Re: free-will

"John Ashby" <j.v.ashby@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


"boots" <no@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:vhesu3lcp0lvg1uobj28arnogg9cmq91km@xxxxxxxxxx
John Ashby <J.V.Ashby@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

boots wrote:

John Ashby <J.V.Ashby@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

As a scientist you presumably believe there
is an objective reality which science seeks to model as closely as
possible

The debate over whether an objective reality exists or can be known
has been going on for some time now. The existence of an objective
reality is not a prerequisite for the practice of the scientific
method.

No, but the non-existence of an objective reality makes the practise
that much harder since all assumptions about consistency are up for
grabs.

The assumption that an objective reality extends no farther
than the physical is an unfalsifiable premise.


You will, of course, note that I did not attempt to circumscribe
objective reality in the way you suggest. However, our only route to
explore reality is through its physical manifestations, if only because
we are ourselves physical beings. Any part of objective reality which
has no physical manifestation has no impact on us and cannot be known.
Discussing it is farting in the wind.

At some level it is farting in the wind.

Nobody has seen an atomic particle yet we believe they exist, and we
use complex electro-mechanical devices to obtain what information
about them our crude tools let us glean, then we use inference and
deduction to organize the data and build what we hope will be
falsifiable theories about them that have some predictive usefulness.


When we say we believe in sub-atomic particles, that is a shorthand for
saying we believe in the predictive and explicative power of the standard
model. Whether or not they exist outside the Platonic cave is moot, but the
shadows on the cave wall behave as though they exist.

Those shadows flicker in a way that indicates to me that the cave is
inside a mountain casting its own shadows, that the shadows cast by
the fire within the cave are comparative trivialities even though they
flicker predictably and hold the attention of those restricted to the
cave.

It seems possible that we could similarly use logic to build
falsifiable theories about portions of objective reality that are
beyond the physical, assuming that they somehow impinge upon the
physical.

?

Sunlight is a complex spectrum, and some of its components can
penetrate a mountain and affect the flickering of shadows within its
cave. The fact that a man within the cave may detect no motion within
a bowl of water, that does not negate the fact that the relative
motion of the moon affects water within the cave.

Your statement "any part of objective reality which
has no physical manifestation has no impact on us and cannot be known"
seems to contain the assumption that all parts of objective reality
must necessarily have a -direct- physical manifestation in order to be
real. I find that assumption to be not necessarily true, and if taken
as a belief (allowed under one's radar so to speak) it seems limiting.


If you *find* that assumption to be not necessarily true, then you will be
able to describe a piece of objective reality that can be demonstrated a) to
exist and b) to have no direct physical manifestation.

There is a point along the curve between perceiving only noise, and
having fully developed theories of how and why the data within what
was considered noise fluctuates predictably, at which one recognizes
that the noise is more than noise. At that point one can point out
that the noise is, or masks, a form of data without necessarily having
additional details to demonstrate. I do *find* the above-referenced
assumption open to question, and eventually I hope to demonstrate
something, but at the moment I am looking at a bowl of water and
asking why it is moving.

I suspect, however, that you merely *believe* it not to be true.

Let's skip past the endless debate between what is belief and what is
knowledge, I think we both grasp the difference.

It seems like a matter of boundaries and where they're set, or
presumed to exist. If all of physical reality is only a portion of
objective reality it seems that things may be different than they
appear. A few hundred years ago we had no tools to use in gathering
data from portions of objective reality about which now we have
theories we've been unable to disprove and that have predictive
usefulness.

In those days discussing quantum physics would have been farting in
the wind, wouldn't it?


No, because it would have made predictions about physical behaviour that
could in principle be tested, even if the experiments could not be done at
that time. Tell me how I can do an experiment (in principle, it can be a
gedankenexperiment) on non-physical objective reality without a mediating
physical effect and you might have something.

"Mamma always said" that if you keep digging long enough you will find
the bottom of the hole, but if you get bored and walk away you might
as well leave the shovel in the shed and take a nap. You may never
know what you're gonna get when you pick a chocolate, but I've found
that the rounded ones tend to be softer and sometimes contain
cherries. I don't think that's as "random" as it seems.

--
superstitious heathen grade 8
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To what do the laws of physics apply?
    ... There is the subjective reality of our conscious experience and the ... the notion of an "objective reality" may be nothing more that the ... The principles, theories, and laws of physics apply only to the ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Abiogenesis
    ... atoms, or neurons firing, or signals-a-processing. ... When you say it is all nothing but atoms, I point out that physics is ... There is no objective reality there. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Original Sin
    ... "objective reality", in the sense we're using the term, is an absolute ... it, as classical physics is. ... of quantum mechanics was a watershed experience for scientific ... On personal experience discussing with some scientists, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: free-will
    ... The debate over whether an objective reality exists or can be known ... has no physical manifestation has no impact on us and cannot be known" ... In those days discussing quantum physics would have been farting in ... because it would have made predictions about physical behaviour that ...
    (misc.writing)