An argument for the subjectivity of reality through simple mathematics

Philosophy
61

I would disagree with that in principle. IMO, mathematics are a function of logical operations and I believe the universe is a logical construct. IOW mathematical functions are an inherent essence of spacetime geometry.
(this factual observation is being proved every day in science)
“Mathematics is the language of the Universe” _ Galileo Galilei

I do agree that the environment places pressures on logical operations and can be responsible for abberant behaviors in otherwise mathematically precise functions.

ab·er·rant
adjective

departing from an accepted standard.
“this somewhat aberrant behavior requires an explanation”

BIOLOGY

diverging from the normal type.
“aberrant chromosomes”

Optics and physics

Optical aberration, an imperfection in image formation by an optical system
Chromatic aberration, caused by differences in refractive index for different wavelengths of light, in contrast with monochromatic aberration, which occurs for all frequencies of light
Spherical aberration, which occurs when light rays pass through a spherical lens near the edge
Defocus aberration, which occurs when a system is out of focus
Astronomical aberration, which produces an apparent motion of celestial objects
Relativistic aberration, the distortion of light at high velocities

But I believe this sums up my perspective.

Universality about truth

A truth is considered to be universal if it is logically valid in and also beyond all times and places . … The patterns and relations expressed by mathematics in ways that are consistent with the fields of logic and mathematics are typically considered truths of universal scope.
(Universality (philosophy) - Wikipedia)

62

“true” shapes?

Where does that one come from?

Your brain won’t let you see shapes???

Please do explain.

63

I did not say shapes. I said “shades”, like “lighter” and "darker shades.

We know the squares are square. Of course we can make a case that squares viewed at irregular placements no longer look square. But that is an optical illusion you can overcome by inspecting each square separately.

image

https://www.algonquincollege.com/mdstudentsuccess/2016/10/11/5967/

OTOH. in the chess board illustration, the shade of gray of square B is the exact same shade as square A, but you brain will not allow you to see them as the same shade . This is an evolved hardwired survival mechanism.

64

I think I understand your perspective of being able to recognize what the neurally transmitted data represents.
I’m sorry, but I see it from the perspective that the brain doesn’t see , touch, taste or smell anything at all. Everything the brain experiences is imaginary, hallucinatory, regardless if there is something there or not. Without eyes the brain would be totally blind, but could still imagine trees if it had memories of trees.

I see it from the perspective of a computer receiving binary data and constructing a hallucinatory picture on the monitor. The computer does not make the observation itself (the camera does), but it is able to reconstruct the binary electronic data into a comprehensive whole. Nothing bad or clinical about it.
It’s just that the brain can only imagine what is there from the electrochemical data, without actually observing the exterior reality, first-hand.

How would you respond if Anil Seth had used the term ‘imaginary’ instead of "hallucinatory’?

65

I see the brain as more than the gray matter in the skull, and I think most neuroscientist wouldn’t disagree. Though they might school me to better understanding the implications and limitations of what I’m saying.

Again it’s that Earth Centrist thing I totally rail against the casual divisions and boundaries we draw all over stuff we don’t even fully understand.

It’s an integral system where all the components arouse in sync and depend on each other - and if a component gets damaged or destroyed others need to fill in the void. If too much gets damaged the system dies.

Also I have to catch myself,
because I do agree that our minds do do a lot of hallucinating when it comes to dealing with other minds and their constructions, as opposed to dealing with other representatives of Physical Reality.

Which is why I keep getting back to the need for better recognizing and appreciating that divide between “Physical Reality” and our “Mindscapes.”

1 Like
66

Oh dear, I’ve left some stuff out that I shouldn’t have - one could argue “planning” is a form of hallucination . . .

so complex “thinking” is a form of hallucinating, if one wants to play it that way . . .

But, when it comes to “sensing” - that’s processing incoming information, with algorithms, filtering and composing data into images . . . (Of course with the quality of the images, dependent on the quality of the instrument.)

The problem with the intellectual predators for fun and profit is when they use what’s going on within our senses and minds, to imply that the physical world out there is something subjective.

Without pointing out the all important - That it’s “OUR PERCEPTION” that’s a subjective rendering of the outside reality

1 Like
67

This is an incomplete equation.

It should read:
a) 1 +1 = 2 x 1
b) 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 x 1

The fully developed equation yields the same value but by different means
The left side is an addition and yields a sum
The right side is a multiplication and yields a product.

The result of a multiplication operation is called a product . The multiplication of whole numbers may be thought of as a repeated addition; that is, the multiplication of two numbers is equivalent to adding as many copies of one of them, the multiplicand, as the quantity of the other one, the multiplier.
Multiplication - Wikipedia

68

I think we are really close .

I completely agree.

This is why I am so intrigued with Tegmark, who rejects the notion that an extra ingredient is needed for “consciousness”, as implied by Wigner’s “hard question” of consciousness.

