Proof of Reality: Electrical Impulses and The Matrix

[Les Sleeth]

We're going to have to agree to differ. Perhaps we could disentangle this over a beer but we can't seem to here. . . . Do you think we should drop this? We seem to be in a rut. I'm happy with a draw.

Next time I'm in England we will have that beer! I was ready to drop it but you said a couple of things that inspired a few more comments.

But science cannot explain physical reality. You've said this yourself. Science uses the scientific method to model the scientific evidence in a scientific way in order to produce scientific theories. It's bound to be good at doing it.

What I said is that science explains physical reality better than any other method we now have at our disposal; and, that the best evidence which supports that statement is how much we can design things which work/function/operate according to how science has described physical reality. I am not saying it has yet explained all of physical reality.

Does the universe have an underlying physical nature, or is that a scientific assumption? If it has one then certainly science cannot explain it, for it is a metaphysical issue.

This statement of yours is the main reason I wanted to answer you. If you were a tiny little bacterium living on a huge iceberg in the ocean, and you and other scientific bacteria label all the principles that makes that iceberg exist "physical," then you'd say the iceberg has an underlying physical nature. However, the physical itself has an underlying nature, which is the water out of which it arose.

I often use water analogies because (OMG, I'm about to reveal part of my belief system ) I believe at the foundation of all existence is some single, infinite, eternal, homogeneous substance which I think is the "ground state" of light. Yes, now you know, I am a monist.

What is the matter of our universe then? A monist theory might say it is compressed, oscillating light at some spot in the infinite, eternal ground state continuum. What is the universe doing now? It is decompressing, with its stars flying apart, and its light flying out of the compressed state of atoms. What is energy? As potential it is compression, and as action it is decompression.

This is like the iceberg which is melting back into the ocean. That ice is not really of a different nature than water, but it has taken on traits that accentuate certain water properties. Similarly, I see what we call "physical" as the traits given the foundational substance. The cause of those traits I would parallel to what you've called the "metasystem" (ground state light would be the "absolute"). At the boundary where the physical meets its metasystem and source/the absolute, that is where things get blurry, and that is where I think science is forever going to have problems with the physical side of that boundary. Like the question now of where did all the universe's energy originate? No one can answer it with a physical explanation, and so you hear normally hard core physicists offering what amounts to (IMHO) science fiction (like quantum fluctuations causing multiple universe's to come bubbling up out of nothing).

So you see, my idea of physical isn't all that definitive in the final analysis. I see it mostly a set of conditions or a metasystem of light that we, who are light as well, exist within (for now).

I have a little more to say about this below.

Les said: Of course, you can claim I've defined the standard by which I judged effectiveness; however, as I argued to Hugo, there is no rational escape from that dilemma. . . . That is why when we add experience to rationalization, we look for something to work as predicted. Sure, we can question that, but then we are left sitting in a mental muddle of our own making, never able to escape our self-imposed and impossible skepticism.

Canute said: I agree. If you judge then you must set standards against which to judge. However I'd argue that one does not need to judge, and that this is how one escapes getting trapped in the dillemma. . . . By that view the universe must remain forever mysterious to us and we must make do with knowing just what works. I don't agree.

Those of us who believe "something" is behind the physical aspects of reality are forced to limit ourselves to induction if we wish to theorize. I think it was Quine who pointed out induction doesn't work for the actual application of science. It might help indicate where to look for evidence, but if we ever get to the point where we are observing all facets of a formerly inductive model, it can then be considered deductively and made available to science.

The monist and metasystem concepts can only be described inductively because we cannot see them. If we wish to join them with the modelling done by pure physicalists, the only hope I believe we have is to produce a metasystem-absolute model which logically accounts for the physical workings of reality. No hedging either . . . it has to account for relativity, the constancy of light speed, quantum specifics, time and space, gravity and nuclear forces, etc.

However, even if we inductively come up with a model that logically accounts for every known physical facet, we still cannot say we "know" it is true. That's because (and I thought we both agreed about this), in order to know, one must experience what one hypothesizes to be true. So above when you state I am saying "the universe must remain forever mysterious to us," actually I am only saying that if one uses the intellect alone it must. I am not saying it isn't possible to experience aspects of the metasystem or the absolute (though I don't believe it can be done through the senses since they aren't sensitive enough to detect their own originating structure and construction material). We, (using the language of my model) the conscious light that receives the info senses send us, might be able to feel/experience ourselves and then know something about the foundation of all existence.

