Page 447 of 449 FirstFirst ... 347397437445446447448449 LastLast
Results 13,381 to 13,410 of 13457

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #13381
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,556
    Maybe philosophizing about philosophy is really metaphilosophy, so there isn't a problem.

  2. #13382
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    Metaphilosophy is clearly philosophy, just like theorems about math are also math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck
    I'm also philosophizing if I say that philosophy has value, so all I'm really saying is that philosophy has value if philosophy has value.
    The issue is not whether philosophy has no value (that's up to the individual), it's whether or not it can be logically argued that it has no value. That argument is what is logically specious, by Aristotle's proof. Yet many, poor at logic, attempt the argument all the same. You can see it every time you encounter the phrases "navel gazing" or "just semantics"-- whenever I see those words, I know I am looking at the specious argument yet again. Only when one is not compelled by logic may one may pick and choose when to be unbothered by blatant contradictions.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Sep-30 at 12:37 PM.

  3. #13383
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    444
    I came across an interesting article about myths and the future of science that is interesting reading.

    https://theconversation.com/science-...-thrive-124214
    In my own life, the popular myths of great scientists fed a culture that cherished curiosity as a good all on its own. We need to develop these stories, curating them by selecting those that are appropriate and developing new ones that make useful points. As scientists, with a commitment to the truth, we should also ensure that they are accurate representations of reality that also reflect the collective endeavour, rather than the supposed genius of a few white men.

    All cultures need their myths, and each lab needs its lore.

  4. #13384
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    It's really no different from giving Napolean sole credit for conquering Europe in early 1800 or Hitler sole blame for the atrocities of the 1940s. We seek to simplify the story by picking a few key figures and pretending they did everything, completely ignoring all the inputs they took from others, and all the complicities of others, all along the way. It's more about how we do history than how we do science.

  5. #13385
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,739
    If you look at the intellectual shift from proving or finding truth toward failure to disprove or falsify an hypothesis, as suggested by Karl Popper, who i think called himself a philosopher, then the role of philosophy becomes clear as a starting point in science rather than armchair musings. It seems to me that Popper is not universally accepted but supports the MDR hypothesis.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  6. #13386
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    Yes, people always tend toward the most simplistic, even naive, interpretations of everything. So when interpreting science, we always hear about the "search for truth" or the "ultimate answer", when actually science just doesn't work that way at all. Instead, it is about making working hypotheses that hold up for awhile in various contexts, until we find their weaknesses (via falsification) and are thus inspired to create better hypotheses. Notice I never mentioned "truth" at all! Now, of course we don't want to have to run from that word, we do want to have a sense that we are making progress, and that our scientific claims of today are "much more true" than what the ancient Greeks thought, for example. But what this actually requires is a more sophisticated understanding of the entire concept of "scientific truth" than what most people, quite frankly, are willing to embark on. Instead, we often see language that actually seems to imagine that although science has been a process throughout history, for some reason today it is a destination. Since the ancient Greeks would also have thought that, this attitude would seem to be an area where we have made quite minimal progress.

  7. #13387
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,556
    Now I can't click on the "I'm not a robot" boxes without realizing that I don't actually know this to be true. Thanks, MDR.

  8. #13388
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Now I can't click on the "I'm not a robot" boxes without realizing that I don't actually know this to be true. Thanks, MDR.
    But you can still click the box, even though you don't know you're not a robot, because "I'm not a robot" doesn't mean you're not a robot, it means you have satisfied the purpose of saying you're not a robot-- which is much more important. This is the key message of MDR thinking-- it's not what is "actually true" that matters, because that's not what matters to us. It might not even make any sense at all-- given how completely inaccessible is that notion!

  9. #13389
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,556
    But it gives the impression that I do know. That's dishonest.

  10. #13390
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    444
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    This is the key message of MDR thinking-- it's not what is "actually true" that matters, because that's not what matters to us. It might not even make any sense at all-- given how completely inaccessible is that notion!
    From "The Nature of Space and Time" lecture series by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.

    Chapter Seven - The Debate

    These lectures have shown very clearly the difference between Roger and me. He's a Platonist and I'm a positivist. He's worried that Schrodinger's cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what reality is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.
    The late Stephen Hawking and Ken G are not describing MDR because the 'R' part, reality, is not a necessary part of their scientific models (SMDW - Scientific Method Dependent Whatever).

