Russell writes
> Sadly, your wish for the common sense understanding of "reality" to hold
> will be thwarted - the more one thinks about such things, the less
> coherent a concept it becomes.
Well, all that I ask is that the *basics* be kept firmly in mind
while we gingerly probe forward.
The basics (basic epistemology, that is) include
1. the map is not the territory, and perception is not reality
2. the words we have for things are not the things themselves,
but only labels
3. we must *not* use basic language and terminology that conflicts
with that used by twelve-year olds
> For most of us in this list, the 3+1 dimensional spacetime we inhabit,
> with its stars and galaxies etc is an appearance, phenomena emerging
> out of constraints imposed by the process of observation.
Right there is the problem. Let's focus on what you are *referring*
to in your first sentence: "the 3+1 spacetime with its stars and
galaxies". We must keep clear the difference between what you are
*referring* to and our observations of it, or our perceptions of it.
They're not at all the same thing.
So when you use the dread "is" and write "For most of us... the
spacetime *is* an appearance", we've already gone over the edge.
No. The spacetime that you probably meant is *not* an appearance,
and we should not talk about it as if it is an appearance. *It*
is whatever is out there. Yes, our understanding of it may be poor.
Yes, it may not be at all as we *think*. In fact, it cannot in
in any literal sense *be* what we *think*.
I'm just urging everyone to keep in mind this key difference,
that's all. If we lose the language of realism, we lose our
real ability to communicate. There is no longer any constraint
at all that keeps one's words having meaning to others.
I understand and appreciate your remaining remarks.
Lee
> For Kant, the noumenon, or Ding an Sich is "reality", and it could be
> completely unlike what we observe, or phenomenon. For most on this
> list, "reality" might refer to the laws of quantum mechanics, or the
> Multiverse, or even the various "Plenitudes" proposed. My particular
> Plenitude is the simplest possible object, it should really be called
> Nothing. If I were to use "reality", I'm more likely to be referring to the
> Multiverse, or an individual (observer relative) universe of
> phenomena. Consequently, I will mostly dispense with the term reality
> altogether, its too confusing.
>
> I may sometimes use the term "realism" to refer to the proposition
> that there exists an unexplainable noumenon to which phenomena can be
> causally related. "Idealism" contrasts this by asserting no such thing
> exists. This is largely how these terms are used in philosophy. I
> would usually say my "ontology of bitstrings" is idealistic, but
> then again, one could argue that the Plenitude _is_ the noumenon. This
> often manifests itself with Platonism being described as realist. So
> you could say these terms are incoherent too - perhaps I shall have to
> stop using them, oh bother!
>
> Cheers.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
> Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Received on Mon Jul 25 2005 - 22:06:34 PDT