But once we are back in the theorizing arena, and we are talking to those who are only using their senses and intellect, it is back to induction and pointing to the holes in physicalist theory. YOU might know, but since that knowledge can only be experienced inside you, and not "observed" externally, I can't see an intellectual bridge that can be built between inner and sense experience except induction, which really doesn't satisfy either side's definition of "knowing."

Now I return once again to why I am willing to say science deserves epistomological privilege when it comes to investigating the physical aspects of reality. What I mean is, as long as we are staying inside the boundaries of the mechanics the "metasystem" sustains which create and maintain our universe, and someone wants to call that "physical," it is okay with me to say science does the best job of investigating it. Science "works" because it really is looking at something that is going on. I don't believe mechanics is all that is going on (like many science types believe), but it's going on nonetheless.

Bottom line: I don't think we who believe there is a metasystem or an absolute can ever interface properly with science. If we really do have a way to experience what we say, then our best hope is to encourage others to learn how to experience it for themselves. There is no line of reasoning, sans experience, that can achieve logical certainty. My strategy here is to grant to science that it is perceiving apsects of reality, while looking for ways to show there are aspects science, and therefore physics, aren't accounting for and never will.

 

[Canute]

Next time I'm in England we will have that beer!

I'll look forward to it.

Yeah I was going to stop but you've said some interesting things. I'm going to comment in little bits because I agree with one bit then not the next all through, and there are all sorts of issues. On the whole I don't think you're as empirical as you think you are.

What I said is that science explains physical reality better than any other method we now have at our disposal;

Not for me it doesn't I'm afraid. Science cannot explain anything important about physical reality. A scientific TOE is of no interest to me whatsoever. I want to understand non-scientific things, like what does 'phsyical' mean, and why do physical things exist.

and, that the best evidence which supports that statement is how much we can design things which work/function/operate according to how science has described physical reality. I am not saying it has yet explained all of physical reality.

How can a discipline that cannot explain the existence, composition, and ultimately even the behaviour of matter be the best way of understanding physical reality?

This statement of yours is the main reason I wanted to answer you. If you were a tiny little bacterium living on a huge iceberg in the ocean, and you and other scientific bacteria label all the principles that makes that iceberg exist "physical," then you'd say the iceberg has an underlying physical nature. However, the physical itself has an underlying nature, which is the water out of which it arose.

I don't think that works, because water is physical. The physical has to arise from something non-physical to avoid an infinite regress of substances. Something without any physical qualities.

I often use water analogies because (OMG, I'm about to reveal part of my belief system ) I believe at the foundation of all existence is some single, infinite, eternal, homogeneous substance which I think is the "ground state" of light. Yes, now you know, I am a monist.

I don't think monism works. How can just one thing exist?

This is like the iceberg which is melting back into the ocean. That ice is not really of a different nature than water, but it has taken on traits that accentuate certain water properties. Similarly, I see what we call "physical" as the traits given the foundational substance.

But what foundational substance could be monist, and why can't science detect it? Also why can't metaphysics come up with any substance that would fit the bill? Why do all questions about ultimate reality have to be unanswerable? If monism is correct then we'll never know it.

The cause of those traits I would parallel to what you've called the "metasystem" (ground state light would be the "absolute"). At the boundary where the physical meets its metasystem and source/the absolute, that is where things get blurry, and that is where I think science is forever going to have problems with the physical side of that boundary.

Very true. The 'problem of consciousness', Zeno's paradoxes, the 'problem of attributes', the origins of matter, science is bounded by the walls of its cave.

Like the question now of where did all the universe's energy originate? No one can answer it with a physical explanation, and so you hear normally hard core physicists offering what amounts to (IMHO) science fiction (like quantum fluctuations causing multiple universe's to come bubbling up out of nothing).

Yes, I don't take all that stuff very seriously. It is impossible for science to explain where energy originated. I doubt science will even ever explain what it is.

So you see, my idea of physical isn't all that definitive in the final analysis. I see it mostly a set of conditions or a metasystem of light that we, who are light as well, exist within (for now).

But isn't light physical?

Those of us who believe "something" is behind the physical aspects of reality are forced to limit ourselves to induction if we wish to theorize.

Yes. This is why Buddhists don't theorise. If you theorise you end with a theory.

If we wish to join them with the modelling done by pure physicalists, the only hope I believe we have is to produce a metasystem-absolute model which logically accounts for the physical workings of reality. No hedging either . . . it has to account for relativity, the constancy of light speed, quantum specifics, time and space, gravity and nuclear forces, etc.

But it can't be done. In the scientific view metaphysical questions are unanswerable, so no scientific theory or model will ever have a sound metaphysical foundation. It must always rest on assumptions.

However, even if we inductively come up with a model that logically accounts for every known physical facet, we still cannot say we "know" it is true.

I agree. Induction cannot bring certainty by definition. A model isn't knowledge, and it is impossible to account for every physical fact (the First Cause for instance).

That's because (and I thought we both agreed about this), in order to know, one must experience what one hypothesizes to be true. So above when you state I am saying "the universe must remain forever mysterious to us," actually I am only saying that if one uses the intellect alone it must.

Agree again.

I am not saying it isn't possible to experience aspects of the metasystem or the absolute (though I don't believe it can be done through the senses since they aren't sensitive enough to detect their own originating structure and construction material). We, (using the language of my model) the conscious light that receives the info senses send us, might be able to feel/experience ourselves and then know something about the foundation of all existence.

And again.

But once we are back in the theorizing arena, and we are talking to those who are only using their senses and intellect, it is back to induction and pointing to the holes in physicalist theory. YOU might know, but since that knowledge can only be experienced inside you, and not "observed" externally, I can't see an intellectual bridge that can be built between inner and sense experience except induction, which really doesn't satisfy either side's definition of "knowing."

Mostly agree, but not quite. I agree that the truth about reality cannot be 'proved'. I think we know enough about logic and metaphysics to be sure of that. However I believe it is possible to work out the truth, and more or less demonstrate it, because it must be the only logical solution. However, for the reasons you give, one cannot go all the way to knowing its truth by reason.

Btw Spencer-Brown argues that we misuse the word 'proof'. Technically what we do in axiomatic systems is demonstrate, not prove. I think this is an important point.

Bottom line: I don't think we who believe there is a metasystem or an absolute can ever interface properly with science.

Maybe never interface with scientists, but there's no problem interfacing with science.

If we really do have a way to experience what we say, then our best hope is to encourage others to learn how to experience it for themselves. There is no line of reasoning, sans experience, that can achieve logical certainty. My strategy here is to grant to science that it is perceiving apsects of reality, while looking for ways to show there are aspects science, and therefore physics, aren't accounting for and never will.

I think that you're wrong here. If there are things that science cannot account for then it is a bad way of understanding reality, or rather it is not a way of understanding reality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I think that you're wrong here. If there are things that science cannot account for then it is a bad way of understanding reality, or rather it is not a way of understanding reality.

Not for me it doesn't I'm afraid. Science cannot explain anything important about physical reality. A scientific TOE is of no interest to me whatsoever. I want to understand non-scientific things, like what does 'phsyical' mean, and why do physical things exist. . . . How can a discipline that cannot explain the existence, composition, and ultimately even the behaviour of matter be the best way of understanding physical reality?

At last I see why we are disagreeing so strongly on this issue, which has been a mystery to me because we seem to agree about more important things.

I have to say, respectfully, that your first statement above doesn't make sense to me, while your second statement seems to provide a clue about why you believe it.

I would bet my britches you do science all the time with things you want to achieve in your home or profession. You might hypothosize a solution to, say, a leaky espresso maker, replace a seal or clean out mineral deposits, and then observe the results. When the machine works the way you want, you've used the scientific method to achieve your goal. Can you honestly say that approach doesn't work with all such things that can be observed with the senses, or that you personally don't find it valuable to surviving or being more comfortable on this planet?

So what if science cannot explain what it is that establishes the "physical"? As you imply, you and others of us think the answer to that is metaphysical, which is why it is outside the domain of science. You might personally not care about scientific exploration to understand the things you are intersted in, but your personal preferences have no bearing on the objective consideration of whether science is effective in its own realm we have supposedly been talking about in this thread. I mean, really, why judge science by what it cannot do?

I don't think that works, because water is physical. The physical has to arise from something non-physical to avoid an infinite regress of substances. Something without any physical qualities.

Another problem we seem to have is how concretely you take things I say. My analogy is not about water. The physicalness of water and ice has nothing to do with my point. I was trying to analogize that the physical appearances of the universe -- atoms, forces, energy, light -- might be the "forms" of something that starts out "formless." Water represented the formless ocean of my theorized ground state substance, and ice represented a "form" of, and in, that ocean.

I don't think monism works. How can just one thing exist?

It isn't easy to understand, but if it were (and if it is also true of course), then we'd already understand it. But here we run into a big problem with your persective on knowing reality. You say you don't care about the understandings science gives us, yet if I could give you a monistic model that accounts for the physics of things, you wouldn't be able to understand it. So where does that leave us?