  11. #13391
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    But it gives the impression that I do know. That's dishonest.
    But I am not a robot is a belief statement within MDR and you are entitled to beliefs.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  12. #13392
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,556
    But I don't believe. I'm just claiming it. If it's true that's just a coincidence.

  13. #13393
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    How about this formulation: existence is what is out there. Reality is existence interpreted by consciousness?
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2019-Nov-11 at 06:51 PM.

  14. #13394
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,739
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    How about this formulation: existence is what is out there. Reality is existence interpreted by consciousness?
    For you maybe but not for me, how about: Reality is the predictive model I make to make sense of being conscious of being. Existence is an assumption that comes to mind that needs no predictions. Too long? Yes it’s too long for a haiku. But adopting 17 as an expression of reality may be too numerological.?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  15. #13395
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    For you maybe but not for me, how about: Reality is the predictive model I make to make sense of being conscious of being. Existence is an assumption that comes to mind that needs no predictions. Too long? Yes it’s too long for a haiku. But adopting 17 as an expression of reality may be too numerological.?
    The reality is that we will never agree.

  16. #13396
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,739
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    The reality is that we will never agree.
    Indeed that uncertainty seems to be a feature of reality! :-)
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  17. #13397
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    But it gives the impression that I do know. That's dishonest.
    You could use the same argument about your own name-- do you know that? (Of course not, not if you have the standard of "knowing" that there can be no chance of error, but of course there is a chance of error-- you might have had a stroke last night and not know it, or a schizophrenic incident, and have come to believe your name is something other than what it is. Or you could have had a different name on your birth certificate, but an error was made when you were young and so you were led to an erroneous idea about your own name.) So if we have established that you don't know you're not a robot, and you don't know your own name either, then you can no more say "I am not a robot" than you can fill in the place in the form where you put your name.

    The solution to all this comes in what we mean when we click a box or fill in a blank. We never mean "I know this in some absolute way", we just mean, "these are what I mean by statements of truth in my MDR." That's knowing, but it never means you can be sure, and it never means there is some absolute truth there. Instead, it means something more like "I'd wager 100 dollars against 1 that you cannot establish I am wrong about this."

  18. #13398
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    How about this formulation: existence is what is out there. Reality is existence interpreted by consciousness?
    The reason that formulation would be so useful to make the key point of MDR is that I claim if you take those meanings (which you can, they are your words after all), then it will be easy to demonstrate you never use the "existence" version at all, you only ever use the "reality" version. This is a way to frame the crux of the MDR hypothesis. You can hold to "existence" as a belief, or something you "feel in your bones" if you wish, but if you never use it to verify any predictions, then it is not part of science and is not "useful" in the sense of informing any life decisions. However, like any belief, you can choose to hold it to be true all the same, not all is scientific inference. Of course, if you dissect the reasons that you are so choosing, you will be back to confronting the vagaries of your own mind, and your belief in existence will be seen to be part of your reality in the sense you have defined it.

  19. #13399
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    "So, "I exist" or "the universe exists" is just a belief?

  20. #13400
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,739
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    "So, "I exist" or "the universe exists" is just a belief?
    I notice the word “just” there, as if beliefs are unimportant. The fact that belief cannot be tested by science does not make belief insignificant. All or most human decisions are taken using emotion and emotion is generated by the interoceptive model we have in mind, mostly unconsciously. Belief comes from there too, it’s the basis of human existence. Knowledge from science is different because it makes communicable predictions, and predictions based on knowledge are useful too. That first step, “I exist”, how else could you categorise it? Is it not inside your mind?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  21. #13401
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    "So, "I exist" or "the universe exists" is just a belief?
    Not the way I use the term "belief," but then I have a very specific meaning in mind. For me, when I say that I exist I mean that I have built a concept of what I am, and I have built a concept of what I mean by existence, and then I notice all kinds of evidence that the two concepts connect in the right way to form the new concept "I exist." That's not a belief, that's the process of what I mean by knowing, but it has nothing to do with a degree of certainty in the result, because the whole thing is a conceptual construction that I have tested, just like any scientific theory. Can someone know a scientific truth? In my sense of "know", yes they can, but the way many other people use the word "know" (requiring 100% certainty), then knowing is always impossible, it's simply not something a human mind can do. So their meaning is nonsense, even though it is the common meaning.

