What is Reality? Philosophers' Views

[Phred101.2]

The only thing we could really know is that we exist then. Nothing else.

Not so, we are in the world and we exist. We are observers and we are capable of logical processes because of our brains (and the evolution, the change that 'delivered' the mammal brain to the world), so we are compelled to think, to consider and understand it, because, if you like, that's "all we can do" about it.

 

[baywax]

Not so, we are in the world and we exist. We are observers and we are capable of logical processes because of our brains (and the evolution, the change that 'delivered' the mammal brain to the world), so we are compelled to think, to consider and understand it, because, if you like, that's "all we can do" about it.

So, is it the conclusion here that "what we are aware of is reality?"

Or does everything we are aware of and unaware of make up reality?

Decartes' seems to postulate that if we are aware of thinking then we exist and therefore this is the reality which often appears so elusive.

Awareness = reality.

However, there is the reality of the unknown. We may not be aware of it but it remains a reality of its own right. It is a component of uncertainty in that the unknown is the generator of uncertainty. And, although it is a condition we are vaguely aware of, we are unaware of its mechanisms and outcomes. So, there appears to be two realities, 1.) the reality of awareness and 2.) the reality of the unknown.

Or am I over complicating this... or over simplifying it?

 

[Phred101.2]

the reality of the unknown.

Strange as this sounds in a logical sense (how can an unknown -a virtual chunk of info- be real to us?), we have found out that matter has a property that, because of all those waves it's made out of, means it can "be" more than one wave, even when they are separated by a real distance (like the Andromeda galaxy. say).
We have managed to "keep" these things entangled (superposed) for short distances so far, but we're gradually improving the techniques and our ability to trap and harness this "virtually infinite" information resource. More than a few people think we are close to building a computer that can harness hundreds, or thousands of entangled states, and manipulate them reliably.
This will probably lead to a machine that resembles a brain a lot more closely, (IMO). The von Neumann architecture doesn't model what a brain does all that well. A network of them works more like a brain. Maybe networks of arrays of quantum dots and other nanoscale devices will be able to model a brain a lot more closely. Certainly they will be a resource that will redefine information processing...
In other words, we could be about to step through another new door -the storage of mind in a machine.

 

[setAI]

I am a proponent of something like Max Tegmark's Computable Universe Hypothesis [from http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ] which states that Reality is defined by computable causal systems and that only computable structures 'exist'- or more precisely computability IS existence- since only causal structures with logical/consistent/computable relations and rules can provide the medium of isotropic space and time for which a world and it's history could be physically expressed as real-

I also think that the implications of the Superpostion Principle mean that only systems with observers could said to be 'real' since if there are no observers a system is in total superpostion and not defined into any specific state- so Reality consists of the set of all algorithmically generated state histories with observers

 

[baywax]

I am a proponent of something like Max Tegmark's Computable Universe Hypothesis [from http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ] which states that Reality is defined by computable causal systems and that only computable structures 'exist'- or more precisely computability IS existence- since only causal structures with logical/consistent/computable relations and rules can provide the medium of isotropic space and time for which a world and it's history could be physically expressed as real-

I also think that the implications of the Superpostion Principle mean that only systems with observers could said to be 'real' since if there are no observers a system is in total superpostion and not defined into any specific state- so Reality consists of the set of all algorithmically generated state histories with observers

I can agree with this in that it takes computation to be aware. However, this model is biased toward known systems and doesn't take into account the fact that there are more ways that one to peel an orange. The unknown holds 99.99999999999999 (edit) percent more ways to do that.

 

[JoeDawg]

Math is proven to be 100% correct, in this world.

Correct about what?

 

[mww]

Hi guys, thanks to oldman for the great thread.

I guess this is all about definitions, like you were saying Descartes thought we needed. So let me put forward some intersubjective assumptions that we can just use as definitions for the term of my post and its potential replies. Let's call ourselves observers (as well as each other neural configuration that could self-awarely muse about this subject, whether alien or machine or uncommonly intelligent Earth insect). Let's also ignore whether anyone observer believes itself to be the most self-aware being and that it alone is responsible for the existence of the collective reality. Let's assume we're all equal in that regard. This assumption should not be too much a stretch since I believe I'm posting this post, and not you, just as you believe you are reading my post, and not me. It doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility that we are each, despite our possibly-differing aptitudes among various fields of study, on equal footing as far as having a consciousness that endows us with an observer status.