I don't know why you find it so hard to see monism as a possibility because if you start breaking down matter, which is the basis of the universe, you find energy, light, forces . . . i.e., just a few basic traits which are able to assume an incredible variety of shapes to give us "appearances." Is it that difficult to imagine those basic traits derive from something even more basic?

But what foundational substance could be monist, and why can't science detect it? Also why can't metaphysics come up with any substance that would fit the bill? Why do all questions about ultimate reality have to be unanswerable? If monism is correct then we'll never know it.

Relying on my water-ice analogy again, what if you were made of ice, and all your detection tools were made of ice? They would be too structured to detect the unstructured condition of their own makeup.

However, I didn't say we'd never know experientially, I only said it can't be known intellectually or through the senses, and therefore scientifically. There is the possibility I've already spoken of, which is to learn to experience the "essense" of our own consciousness, and thereby come to know the absolute foundation of one's own existence. If you could develop that internal skill, you might just see that the basic stuff of your consciousness is the same basic stuff that makes up everything else. Of course, if you did see that, it is yet another step to understand how all the things which exist in our universe are given structure. So there are two main issues in the monistic model: what is the formless foundation, and how does it get structured into "form."

The idea is, the ground state is so flexible and indestructible, that it can take many shapes.

But isn't light physical?

Yes, but I am claiming what "physical" means is some minimum degree of structure. Light as we know it has the structure of transverse oscillation, whose wavelength by the way, is stretching as the universe expands. What if the ground state of light is some non-oscillating but vibrant condition, and not "particles" at all. When compressed it accentuates its vibratory quality, polarizes it, and "particlizes" it? When it decompresses enough I am suggesting it will lose its form and blend into an infinite continuum of formless ground state light.

Yes. This is why Buddhists don't theorise. If you theorise you end with a theory.

That's a joke, right? Buddhist theory could fill a library. Maybe the Buddha himself didn't theorize, but plenty of Buddhists have and still do speculate about the nature of things.

But since you've brought up Buddhism, the Buddha did speak of a ground state, that's what we attain union with in "enlightenment." The monist conception very much fits with Buddhist thinking.

 

[Canute]

At last I see why we are disagreeing so strongly on this issue, which has been a mystery to me because we seem to agree about more important things.

I have to say, respectfully, that your first statement above doesn't make sense to me, while your second statement seems to provide a clue about why you believe it.

Well, I would say your second para. contradicts the first, but it doesn't matter.

I would bet my britches you do science all the time with things you want to achieve in your home or profession.

I agree that I do science every moment of the day, as you say. My life probable depends on it.

Can you honestly say that approach doesn't work with all such things that can be observed with the senses, or that you personally don't find it valuable to surviving or being more comfortable on this planet?

I've never suggested this. I definitely find science useful, up to a point. (Perhaps we ought to define science sometime). My point is that the usefulness of science to me has no bearing on its 'truth' as an explanation of things, or its value as a human activity, and little on its epistemological status.

So what if science cannot explain what it is that establishes the "physical"?

So science cannot provide an explanation of anything, it can only model interactions.

As you imply, you and others of us think the answer to that is metaphysical, which is why it is outside the domain of science.

To be honest I do not think metaphysics is much more help than science. They are two sides of a coin. Science cannot explain anything precisely because metaphysical questions are unanswerable. (Heidegger is good on why this is so).

I mean, really, why judge science by what it cannot do?

How else can one judge it? I enjoy studying science because it provides a lot of evidence as to the nature of reality. However that evidence clearly shows that reality is not scientific.

Another problem we seem to have is how concretely you take things I say. My analogy is not about water.

Yes sorry. I wasn't just picking on water. I was suggesting that there is nothing of which you can conceive that could logically act as 'water' in your metaphor. I'll come back to this below.

It isn't easy to understand, but if it were (and if it is also true of course), then we'd already understand it. But here we run into a big problem with your persective on knowing reality. You say you don't care about the understandings science gives us, yet if I could give you a monistic model that accounts for the physics of things, you wouldn't be able to understand it. So where does that leave us?

This is a tricky issue. In my view monism is not logical, which is why I can't understand it, if you see what I mean. Again see below. Btw it's not that I don't care what science says, it's just that I do not consider that it represents a true understanding of reality. I would say that the existence of metaphysical questions makes that inarguable.

I don't know why you find it so hard to see monism as a possibility because if you start breaking down matter, which is the basis of the universe, you find energy, light, forces . . . i.e., just a few basic traits which are able to assume an incredible variety of shapes to give us "appearances." Is it that difficult to imagine those basic traits derive from something even more basic?