    As for the meaning of "believe", what many people seem to mean only deviates from "know" by their own degree of certainty. It is as though they say they "believe" something is true if they would wager $100 against someone else's $100, and they say they "know" it's true if they would wager $100 against someone else's $1. But I think the reason we need different words for know and believe is much more than degrees of certainty, after all it's pretty subjective how much someone would wager or what they regard as how sure they are. Instead, I look at the process by which they are saying that something is true. If the process is one that requires objective evidence, then we are in the continuum that spans from "pretty sure" to "know", and the marks along that continuum are marks of degree of evidence. But if the process is one that does not ask for objective evidence, but rather has a more subjective character (I "feel it in my bones"), then we are in the continuum of belief, leading from "like to imagine" to "am completely committed to against all attacks." So classic examples of what I'm talking about are science and religion. Science is about testing, and a scientific thinker values skepticism and welcomes observational challenges to what is held to be true. Religion is about faith, and a faithful adherent abhors skepticism and sees no value in observational challenges. In fact, the faithful person regards it as a measure of strength of faith as to what challenges the faith can survive, whereas a scientist who holds to a theory against contrary evidence is regarded as a poor scientist. So that's the difference between what I mean by "knowledge" vs. "belief." It's not necessarily one that is good and one that is bad, they have their different purposes. It is only necessary to notice the difference!

    So when someone says "I exist", we must dig deeper into their meaning before we can understand if they are stating something they know, or something they choose to believe. We must look at the context, how the statement works in practice. Many people will claim, a la DesCartes, that the statement "I exist" is something you can know more surely than anything else you can say, but if you ask them what they mean by the statement, they can say almost nothing! In other words, they can be sure the statement is true only because they have no real idea what they are saying. Ambiguity is easily mistaken for certainty. A statement that you can be absolutely certain is true to the point that you have no interest in testing it is a scientifically meaningless statement, and on those grounds I would say "I exist", the way most people mean it but not the way I mean it, is scientifically meaningless. When one is not thinking scientifically, one can choose to believe that the statement holds some form of absolute truth, and then it is a belief.

    To give the statement some scientific usefulness, one needs to go much deeper, and give the words operational meanings. Starting with "I", we need to give an operational meaning to what we mean by that word. And as we try to do that, we quickly find all kinds of difficulties with the phrase "I exist." For example, think about yourself when you were 10 years old. You have lots of evidence that this person did in fact exist, so you can say "I know that me at 10 years old did exist," and it is a statement of scientific truth, based on evidence. But the kind of evidence that you would use to sustain that knowledge is completely different from the evidence most people invoke when they say "I exist right now." The latter statement is a statement of conscious awareness, an awareness you simply don't possess in regard to your 10-year-old self. Not only are you not consciously aware of your 10-year-old self, you probably don't even remember being consciously aware as that person, you only can call to mind images of events that happened to you, sights or sounds or smells, but not a memory of the person that was experiencing those sights and sounds and smells. You experience those sensations more in the way the person you are now would experience them, so your current existence is of a different nature than what you mean when you say you existed when you were 10 years old. Ironically, the evidence you bring to the 10-year-old is objective scientific evidence (memories, photographs, written documents, etc.), whereas this thing that so many claim they are so sure of, that they "exist now", has none of that evidence going for it, it is pretty much 100% subjective in character. So what are they saying, that something they can "know in their bones" but cannot cite any objective evidence of and have no interest in testing, is the thing they know most of all? Then the thing they know most of all is not scientific in character, it is something that is actually a useless statement if it is trying to be a scientific truth. Yet it is a statement we find great value in choosing to belief-- the statement "I exist" the way people normally use it has all the signatures of a chosen belief. Yet that fact would come as a pretty big surprise to most people, I wager!
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Nov-14 at 06:12 PM.

  22. #13402
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    So, I will rephrase it: I exist.

  23. #13403
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    And by "I", you likely mean "that being that can tell it exists", and by "exist", you mean "that property that I can tell I possess." Which is just my point-- the statement means nothing, it is merely an unsuccessful attempt to get beyond simple experience and assign attributes to that experience. You could just as well make an intentional grunt-- it says all the same things.

  24. #13404
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    And by "I", you likely mean "that being that can tell it exists", and by "exist", you mean "that property that I can tell I possess." Which is just my point-- the statement means nothing, it is merely an unsuccessful attempt to get beyond simple experience and assign attributes to that experience. You could just as well make an intentional grunt-- it says all the same things.
    By “I”, I mean me. The “me” responding to your post. How can a non-existent entity participate in this forum?