Despite not knowing the cause of its uniqueness, this observer status is apparently unique, since I am observing only with my senses right now and not yours. You may be eating a banana split right now; I am somehow excluded from that sensory perception, which is too bad because banana splits are awesome, so I tend to think that each observer status is independent. (And though we're not sure that ants can't observe out of each other's bodies, let's also assume that since humanity gets along fine without this ability, other lifeforms might too.)


I therefore offer one definition of reality to be that which persists for other observers after our own observer status ends.


When you accidentally step on an ant on your front porch, your own observer status is not affected (i.e., you continue to log experiences even though the ant doesn't seem to do so anymore; or at least, it doesn't seem to react to its experiences as enthusiastically as it once did). By the same reasoning, once we die, our friends should still be able to kick our body around and draw funny faces on it with a Sharpie or whatever they might do before the coroner arrives. For them, our body remains "real," in a way that it is no longer real to us since we are no longer able to enthusiastically react to them drawing a face on it. It is that nature of reality that I think at least constitutes one definition.

A fun contrast (to the other definitions you guys were coming up with) occurs upon the consideration of the destruction of all observers. Like, with all consciousnesses removed from all bodies (with each consciousness untethered from each body -- such that no sensory input is being inputted into any senses on any bodylike construct in existence), what would be real?

Using the consciousness-is-primary definition, nothing. No consciousness to say anything's real, so nothing is.
Using the above tether definition, plenty would be real. But then, no one would be reacting very enthusiastically to any of it.

 

[octelcogopod]

Right mww, but you still make an assumption that our body or the external world is still out there after we die.
In that same vein it can be said that nothing we see or do daily is real.
It may sound stupid, but you can't disprove it.

This is simply because nobody can define what reality is, although there are some good suggestions.
On a more down to Earth example, you can't prove what reality is simply because you will never see anything from anything but your associations in the brain, and your consciousness.
Solipsism will always be true, on a deeper level, it is everywhere, the possibility that everything that exists is just a figment of someones imagination.
I could be dreaming my in bed with complex computer equipment around my head, and none of this which has happened since birth is true, and as long as this possibility is here, we can never say /certain/ that for instance "the universe is just a large machine and we're in it as observers."
There can almost always be another story to it. I'm not saying I personally believe in this, but with the weak progress in consciousness and so forth, I really do believe there's a lot yet to explain before we try to create our own personal 'theory of everythings."

 

[baywax]

Hi guys, thanks to oldman for the great thread.

I guess this is all about definitions, like you were saying Descartes thought we needed. So let me put forward some intersubjective assumptions that we can just use as definitions for the term of my post and its potential replies. Let's call ourselves observers (as well as each other neural configuration that could self-awarely muse about this subject, whether alien or machine or uncommonly intelligent Earth insect). Let's also ignore whether anyone observer believes itself to be the most self-aware being and that it alone is responsible for the existence of the collective reality. Let's assume we're all equal in that regard. This assumption should not be too much a stretch since I believe I'm posting this post, and not you, just as you believe you are reading my post, and not me. It doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility that we are each, despite our possibly-differing aptitudes among various fields of study, on equal footing as far as having a consciousness that endows us with an observer status.

I enjoyed your post however it does not address the probablility of a type of consciousness that is in superposition and not tethered to the sequences found in past, present or future states. This mode of consciousness would require no beginning or end nor would it rely on birth or death but would exist inextricably from all other states, elements and events (if events is the right word when dealing with superposition). It would also not be bound by distance nor extremes of conditions but would be what has tirelessly been touted as "universal consciousness". This would be what I would call a combination of the 2 nows I mentioned earlier (the known and unknown nows).