I agree in outline but let's focus on this ultimate monist substance/entity. Is this something or nothing? Does it exist or not-exist? Neither of these are logical answers to the question according to philosophers. In metaphysics it is an undecidable question (if true it is false, if false it is true, since either answer leads to contradictions). This is the problem with monism

However I do half agree with you about monism, in the sense of all things reducing in a wayto one thing. But to make this work logically requires seeing this one thing in a 'non-dual' way, otherwise it's back to the 'problem of essence' and undecidable questions. Note that 'non-dual' means 'not two', and not 'one'.

However, I didn't say we'd never know experientially, I only said it can't be known intellectually or through the senses, and therefore scientifically. There is the possibility I've already spoken of, which is to learn to experience the "essense" of our own consciousness, and thereby come to know the absolute foundation of one's own existence.

Here we agree.

If you could develop that internal skill, you might just see that the basic stuff of your consciousness is the same basic stuff that makes up everything else.

In my view there is no 'might' about it. It is possible and countless people have done it, and will in future. Can't prove this unfortunately, although the scientific evidence supports the idea.

So there are two main issues in the monistic model: what is the formless foundation, and how does it get structured into "form."

Is not the main issue how a single substance can logically exist without changing the meaning of 'exist' (because existence is always relative)?

It is in the nature of reality that metaphysical questions cannot be answered. There must be a reason for this, just as there is for why apples fall down. Monism does not explain our inability to reason our way to the truth, but simply accepts it as a fact. In this sense monism is an appeal to mystery, for it says that if monism is true we cannot ever know why anything exists or what it is. (That's a shortcut through the arguments, I'll expand if it sounds ad hoc). A proper understanding would make clear why there is always an inevitable explanatory gap.

Yes, but I am claiming what "physical" means is some minimum degree of structure.

I agree. This implies that ultimate reality is immaterial, without phsyical properties. This is where I feel monism fails. It cannot get across this gap between the physical and the absolute for it suggests that the absolute exists, and how can something without properties exist (using 'exist' in an everyday sense)?

I passed through monism on my way to the Buddhist view, but I could never make sense of it for these kinds of reasons, and because it does not seem to explain anything, does not lead to any understanding.

Light as we know it has the structure of transverse oscillation, whose wavelength by the way, is stretching as the universe expands. What if the ground state of light is some non-oscillating but vibrant condition, and not "particles" at all. When compressed it accentuates its vibratory quality, polarizes it, and "particlizes" it? When it decompresses enough I am suggesting it will lose its form and blend into an infinite continuum of formless ground state light.

Not sure I understand all that but I'd agree that light plays some fundamental role in cosmogeny. Let there be light and all that. However I don't agree that light can be truly fundamental, for logical reasons outlined (or hinted at) above.

That's a joke, right? Buddhist theory could fill a library.

Buddhist explanations and teachings could fill a library. However these are not based on theorising, they are based on experience. Of course skilled Buddhists theorise about all sorts of things, but if a skilled Buddhist says something is true then it is not an assertion based on a theory. Theoretical knowledge is not considered knowledge. Either you know or you don't.

Maybe the Buddha himself didn't theorize, but plenty of Buddhists have and still do speculate about the nature of things.

In a sense it's true that Buddhists theorise and speculate. But you won't find any of those theories or speculations in the literature. Theorising and conjecturing may be a means to an end, but if all one has is theory then one is not a skilled Buddhist.

But since you've brought up Buddhism, the Buddha did speak of a ground state, that's what we attain union with in "enlightenment." The monist conception very much fits with Buddhist thinking.

I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding, albeit a widespread one. Buddhism is very specifically not monism or dualism. This is why there are no unanswerable metaphysical questions in Buddhism (or Taoism etc). The logic is different. Bear in mind the constant references to the absolute as the 'one and many', or the two Brahmans etc. This is also the reason that the absolute cannot be characterised in words without self-contradiction.

I don't know the Suttras well but there's a great passage in one (Surangama) where the Buddha explains that not only does the absolute neither exist nor not-exist, but that it is a mistake to think either that it both exists and not-exists, or that it neither exists nor not-exists. It is something that cannot be characterised properly in dualistic terms (or any terms at all come to that).

I know how illogical that sounds but if you're into the issue of self-reference and axiomatic systems it can be explained logically, or perhaps 'meta-logically' is a better word. (This is what logician George Spencer-Brown's 'Laws of Form' was all about, and he turns out to be a friend of Wu Wu Wei, highly respected Advaita master).