Awaken to reality!

General Discussion
366

IMO, it’s not complicated at all. If the universe did not function mathematically, there would only be chaos. When we speak of a demonstrable self-ordering system like the universe, it has to be of a mathematical nature. That is the definition of being “mathematical”, a fundamental dimensional aspect of spacetime.

Man’s greatest invention was language and the symbolization (conceptualization) of natural values and functions.

And in case you have missed this comparison of Reality against Mythology, it is worth repeating. The end of the clip contains great wisdom in describing the universe via scientific language.

367

This point made me think of Wittgenstein. It’s impossible to boil him down to a few sentences, but here’s an interesting thought

The very idea of truth seems to presuppose some notion of correctness in the application of words. If one calls a hippopotamus a cow, except metaphorically or analogically, then presumably one has gotten something wrong. But if the rule for applying the word cow is derived entirely from linguistic practice, what would make this case merely a mistake and not a change in the rule—and thus a change in what the word cow means?

368

From my perspective that’s about the only “Truth” that does exists, or at least that’s realistically attainable.

After that we get to another fundamental observation, (perhaps even a second “truth”) - the Biological Mindscapes created by biological creatures ~ dealing with ~ Physical Reality.

But after that it dissolves. First there was only matter and universe and all the spending things it creates. Then came Earth, where the spark of life took over. Biology is an amazing learning machine, given time and proper resources. Earth was spectacular in that regard.

But once Earth happened and creature’s happened and started producing awareness and then thoughts, and then learning and self-reflection, and so on - “points of view” appeared. Each creature only “knew” about its own body, within a group of similar bodies.

In the animal kingdom, in evolution, “truth” is a useless concept.
Honesty does exist, as in accuracy - with Evolution is not about accuracy. Evolution is about being " close enough" and learning how to adapt to constantly changing.

“Truth” is something humans conceived of for governmental and legalistic necessities. Within that limited realm, “truth” is a guidepost, ideal to strive for, and a valid fiction. Beyond that, “Truth” is like a distant mirage on hot desert highway.

It’s another example of simple straightforward pragmatic knowledge that current philosophizing does more to damage and confuse, then to constructively clarify.

Such as a simple up front explicit enunciated recognition that our religions and god are products within our mind, just as science and art and politics and law is. All valid enterprises, but all products of our own collective minds, and not of the physical matter Earth, or biology that we are made of.

But instead, it’s dance around because we wouldn’t want to offend anyone.

369

Yuval started out doing lectures in his classes, and at some point, he thought his particular combination of ideas and history was unique, so he started making them into a book. He was surprised when it sold so well. He starts out talking about the “legal fiction” of a company, using an auto company as an example. If all the buildings were torn down, all the employees stopped working there, all the sales stopped, everything, the corporation would still exist. He goes through pre-history and pre-sapien and forward in time too, of course, talking about a lot of “fictions” that we live with as if they have just always been there.

370

Sure, but some products within our minds are useful. They let us go to the moon and watch it on TV. Other products are made-up trouble-makers.

Interesting, but how does the corporation still exist? Is Yuval just saying that anything we can imagine, exists?

371

To me, truth is realism. Sure, then the question is what’s realism, but what is real seems to be a more workable product than truth because you can often point to it, or you can test it. And yes, that sounds like science and I guess I’m okay with that.

That’s a tough one. As I mentioned above, I think science is truth. But science can be done poorly by scientists. This is where philosophy comes in. To better understand the history of the philosophy of science, I read books. My latest book is, What is Real by Adam Becker.

Becker discusses in pretty good detail the evolution of quantum physics and the primary players responsible for this evolution. He writes about how logical positivism advanced science by eliminating the woo, like theology and aether.

So, you think, “Nice!” But then logical positivism is shown to be a protective barrier for scientists who do not want the evolution to continue. Logical positivism is all about studying/reporting what you can see and nothing else. We scientists see these results (e.g., double slit experiment) and have come up with a final theory- the Copenhagen model.

Well, many physicists were uncomfortable with the theory. But the theory worked so damn well! Physicists who wanted to continue work on the fundamentals of quantum physics were told to stop. The theory works! Why do you want to mess with it? Don’t you have something important to do?

Several brilliant physicists were shut out of academia because they dared to question the Copenhagen model. Logical positivism kept important work at bay. For decades.

Then, scientific realism began to replace logical positivism. Scientific realism removed the anal retentive part of logical positivism that kept scientists from working on fundamental quantum physics.

The real hero of the story is John Bell; an incredible mind who surely would have been awarded the Nobel prize if he hadn’t died at the age of 62.

So, what is the purpose of philosophy? Logical positivism provided shelter for the ignorant. It held science back. And what of scientific realism? It seems like a new philosophical title was invented because the old one was broken. Its invention didn’t advance science. Great scientists wanted to do physics. Why do these philosophical ideals exist except as a way to label historical events in really crappy terms? Not sure.

372

No, “legal fiction” is a real thing. It exists on paper. It can still open a bank account, create stock, and hire back all those people. He’s illustrating that there is no “it” that is Ford Motor Co. It’s something we invent out of thin air and give it rights.

373

There isn’t really evidence that it does function mathematically. After all at the ground level it’s just probability which is chaos. Like I said math is founded on axioms that you have to accept as true. Also note that we see of the universe is only the filtered version through our senses which might not be the real thing.

374

Thanks! Now I get it.
Oh, and these things (corporations) are people. :face_vomiting:

375

Exactly which axioms do you not accept?

1 Like
376

My point is that it’s founded on illogical starts.

377

Axioms are illogical. They are the foundation of logic. What is there below logic? What logic are you using to say there isn’t logic?

1 Like
378

Who says the universe is not chaos? There is no order in the universe, last I knew.

379

I know but my point is that any system requires that immediate leap of faith.

380

So then, what is your leap of faith?

381

There is a difference between “leap of faith” and “self evident”. An axiom is derived from something that can be observed and has been observed by just about anybody and has been observed to be consistent. There isn’t “proof” in the scientific sense that tomorrow the sun won’t come up, but there is evidence and there is no disproof. As with anything scientific, disproving means highly improbable.

A leap of faith is when something is claimed that can’t be seen, like the God of the three major monotheisms. People claim that because we don’t have evidence for how the universe got here, then there must be a powerful being behind it somehow. There is only tiny, highly unlikely evidence for that powerful being. That’s a leap. Math axioms don’t ask for that. Even non-humans can be shown to have an awareness of the difference between one thing and many things. That’s an axiomatic beginning of set theory.

And science works in both directions, questioning itself and changing as new information is found. Once we got out from under the grip of powerful priests and monarchs, we could state openly that there appeared to be laws of the universe, so we wrote them down and started testing them. We applied them to the furthest out there things we could observe, the wandering dots in the sky, and found the same laws of motion here on earth applied to them, and gave us predictive power so we could find planets that weren’t visible with the naked eye. When we found unsolvable problems with Newtonian physics, we figured out new axioms and new theories, and those continue to be refined. Leaps of faith don’t do that, they just get exposed as problematic and then they fight about it with physical violence.

1 Like
382

The self-organizing fractal theory as a universal discovery method: the phenomenon of life

Abstract
A universal discovery method potentially applicable to all disciplines studying organizational phenomena has been developed. This method takes advantage of a new form of global symmetry, namely, scale-invariance of self-organizational dynamics of energy/matter at all levels of organizational hierarchy, from elementary particles through cells and organisms to the Universe as a whole.

The Universe is dynamic, but not chaotic.

383

W4U thinks the universe has been designed. Think about that when deciding whether its worth your time conversing with him in future

384

“Slow down Mr. Z. No need to tell anyone else who they should interact with. Pick a reasoned argument and defend it. That’s all you need to do. K?”

I didnt say shouldnt. I said something to consider. Nitpicking is not sexy.

385

Sure. Which brings us to some of the nuances, for instance the difference between our scientific thoughts vs, our religious thoughts.

Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.

What’s the point?

Religions, Science, political beliefs, heaven, hell, even God they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.

{That’s not to say they are the same thing, they are not!
Though I think they’re both equally valid human endeavors,
but fundamentally qualitatively different.
Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls,
Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that.} (source)

Indeed, I listened to that book for the first many years ago, I’ve listened to it another complete times since. It’s a wonderful thought provoking and enlightening book.

Because everyone believes in them, and the powerful certainly don’t want to do without them.
Traffic Laws are another excellent example. We accept them because we like the service they provide, organizing driving so it’s relatively safe.

Only if we want it bad enough, and if it serves a purpose.

Oh that’s reminded me of a fun story that relates to how long a useful* fiction can exist.

*that’s of relative term :wink: