more refined observations, concluded that the Earth travels around the sun in a circular orbit while spinning on an axis. That was close enough to allow us to do even more nice things like navigating at night.
Many hundreds of years later, Kepler observed that the planets’ orbits are elliptical, and Newton gave us the mathematics to chart their movements. That was close enough to get us to the moon.
A few hundred years after that, Einstein made some adjustments to Newton’s approximation, which allowed us to do things that I don’t understand and don’t really care about because I’m an engineer living in the world of close enough.
Our succession – or progression – of small “t” truths should convince us that there is a capital “T” Truth out there somewhere because each new approximation is more useful than the last. We may get to that Truth someday or we may not. Either way, we can get close enough.
Published in General
The concept of a “bottle” is freighted with all of YOUR assumptions, which may not be shared by someone who has never seen one. The object may have the same dimensions in both cases, but to each person it is a radically different thing.
The language we use to describe something helps decide what it is. Indeed, I’d bet that “bottle” in other languages comes with its own baggage, so that referring to a bottle means different things in different cultures, even if they both drink Coca-Cola out of one.
For us, of course.
That’s the basis of Solipsism, which argues that the world exists only within my mind (whatever that is). The problem with Solipsism is that it’s not useful. Believing that I’m the only extant creature doesn’t help me get along with other people, whether they really exist or exist only in my mind. Also, it doesn’t help me deal with inanimate objects either. I’m very likely to get run over by a bus in whose existence I refuse to believe. So, even if G-d informed me that reality is, in fact, only my own mental construct, I would still have to act as if it exists externally to me. Reality, whether it exists within or without, must be dealt with on its own terms.
At its best, a philosophy (i.e., a model of how the world works) should help us deal with reality. Philosophies that don’t, or that make it harder or even impossible to deal with reality, should be rejected as mental fluff.
All observation on a quantum level changes the thing being observed. I don’t think that’s true on the macro level.
True, but you’re arguing for a position that I’ve already granted. A bottle has lots of names, even within the same language. A bottle can have lots of uses – some, perhaps, that no one has yet thought of. My point, which you haven’t yet faced, is that the bottle exists. And it exists regardless of how or whether I perceive it. It exists regardless of how it’s used. To believe otherwise leads us into Solipsism, which is a self-destructive way in which to view reality.
Why ignore the actual question?
Maybe you didn’t understand the actual question.
The question was about the physical reality itself. You’ve shown at least once that you are capable of referring to such a thing:
I think your real answer to the question is “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
That’s fine–just say that. There’s no need to change the subject and answer a question about whether reality-as-we-experience-it would continue without our experience. No one was asking that question.
OK. Fine. I don’t know and I don’t care.
But I still wish to go farther than that: it is clear to me that the belief in an underlying physical reality meets all the tests of a pseudoscience/religion, and it not based on science at all. This is in no small part because the belief in an underlying physical reality necessarily must not rely on empirical data because that data is always tainted by the instrument/observer.
Ok, you believe that you live in a world that has no underlying physical reality. How do you get through the day, then? Do you actually act on your belief? Do you stand in front of oncoming trains because you’re sure they don’t exist? I assume not because you’re participating in this discussion. Therefore, you are clearly acting as if the world has an underlying physical reality. If you have to ignore your world view to survive, then your world view isn’t providing any benefit to you. You could discard it this instant and it would make no difference in your life.
Science is based on the belief that hypotheses can be tested. A hypothesis that makes no difference whether we accept it or not cannot, by definition be tested. Such a hypothesis is, therefore, outside the realm of science – that is, it’s either pseudoscience or religion.
I believe he stated that he does not believe that. He has no opinion on the matter.
With both trains and falling rocks, our perception is the result of the physical fact, not vice versa.
(Still, the trains were created by us, so they are not a man-independent physical reality. And my head will make some minute impression on a falling rock. William James was onto something.)
My point precisely.
Objective Reality, something that is absolutely a certain way regardless of our perceptions or any observation, is an untestable assertion.
Science, by contrast, relies on empirical data. That data is necessarily colored by the instrument/observer/language/preconceptions etc. None of this negates the empirical data. But it does make it not objective.
That is why, by the way, physicists and biologists and chemists and historians and cultural anthropologists and countless others trained in specific fields, have access to the same data but see very different things, indeed.
I grant that our observations of a thing are not the thing itself and can only be approximations of the thing itself. But you’re taking this a step farther by saying that, because our perceptions aren’t perfect, the thing itself doesn’t exist.
I observe that our approximations of the thing itself get better, especially as we invent and use new tools that enable use to peer more closely at the thing itself. Our better approximations allow us to employ the thing itself more usefully. My claim is that those facts should convince us that the thing itself exists.
You’ve yet to explain why your belief that the thing itself doesn’t exist is useful, given that to survive, you have to act as if the thing itself does exist.
I am not saying that. I don’t much care if reality is somehow “real” but my real point is about an objective reality that is independent of all observation.
As far as I am concerned, the things I perceive exist. That includes physical things, as well as the human soul, and the idea of love and freedom and countless other thoughts and ideas that have no measurable physical existence.
My beliefs are real – to me. And I am more than fine with it. And I equally accept the your beliefs are YOUR reality. They do not have to mesh. We do not need to see the same shade of green or believe in the same deity. G-d gave us freedom and our own tools.
No argument with that.