Limits to pure reason and nature of reality

[dpa]

Hi all,
I have a little out of track
question and I was forced to
consider this after reading FQXI
Essay competition title Is
Reality Digital or Analogue and
Kant's Critique of Pure reason
simultaneously.
If I am not wrong, according to
Kant, there are limits of pure
reason. Is not the ultimate
nature of reality always
elusive? Something like a
mirage of pond for a deer. The
deer always chases the pond
but never reaches one. Is not
that what we can discover is
merely sense data? Can we say
definitely, now or at any point
in future, whether nature is
analogous or digital? Does not
emperical finding (sense data)
always have possibility of going
further? Like first they came up
with the idea of atoms, then
nuclear particles, then quarks
then what not?
Thank You

 

[Aidyan]

I didn't read Kant but 'realists' can tell me what they want: it is quite clear to me that whatever we perceive and describe with our so called 'exact' sciences is ultimately a human mind-sense data construct. The idea of a 'pure' science which abstracts from sensory experience, human mind and consciousness is an illusion. We might say that the sensory world we live in is not much different than the digital world of the film Matrix. This doesn't mean there is no reality 'out there', but that the 'reality' we perceive has nothing to do with the 'real reality'. Science is not an ultimate and absolutely objective view of the world but a representation, a fiction, at bottom it is based on subjective mental entities of the homo sapiens mind. And reason and rationality itself are only a way of cognition, not the ultimate tools to know the truth. The idea that reason is the only way to 'know' is an anthropocentric conception that science itself dismisses.

 

[Goethe]

the 'reality' we perceive has nothing to do with the 'real reality'.

The reality we perceive may not be the real reality, but saying that they are completely unconnected is a much stronger claim.

Given your arguments to the contrary, why do you believe that there is a real world 'out there'?

 

[Aidyan]

What do you mean by "completely unconnected"? I don't know if there is a 'real world out there', because also the meaning of 'real' is a matter of convention. What I mean is that science is much less 'objective' than it wants us to believe. The only thing I can say is 'real' is that at least one subject in the universe exists that has perceptual experiences, i.e. me. The conscious experience is the only thing that I can be sure of. As Goethe told us...

 

[LudusRex]

Hello there,

I can understand the questions and concerns you have raised about the limits of pure reason and the nature of reality. It is true that our understanding of reality is constantly evolving and there may always be aspects that remain elusive to us. However, I believe that our pursuit of knowledge and understanding through empirical evidence and scientific inquiry is the best way to approach these questions.

While Kant did argue for the limits of pure reason, it is important to note that he also believed in the power of empirical observation and experience. In fact, he saw both pure reason and empirical evidence as necessary for a complete understanding of reality. Therefore, I think it is important to not discount the value of empirical findings in our pursuit of understanding the nature of reality.

As for the question of whether nature is analogous or digital, I believe that it is both and neither at the same time. Our understanding of reality is constantly expanding and changing, and it is possible that we may never have a definitive answer to this question. However, through continued research and exploration, we can continue to deepen our understanding of the world around us.

I also want to address your point about the possibility of new discoveries and theories emerging in the future. This is a crucial aspect of scientific inquiry and it is what drives us to constantly push the boundaries of our knowledge. While our current understanding may be limited, it is always open to revision and improvement as new evidence and ideas emerge.

In conclusion, while the limits of pure reason may exist, I believe that our pursuit of knowledge through empirical evidence and scientific inquiry is the best way to approach the nature of reality. Our understanding may always be evolving, but it is through this process that we continue to expand our understanding of the world and our place in it. Thank you for raising these important questions and for considering the intersection of philosophy and science.