 

[Phred101.2]

This mode of consciousness would require no beginning or end nor would it rely on birth or death but would exist inextricably from all other states, elements and events (if events is the right word when dealing with superposition). It would also not be bound by distance nor extremes of conditions but would be what has tirelessly been touted as "universal consciousness".

This looks a lot like Spinoza's "eternal mind", which, I concluded after skimming through his 'Ethics' stands for "all knowledge". In other words the record (external) of our observations and the learning (internal) that is required for the first to exist (knowledge is meaningless without mind).
Individual existence is possible because of the existence of others. This could mean that if you were the only individual (there were no "others") around to observe, then observation and learning would only be meaningful to you, so why bother to "record" it (externally)? In other words the "principle" of knowledge extends beyond the concept of individuality to a universal, even an infinite, notion. Then God and the unknown appear...

 

[mww]

Right mww, but you still make an assumption that our body or the external world is still out there after we die. Solipsism will always be true, on a deeper level, it is everywhere, the possibility that everything that exists is just a figment of someones imagination. I could be dreaming...with complex computer equipment around my head...

Yes, we have to make that assumption for just this one specific definition. What I'm saying is, if we do make that assumption, this single definition of reality (among the many possible definitions) equates to the complete and utter rejection of solipsism.

I'm definitely not trying to say this is an interesting definition -- quite the opposite. The tether definition is probably the first thing the cavemen philosophers thought of. If my twin brother gets stepped on by a mammoth and I'm still here, when I die these other cavemates of mine will probably live on. But the main problem I have with this definition is that it costs an unproductive amount of humility. To discard the notion that my reality feels to be revolving around me -- and to acknowledge that, instead, it is I who revolve, around a hard-and-fast reality that requires my consciousness as a part of it about as much as a fish requires a bicycle and a few spare bicycles in case the first one breaks -- doesn't promote self-worth.

Unfortunately if we look at each historical discovery about humanity's place in the universe, it does have inductively logical support. Primarily our discoveries would seem to seat us in a smaller and smaller cosmic throne, bringing us further and further down off of our supremacy pedestal. Heliocentrism enlightened us that we're not the center of the solar system, and so, not as important as we thought. Each further peering into the skies revealed that we're not really the center of anything. The ant, on the front porch of the cosmos.

But the tether definition is still less existentially blasé than solipsism. What need would a true solipsist have of progress for humanity if all humans are removed from existence upon the solipsist's death anyway?

Perhaps every plausible secular philosophy includes a pinch of existentialism, so that the challenge in our lives is to create good, earned value from an (albeit possibly high potential energy) initial state of very low significance.

I enjoyed your post however it does not address the probablility of a type of consciousness that is in superposition and not tethered to the sequences found in past, present or future states. This mode of consciousness would require no beginning or end nor would it rely on birth or death but would exist inextricably from all other states, elements and events...

Thanks baywax. It's true; it doesn't address this probability at all. And independence from the time frame really makes spontaneous timeline changes possible; a friend of mine likes to say that the dinosaurs didn't exist until he did, at which point the past rewrote itself to include dinosaurs. (He's a bastard: I liked dinosaurs first.)

 

[baywax]

This looks a lot like Spinoza's "eternal mind", which, I concluded after skimming through his 'Ethics' stands for "all knowledge". In other words the record (external) of our observations and the learning (internal) that is required for the first to exist (knowledge is meaningless without mind).
Individual existence is possible because of the existence of others. This could mean that if you were the only individual (there were no "others") around to observe, then observation and learning would only be meaningful to you, so why bother to "record" it (externally)? In other words the "principle" of knowledge extends beyond the concept of individuality to a universal, even an infinite, notion. Then God and the unknown appear...

Knowledge is an anthropomorphic and anthropocentric concept. Its our way of processing information. Information is another anthropomorphic way of quantifying events like when there is a super nova or an electron is lost from an atomic structure. These kinds of events take place with or without our knowledge of them. Yet, they take place and are part of the "fabric" of the overall universe. In quantum terms I couldn't tell you what's happening. But, events take place at the microscopic level as well. I'm still trying to figure out how an event or "change" takes place without the phenomenon of "sequence"... that is... when you take away the macroscopic condition of "time".