Tegmark posits that instead of asking the hard question without knowing what we are asking for, we and most other Eukaryotic life forms already have all the necessary equipment and configuration in our neural - brain networks for an “emergent” consciousness and that we should be concentrating on the “hard facts” which can be established by closer examination of the brain processes and its interaction with the body’s neural network. The hard fact is that we ARE CONSCIOUS and therefore must have all the necessary ingredients for consciousness.

I believe science has already found at least one common denominator data processor present in all conscious organisms. Microtubules.

Microtubules are variable electrochemical data processors and should answer to the natural laws of electrochemical physics ( mathematical functions).
hence the natural alliance of an anesthesiologist (Hameroff) and a physicist (Penrose)

Hameroff and Penrose are advancing the concept of emergent consciousness in their Theory of ORCH OR (orchestrated objective reduction)

see Are Microtubules the Brain of the Neuron

But that is a whole thread in itself.
see The electrical blueprints that orchestrate life | Michael Levin - #14 by write4u

69

Because that’s what the article is about? And the article is about that because 1+1 = 2 has always been quoted as an objective fact as opposed to a subjective opinion. .

70

Not sure what you’re responding to here @kumarrsushil501. You can use the features that select text and let you quote things. You should have a message from “discobot”, that’s an automated help that can give you an intro to the forum interface.

71

Yes, the equation: a + a = 2a is an objective logical axiom.

Do you agree?

72

I finally finished this, and this one came up, so I watched it.

It was more than a great overview, although if you knew none of this, it would be a great intro. If you know Einstein and Leibniz and everything else, there still might be something for you, and it puts them into one big story. There’s also a background narrative of a mythical last civilization, surviving to the end of time, that’s figured it all out.

It starts out with this interesting quote

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_archibald_wheeler_201717?fbclid=IwAR3AxL4sB0f4CDmYBgbL3s8kJ3Zu-8KDpDvYTaifMefu9ZKX0XHzpWrFDeM

Maybe there is some concept, like evolution, or climate, or electromagnetism, that is eluding us now, but soon will be common knowledge. But this quote is missing some context. Who is it referring to as “we”. We live a world of rapid change, and many have been left out these recent discoveries and are not grasping them. They might be stupid, or just ignorant. This leads to a lot of frustration for those who are asking, “how can so many be so stupid?”

73

“Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it - in a decade, a century, or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?”

John Archibald Wheeler

He’s playing to his audience. :slight_smile:

When I think of all the mind blowing scientific achievements,
that have happened during my life time, seems to me there’s a consistent theme.
New discoveries astound, but, seems to me, once the recognition is absorbed in context with the whole that we’ve already learned about,
it’s not so much “How stupid we were?”,
but “How could it have been any different?”

I guess some could say that’s the same thing, but I don’t think so.

What about questioning that inner demand for “certainty” that so pervades western thinking? The assumptions that, we are the smartest, and not only have the ability to understand everything, not just that, but a god given right, if not duty.

Or the Godly demand that has permeated every aspect of our lives, business, science, religions
Be fruitful and subdue the Earth
(We’re just beginning to find out what a bad plan (Faustian Bargain :thinking:) that was.)

Back to philosophy (constructive or stultifying) and understanding our selves, this planet, and this time we live in.

I don’t believe in certainty, what I do believe in is consistency, and harmony, and fractals, and constructive cascading consequences as the self-evidence reality of nature’s “structure” along with her “ways & means”
There is much to learn from all we observe.

Sure, it’s fun to spend those scotch soaked nights pretending to be god and wondering what’s inside of this reality we live in and all the dimensions our mind can imagine. But keep it in context.

There’s intellectual entertainment, and there’s the pragmatic matter of getting on with living in a world of competing interests, and no second chances, this train don’t stop for a moment and everything compounds on top of what we have here and now, so f’n start paying attention people. (excuse me for sharing, my personal argument with society/people, but that’s what I’m working on. ) :slight_smile:

Guess it all comes down to what I’m starting to believe is the most profound question of all:

WHAT WILL YOU BE PRESENT TO?

74

There is a subtle difference. When I saw the quote, I first thought of the guy who made fun anyone who thought the sun revolved around the earth, he rhetorically asked something about “what did it look like before?” I can’t find the quote, but I’m surprised it’s survived because it’s so ignorant. It ignores the difficulty of calculating the orbit of the planets, and explaining retrograde motion.

It only seems obvious to us now because we are told it is the way it is in elementary school. This lack of sympathy for the pre-scientific thinking leads to conspiracy theorists believing they have figured something out because it suddenly occurs to them one day that they don’t really know if the earth is a globe, they can’t prove it, they have just been accepting what authorities have told them all their lives. Instead of going back and trying the simple experiments that were done centuries ago, they just question the entire history of science and look for secret societies trying to control everything.

My point is, we need to keep in mind that not everyone has the background knowledge that we have. Worse, lots of people have been harmed by people smarter than them, so they are suspicious of authority. If we are going to all work together, we have to be aware of our differences.