  25. #13405
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    By “I”, I mean me. The “me” responding to your post.
    So am I talking to the person who responded to my post right now, or someone else? I mean, if you saw my post now and responded, maybe your response would be a little different, so how do I know which person you mean? No doubt you regard yourself now as that same person, so you have an entire model in mind there as to who "you" are. The model is based on ideas you have about past and present, about physical continuity, and about what memories mean. It's a complex model and it works well for most of us, but of course there are many ways this model can get challenged-- like all models it has its limits. All I want you to see is that it is quite clearly a model that informs your meaning of "I". So that's the point, you have only two options-- either by "I" you mean a model with deep meaning, involving various attributes you could explore and challenge in a myriad of ways, or you can mean something that requires no model and doesn't actually mean much at all, and meaning nothing it can neither be explored or challenged.
    How can a non-existent entity participate in this forum?
    Of course any entity that posts to a forum exists, because that's just what we mean by that word. It must exist in some sense of the word, the question is what sense of the word. A bot can post to a forum, so a bot exists, right? But a bot does not exist like you do, correct? So "existence" is not a property that entities either possess or they don't possess, it is a word, and it can have a whole bunch of different meanings. The issue is never if an entity exists, it is always what do you mean when you say the entity exists.

  26. #13406
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,375
    This is a case of “analytical thinking” vs “intuitive thinking:. The western world has promoted analytical thinking to the detriment of intuitive thinking. Yet intuition and gut feeling, however, are valid despite being disparged; this attitude is based on a myth of cognitive progress. Emotions are not dumb responses that need to be ignored or even corrected by cognitive processes. Emotions are appraisal of what one has just experienced or thought of, in this sense also a form of rapid information processing.
    This discussion is an example of how analytical thinking can create confusion. Intuitive thinking lets me know I exist, while analytical thinking puts the question of existence in doubt.

  27. #13407
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,823
    No one is disparaging intuitive thinking. Indeed, it is only you who have disparaged analytical thinking! All I'm doing is applying analytical thinking, which simply means, looking closer. An intuitive thinker can look at a meteor and say "wow, that's cool." An analytical thinker can look closer, and ask, "what is that?" Note the analytical thinker never says "no, that isn't cool, it's a fleck of space dust moving at incredibly high speed." Instead, they say "yeah, that's cool, it's a fleck of space dust moving at incredibly high speed."
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu
    Intuitive thinking lets me know I exist, while analytical thinking puts the question of existence in doubt.
    Precisely-- because the question that is not in doubt is no question at all. You can only know that you exist by not having any precise idea of what you are saying. Looking closer always means you see what you can know, and what you cannot know. Some don't like that, but it's the truth. The truth is often unpopular.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Nov-20 at 01:24 AM.

  28. #13408
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,465
    As has been said, there are many ways to frame what we mean by existence and all involve a cognitive process which by definition places the notion of existence as being a product of the mind. But I wonder if there is a way in which to define an "intrinsic" concept of existence using (obviously) a MD process but nevertheless manages to place the "intrinsic" concept in a manner that is somewhat detached from (in a very subtle manner) from the scientific MD process.

    We routinely use thought to change our notion of things and will often in science change descriptive notions of models as more appropriate pictures get developed. But we cannot use thought alone to change the physical world, we cannot "think" a tree to not exist. So perhaps a basic definition of an "intrinsic" property of existence would encompass any object that cannot be manipulated out of existence by thought alone. That definition doesn't in itself offer any notion of a MI absolute existence of objects of course, rather it simply partitions them within a framework of MDR.

    So the tree in front of us has an intrinsic property of existence, we cannot "think" it out of existence. But we can (and do) use thought to define it, categorise it, establish processes such as photosynthesis in order to understand it etc. This "intrinsic" property is not at all to be thought of as an absolute intrinsic property as per representative realism, rather it simply offers a reliable definition within a framework of MDR. The scientific model of MDR cannot account for the inability of thought to have any action upon the physical world but what it can do is to include a submodel with no explanatory substance accounting for this aspect. That of course is not without precedence at all in scientific models, the two slit experiment for example models the interaction of particles after the slit in terms of wave interference, but offers a non explanatory sub model to account for one particle interfering with itself. That submodel is not excluded from the overall model, it is simply accepted as (at present) being an unexplainable element of the overall model. It is perhaps possible that a philosophical account could be offered for a single particle interfering with itself (and offering a different insight) that could sit side by side with the existing submodel, both would be philosophical after all. That's not to suggest at all of course that the two slit experiment should not have this submodel, it is there for completeness and of course further development. It could be that in time the submodel attains a scientific substance that would render the philosophical account of one particle interfering with itself as obsolete, but until such time as that happens the philosophical account would have equal validity. (I use the above as an example of what follows, I have no suggestion of any useful philosophical account of a particle interfering with itself).