 

[Phred101.2]

events take place at the microscopic level as well.

Have you considered that even bacteria 'observe' their environment? Even something that 'tracks' chemical gradients must have the equivalent of a memory, or it would not be able to 'respond' to changes. Phototropic algae don't grow if there's no light, so do they "remember" where it is?
You could also say that an atom "communicates' with other atoms (with photons)...

 

[octelcogopod]

Great post mww!

I don't have much to add/criticize on this(nothing actually.)
But your point about worth made me think..
I personally find much more comfort in the fact that what I do is actually real to someone else in the same way it is real to me when something happens to me. In a solipsist existence one would not get this sense of "real."
A typical existing object/organism in the world doesn't have much worth outside of their immediate family or surroundings, but we each have the chance to create our own value, both for others and for ourselves.
Now this is a very interesting topic and should have its own thread or something, but it is a bit off topic.

What I can say though, is that all worth (even private ones that are only in the individual) are all emerged on the fact that they represent a real state somewhere else in the universe.
The worth happens because something is more or less worth it to YOU.
If solipsism was a fact of sorts, and that say the universe was created in my mind and nothing really meant anything because nobody else existed or something, then all values would really be null.
Worth, in the purest sense of the word, means that something is in some sense unique but mostly /important/ to /something or someone/

Examples could be as simple as love, but also things like doing something that affects something on an unusual scale etc.

I do believe then that we need to make the assumption that we do revolve around the world, but we can have so much worth for each other and for the things we do, that living on the idea that we can never really prove reality as existing completely outside of ourselves would destroy all value, and in the end ourselves.

Yes, we have to make that assumption for just this one specific definition. What I'm saying is, if we do make that assumption, this single definition of reality (among the many possible definitions) equates to the complete and utter rejection of solipsism.

I'm definitely not trying to say this is an interesting definition -- quite the opposite. The tether definition is probably the first thing the cavemen philosophers thought of. If my twin brother gets stepped on by a mammoth and I'm still here, when I die these other cavemates of mine will probably live on. But the main problem I have with this definition is that it costs an unproductive amount of humility. To discard the notion that my reality feels to be revolving around me -- and to acknowledge that, instead, it is I who revolve, around a hard-and-fast reality that requires my consciousness as a part of it about as much as a fish requires a bicycle and a few spare bicycles in case the first one breaks -- doesn't promote self-worth.

Unfortunately if we look at each historical discovery about humanity's place in the universe, it does have inductively logical support. Primarily our discoveries would seem to seat us in a smaller and smaller cosmic throne, bringing us further and further down off of our supremacy pedestal. Heliocentrism enlightened us that we're not the center of the solar system, and so, not as important as we thought. Each further peering into the skies revealed that we're not really the center of anything. The ant, on the front porch of the cosmos.

But the tether definition is still less existentially blasé than solipsism. What need would a true solipsist have of progress for humanity if all humans are removed from existence upon the solipsist's death anyway?

Perhaps every plausible secular philosophy includes a pinch of existentialism, so that the challenge in our lives is to create good, earned value from an (albeit possibly high potential energy) initial state of very low significance.



Thanks baywax. It's true; it doesn't address this probability at all. And independence from the time frame really makes spontaneous timeline changes possible; a friend of mine likes to say that the dinosaurs didn't exist until he did, at which point the past rewrote itself to include dinosaurs. (He's a bastard: I liked dinosaurs first.)

 

[baywax]

Its fairly obvious that "change" is relative and what we see as "change" is actually our own awareness of our own roving observations and focus . There are conditions and potentials for anything to be taking place at any "time" and "anywhere" and its more than likely they were, are and will be. It's our subjective nature that renders those conditions and potentials in a sequence by way of a point of view. Therefore, change, like many other attributes of existence, is a subjectively determined phenomenon and not a constant as has been proposed. So, in this light, reality takes on the air of a simultaneity of function and basically contradicts what we accept as the normal 'way of seeing'.