So we parse "Quantum physics say nothing is real" as something like "According to quantum physics, it's not a real thing, it's a..."; and ask what we are to put here - fake, forgery, illusion... — Banno

I interpret the QM claim that nothing is real as meaning something like 'nothing is really as it seems'. Not saying I agree with this as such. but it might be said that in the context, and from the point of view of what QM tells us about the microphysical constitution of ordinary objects, what they are is not what they appear to be.

:up: Information informs only by virtue of being interpreted.

Your critique is apt and well-appreciated...some claims deserve castration lest they reproduce and add to the general confusion...

Gnonsense — wonderer1

:smirk: Gnice...like a gnife to the gnuts...

The question arises, as it invariably does: what mediates perceptions — NOS4A2

All processes are mediated or mediate. Perception can be validly understood as a process.

It is possible that more than one way of thinking about things is valid, in one way or another. But surely some sort of selection will be needed sooner or later. — Ludwig V

Different ways of thinking may be selected as valid depending on context.

Philosophy allows us to keep going beyond the limits of our knowledge, and it is one of the main disciplines of humankind. Yet, there will be big debates amongst all the philosophers and their theories to discern who is more right than the other. — javi2541997

The problem I see is that there is no clear wsy of determining which philosphical theory is more right.

But that doesn't mean anything goes, does it? — Ludwig V

Anything that has no intelectual appeal to virtually anyone will not "go" to be sure. I don't see the 'sense data' theory of perception as being in that category. So I see it as being misleading to say, for example, that Austin has definitively refuted the afore-mentioned theory.

But it still treats perceptions as if they were objects and as if those processes produced a final result, thus allowing Dennett to claim that consciousness is an illusion. What if perception is an activity? What if perceptions are no more objects than a magnetic field or a rainbow or an orbit or heat? BTW, none of those things are events, either. — Ludwig V

I agree that perception is not an object, but it can be understood as a process or, phenomenologically, as an immediate presencing.
Magnetic fields, rainbows etc., can be understood as phenomena if not as objects, as processes if not events.

Perception could also be thought of as an activity, but is that not just another word for 'process' with perhaps an implication of agency thrown in?

You agree that a screen in a flat surface. What is the difference between seeing a portrait of a person in an art gallery and seeing a portrait of a person on a screen. Don't both these appear the same in our visual field, ie, as two-dimensional images? — RussellA

I think we've already covered this: of course, we refer to some images as two-dimensional and I have pointed out that they are not really two-dimensional, although for all intents and purposes the elements in such images all appear to be on the same plane. That was not the salient point though: you had claimed that our visual field itself is two dimensional and that is what I took issue with, and I asked you to support that assertion with argument, which you have so far failed to provide.

Philosophers... always finding problems where there are none. — javi2541997

I think it's more a matter of philosophers finding new and novel ways to imagine things; the "problem" only arises when the demand that there be just one "correct" way of viewing things is made.

It makes more sense to me to think that there are a great many facts of the matter, only some of which we know, but some of those facts can be fairly well understood. — wonderer1

I agree there are many facts about perception, including scientific observations about how it works, but that wasn't my point: the point was that whether it is 'direct' or 'indirect' is a matter of looking at it from different perspectives, using different definitions of 'direct' and 'indirect'. Perhaps the terms 'mediate' and 'immediate' would be better alternatives. Phenomenologically speaking our perceptions certainly seem immediate. On the other hand. scientific analysis show perceptions to be highly mediated processes. Which is right? Well, they both are in their own ways.

The book is attached above in one of my posts if you care to discuss. — Antony Nickles

I was the one who found the PDF for Banno. However, I don't have time to read and discuss the book at the moment.

My point was that, in thinking about perception in different ways, using different criteria for what would count as 'direct' and 'indirect', perception can be considered to be either direct or indirect.So my question is, given there is no fact of the matter regarding which is the case. what is the problem?

He is not presenting a different way of thinking (another answer or theory) about this (manufactured) problem of direct or indirect access (and all the related philosophical manifestations). — Antony Nickles

As I see it, the problem is only "manufactured" if we buy into the idea that there is only one correct way to think about it. Otherwise, you just have different ways of thinking and talking about perception.

Is he dismantling anything or merely presenting a different way of thinking about it.

The only cups I own are used for holding pencils and paint brushes. I drink tea out of a metal tumbler that comes with a lid. — frank

You filthy degenerate! :razz:

The cups exist independently of me, it's just that all I see is patches and blobs from which I infer(?) the existence of a cup.

Austin is pointing out flaws in some arguments for that scenario, particularly in the wording of the argument, which appears to be misusing common words. — frank

We don't just see cups, we pick them up, hold them, drink from them, wash them and store them in the cupboard.

Your relativism is showing again. Have you no faith in science :brow: ? — Wayfarer

This is basic Kant. The observational part of science shows us how phenomena manifest and quantifies, measures and explicates its qualities. The abductive phase creatively imagines hypotheses which either can or cannot be tested. The constants may tell us what is required for matter and life as we understand it (as it appears to us) to exist. That is all it tells us, it doesn't tell us that nothing at all beyond plasma could possibility exist outside of those parameters. How much faith do you have in science? You can't have it both ways.

It's that naturalism doesn't go 'all the way down'. Naturalism starts with the empirical facts, and discerns causal relationships that give rise to them. But when it comes to such questions as the origin of the cosmic constraints, naturalism can't make such assumptions, because at the point of the singularity all laws break down. What that is taken to mean is then up for debate - natural theology is inclined to argue that the laws are pre-ordained by God. But then Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, never would make such an argument. He says elsewhere:

I was brought up as a member of the Church of England and simply follow the customs of my tribe. The church is part of my culture; I like the rituals and the music. If I had grown up in Iraq, I would go to a mosque… It seems to me that people who attack religion don’t really understand it. Science and religion can coexist peacefully — although I don’t think they have much to say to each other. What I would like best would be for scientists not even to use the word “God.” … Fundamental physics shows how hard it is for us to grasp even the simplest things in the world. That makes you quite skeptical whenever someone declares he has the key to some deeper reality… I know that we don’t yet even understand the hydrogen atom — so how could I believe in dogmas? I’m a practicing Christian, but not a believing one. — Wayfarer

Causal relationships are not discerned but inferred as I understand it. To my way of thinking the (hypothetical) breakdown of physical laws at the (hypothetical) singularity is an inference, a theory, not a fact, and given that we accept it there is no way to even begin to decide what that means, so I don't see it as a matter of debate at all. If we want to believe in some speculatively imagined "pre-singularity" scenario, then it becomes entirely a matter of faith. The closest thing we have that is mathematically supported at least is the 'many worlds' or 'many universes' theory. God is another theory which is not mathematically supported. Can you think of any others?

Rees comes across to me as a Christian apologist who wants to make his claims seem stronger by pretending that, although he practices Christianity, he doesn't really believe in it. Smells fishy to me! If we don't even understand even the hydrogen atom, then how could we know that no existence absent the constants would be possible?

Me, I'm inclined to a traditionalist view of the 'harmony of the Cosmos'. Call me a romantic but I think it's part of my cultural heritage, and one that I'm not at all wanting to be rid of. — Wayfarer

Fair enough, but that is a matter of faith, says more about you than the cosmos and is not something that can be coherently argued for. We know only the order that we interpret as such.

But that’s where the cosmological constants and fine-tuned universe arguments come into play - Martin Rees' 'six numbers'. They themselves might not amount to laws, but they're constraints in the absence of which nothing would exist (see also 'naturalness problem'). — Wayfarer

However unlikely it might seem that all the cosmological constants just happen to line up such as to allow things to exist. looking at it from the other way around, we would not be here to talk about it if they had not lined up.

The other point is that those constants and their estimated statistical likelihood may just represent human understanding and may not correspond to anything real beyond that. How can we assess the statistical likelihood of things from within the very system that purportedly depends on those very things?

What is your favoured implication; that these constants were somehow established from "outside" of the universe prior to its existence? How could we ever establish that, and even if we could, what implications could it have for life, for our lives?

Were any of the six fundamental constraints different in very small ways, matter would not form, 'the universe' would comprise plasma or something. Review here — Wayfarer

It also pays to remember that this is inference or conjecture, not established fact.

'Pretend you are happy when you are not, it is not so hard to do — javi2541997

"Lookin' good, but feelin' bad is mighty hard to do" Fats Waller

I suppose, from a philosophical perspective, a critique of reductionism needs to be much simpler than trying to prove a kind of ‘law of increasing complexity’ operating throughout the Universe. — Wayfarer

If the formation of galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets results from small fluctuations or irregularities in the very simple CMB, and the formation of more complex elements subsequently results from supernovae, should we not expect an increase of complexity over time?

Not as a result of pre-existing "laws" but from the unfolding of the potential inherent in the simple elements that is enabled by the chance evolutionary inception of suitable conditions. This would seem to be in keeping with Peirce's "tychism".

I'll have to try to find the time to read the paper...but I agree with unenlightened in highly recommending Bateson.

Yes, there is a kind of paradox there, because we find that ordered phenomena have much more significant information to impart to us than random phenomena. (I believe @unenlightened already made this point). It is more meaningful to us because we are part of the ordered phenomena. Total randomness or noise is useless to us. And it is only highly ordered phenomena like the higher animals who can "decode" complex information. I find this relationship between entropy, negentropy and information is the most fascinating area to investigate. Not that I've gotten far yet...

Right it is a difficult thing to grasp and I certainly cannot claim anything more than a very basic understanding of entropy.

It might help to make it clearer if you substitute 'arrangement' or 'configuration' for 'pattern'. The amount of information required to specify the positions of and relations between an ordered arrangement is obviously less than the information required to specify a random arrangement.

In cosmology the idea is that the microwave background state, which is believed to have been almost entirely uniform can be described much more simply than the subsequent states of galaxy and star formation.

So, the information has obviously increased in the latter case due to the initially minor variations becoming magnified over time. It is only energy that allows the formation of "islands" of relative order or negentropy, such as galaxies, stars, solar systems, planets and, of course, organisms. The theory is that disorder will increase as energy is dissipated and the entire universe has pulled apart and reached thermal equilibrium, a state in which particles will be scattered in a disorderly way everywhere.

Yes, you are right, and @Wayfarer is wrong here: it has to do with how much information would be needed to specify the positions of all the particles in a completely random arrangement of particles as opposed to a strictly geometric configuration.

:up:

We could throw caution to the wind and call a "flat" three-dimensional image a two-dimensional image. :smile: — RussellA

Indeed we could. which indicates that much comes down to differences of parlance. I think, as I said, there is really no such thing as a two-dimensional image or existent of any kind, and that that realization ought to be reflected in how we speak about these things when we are giving them serious consideration.

In any case, talk of screens and other flat surfaces aside, the original point of contention was the idea that our visual field is a two-dimensional image, and I see nothing whatever to support that assertion.

I suppose that tells us something of its effectiveness. — Banno

Apparently the text it appears in is called Metaphysics and Commonsense but I couldn't find a PDF of that, so perhaps it is not considered all that citable these days.

:cool:

I'd say the image on the screen like any photo or painting is really a "flat" three-dimensional image. Of course, I am not denying that we call such images 'two-dimensional' because they are presented on "flat" surfaces. but there is no such thing as a truly flat surface, and even if there were any surface still possesses depth, otherwise there would be nothing to project the image onto or present it on.

I wasn't able to find that one either.

http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=90871E7BBAF3F977883F28F6597FD1CB

Yes, I think the inference is based on the constant conjunction of events as pointed out by Hume. But we also now have a massive coherent body of understanding based on forces, which are thought to be the efficient lawlike agents of change.

I had in mind that empirical science theories are grounded in observation. — Mww

Maybe we are looking from different angles. I think of empirical science theories as grounded in models of causation, and causation as not being observed, but inferred. Certainly, the entities, except perhaps those posited as fundamental, that are understood to be causally acting and acted upon are observable.

When looking at the world situation with an eye toward the future, it is natural to measure things, temperatures, markets, etc.
Harder to measure is the inner experience of being a human right now.

What alchemy is going on in the hearts and minds of a humanity pushed to extremes?
What hopes are sprouting despite the dark clouds and sulphuric air?
Why does love and acceptance seem even scarcer than money and gold?

Maybe a new way of thinking about a different way of living is slowly being born.
One naturally imagines signs of spring during a harsh winter blizzard. — 0 thru 9

I agree, it is how people feel about their lives and how much they can bear of a situation which perhaps all, including those who do not tend to reflect on much, feel to be well out of kilter, not to mention outrageous and unjust, that may bring about a radical shift, when and if things get bad enough.

It does seem to be better, more conducive to better outcomes, to preserve hope than to sink into despair. As the saying goes "prepare for the worst despite hoping and, as much as possible working, for the best".

Logically grounded theories in the metaphysical discipline necessarily justify, or validate if you’d rather, whatever is the case given by the course of the argument.

It never was that “metaphysics sets out the background against which the world is ordered”, but sets the background by which the subject orders himself, such that the science by which the world is ordered, by and for him, becomes possible. — Mww

I'm not sure what you mean to refer to by "logically grounded theories". Are not all consistent and coherent theories logically grounded?

Also, I see metaphysics as positing imaginable models of world ordering, and phenomenology as describing the ways in which we, on reflection, find our experience, perception and undertsnding to be invariably ordered.

When we look at the world, we initially see a two-dimensional image. I am not aware of any two-dimensional surface that this two-dimensional image is projected onto. — RussellA

On what basis do you say we initially see a two-dimensional image? I don't, and don't recall ever, seeing a two-dimensional image.

Parallax can be used to determine the distance of an object, as nearby objects show a larger parallax than farther objects, but it doesn't allow us to see the back of a three-dimensional object.

What is parallax doing? Is it giving us information about the distance of an object from us or is it giving us information about the three-dimensional space that the object occupies? — RussellA

The world appears to us as three dimensional. As I see it there are no two-dimensional images; you have length and breadth and depth in any image. without depth the image cannot exist. Think of paintings; colour and tonal relations give the sense of depth. We might want to say the canvas is a two-dimensional surface, but it is not so.

As @Banno said even those with sight in only one eye still experience depth-perception. Of course, this experience is amplified by parallax, but it is a matter of degree not all or nothing.

My question earlier, which you have not attempted to answer was 'what two-dimensional surface do you think the purportedly two-dimensional image of our visual field is projected onto"?

I don't think you can justify 'must be the case'. You can presuppose it. You can wish it. But can you say it must be true? Mostly metaphysics are tentative theories aiming to explain why the world seems to be how it is. But I don't think we even have a way of establishing precisely how the world is, let alone answering the why part. — Tom Storm

:up:

:ok:

This is one very limited conception of what it means to be doing philosophy.

When I look at a cup, in my mind is a two-dimensional appearance, but science tells me that what I am actually looking at is a set of atoms in a three-dimensional space. — RussellA

Are you not familiar with the depth perception due to parallax? Is there really any such things as a two-dimensional image? Even lines and the paper they are on are really three-dimensional. A truly two-dimensional surface would be non-existent. Where is this purportedly two-dimensional image of yours to be found, and where the "surface" upon which it is purportedly projected?

If you want to do something and nothing stands in your way, do you have any choice about doing it? Only in principle I would say, which doesn't count for much.

Do you regret having done it or wish you could stop doing it? I don't.

Yes, and what if mankind was a different species? I don't see much to be gained by going down these alleys of conjecture. — Tim3003

You don't need the populace to be a "permanent existent entity" you just need everyone, or at least enough people who get the picture, but yes, I don't believe it will happen; the point was just that without the possibility of globally coordinated action then it doesn't look too hopeful. The elites will screw the populace, and the politicians will let them do it.

Without the populace itself, at least some number of people which would constitute a kind of critical mass, refusing to be screwed then it will remain all smoke and mirrors, and we will continue to be screwed, until civilization itself is screwed.

As to "going down these alleys of conjecture" it doesn't seem any more pointless than this whole topic is.