    In the same vein, perhaps the sub model (which has been outlined in detail in this thread previously, I have no idea where though) described for MDR could be philosophically extrapolated to suggest a philosophical departure from the model as an aid to give a definition of an "intrinsic" existence within the confines of the MDR model but making use of the sub model which has no scientific substance (as yet). The sub model offers no explanatory account for the physical world to be unaffected by thought alone but is included in the overall scientific model for completeness and of course for future development of the model. But until such time I am suggesting that, within the model of MDR, we can define an "intrinsic" existence as being a property of anything that cannot be changed by thought alone. It of course is a philosophical definition, but the sub model within the scientific model of MDR is also philosophical. Until such time as we find out why thoughts alone cannot change the physical world, I think it prudent to keep the MDR model intact by retaining the submodel but allow for the possibility that we may never establish the mechanism within this sub model and so legitimately carry by the side of it the philosophical definition of "intrinsic" existence described.

  29. #13409
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,739
    There is no qualifier for non existent, so the use of the word exist implies that subtle existence but surely it is in mind. As had been said many times, to imply independent existence is an unknowable interpretation of perceived phenomena. That leaves what we call external existence as a belief while predictions and observations about it can be free of belief.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  30. #13410
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    There is no qualifier for non existent, so the use of the word exist implies that subtle existence but surely it is in mind. As had been said many times, to imply independent existence is an unknowable interpretation of perceived phenomena. That leaves what we call external existence as a belief while predictions and observations about it can be free of belief.
    To be very clear, I am not advocating an independent existence outside of phenomena at all (it is very important to appreciate this point), rather I am highlighting a distinction of a basic notion of existence to that of a description of existence, all within the MDR framework. The scientific model of MDR deals very well with the description of existence via a cognitive process but is not able scientifically to account for the inability of thought by itself to "un exist" an object.

    So whilst the scientific model of MDR can scientifically account for the notion of a basic "intrinsic" existence (i.e. we use cognitive reasoning to think of and imagine a basic "intrinsic" existence), that same reasoning cannot "un unexist" the tree in front of me. There is therefore a partition within the model of MDR between these two aspects of a basic "intrinsic" notion of existence - the latter notion of MDR being unable to "un exist" the tree is accounted for by means of a submodel with no explanatory mechanism (yet). It could in the future have an explanatory mechanism, but until that happens it is like a "black box" within the main model (which is perfectly legitimate as was explained in my post).

    ETA:

    This line of thought seemn to highlight the "top down" approach of the MDR model - it correctly accounts scientifically for our MD notions of existence but cannot account scientifically for a basic level of existence whereby thought alone has absolutely no influence in which to "un exist" the tree in front of me. So we are left with a MDR as a "passive" entity acting upon a basic level of "intrinsic" existence that does not form part of the scientific model. That basic level is thus a belief structure in terms of the MDR model in it's self, but in terms of the application of the MDR model, it surely has to be something real, otherwise the model could not act on it (or at least it would be acting on a belief). If MDR was considered an "active" entity whereby it was responsible for the basic "intrinsic" notion of existing, then being active it could "un exist" that which was existing, but MDR cannot do any such thing.

    There is a quote from Bernard d'Espagnat in his book "On Physics and Philosophy" where he says "existence precedes knowledge" (not I hasten to add in any context of conventional representative form of realism). In a way I think what I describe above relates to this perhaps in that the model of MDR seems to ultimately reduce to this - it cannot relegate a basic notion of existence to belief because then the scientific body of the model would be acting on a belief (given that the model cannot scientifically account for this basic notion). If we go from the bottom up, existence in its basic form is not a belief but rather precedes, as a definite entity, knowledge of that existence (knowledge which is shown by the MDR model to be dependent on the mind).
    Last edited by Len Moran; 2019-Nov-20 at 11:25 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •