Hoffman uses mathematical models to explore how spacetime and physical laws can emerge from these dynamics of conscious agents. — Gnomon
Thanks for reminding me just how much of a crackpot he is. — apokrisis

Yes. From a Materialistic perspective, Hoffman is a heretical thinker, like Immanuel Kant, postulating a veiled noumenal reality (ding an sich) underlying the obvious phenomenal appearances of the physical senses. :smile:


Yes, Immanuel Kant is considered a profoundly important and influential thinker, often regarded as one of the greatest and most significant philosophers of all time.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=kant+important+thinker

Yes, Donald Hoffman is considered an important thinker for his work as a cognitive scientist and popular science author who has challenged the scientific consensus on perception and reality,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=don+hoffman+important+thinker

:up:

As a general rule I avoid people who believe they have created system for understanding reality - it's usually the hallmark of a crank and monomaniac. — Tom Storm

Are you saying:

• that it is impossible to understand this thing we humans named reality?
• that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality?

Are you saying:

that it is impossible to understand this thing we humans named reality?
that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality? — Pieter R van Wyk

As you'll note I said :-

it's usually the hallmark — Tom Storm

This does not contain any absolutist pronouncements like the two dot points you’ve provided.

But if I treat these as follow-up questions, I would say that 'reality' is not something waiting to be uncovered but a word we use in shifting contexts to describe what we take to be fundamental. I am not inclined to affirm systems that present themselves as having secured the essence of what is, since what we call reality for me is probably better understood as a contingent product of language, culture, and historically situated practices rather than the disclosure of some underlying foundation.

In my experience, there is always someone on the periphery, doggedly trying to describe reality and reconcile all myths and principles into a single system. They invariably believe themselves misunderstood, refusing to accept that others regard them as cranks.

A fine literary satire of this familiar type was provided by a favourite English writer, George Eliot. In Middlemarch she created the elderly pedant Mr. Casaubon, forever labouring over his great tome, The Key to All Mythologies.

that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality? — Pieter R van Wyk

Maybe that would be better restated as, "only cranks and monomaniacs believe they can undertand reality."

In any case, I don’t rule out possibilities, but I tend to see the idea of “uncovering reality” as an old-fashioned, romantic notion whose prospects are, at the very least, uncertain.

As a general rule I avoid people who believe they have created system for understanding reality - it's usually the hallmark of a crank and monomaniac. — Tom Storm

Mm, surely you see there is ample room for a bit of irony or "reversing the argument" (whichever seems more apt) here.

Challenge: reply first without clicking 'Reveal'.

Nice try, I like this and I can see your reasoning but I think it's an inadequate read of what I said.

I wrote :-

probably better understood — Tom Storm

There’s nuance here. I’m not claiming to have fully solved fundamental questions of reality, nor have I developed a system. I haven’t claimed to have understood the nature of reality, either. In fact, I’m questioning whether 'reality' is even a useful term and provided soem reasons. What I have suggested is a provisional orientation, perhaps a soft form of postmodernism that remains open to revision. Which is why I also wrote:

...I don’t rule out possibilities, — Tom Storm

At any rate, the point we're discussing is comprehensive explanations and system-building where there's a claim made that the precise nature of reality has been described, not whether people can hold certain pragmatic presuppositions or tendencies in their everyday lives. What defines a 'crank' (in most instances like this) I would say is the obsession with elaborate system building to 'resolve' age old questions, not the simple act of having opinions or beliefs.

In my experience, there is always someone on the periphery, doggedly trying to describe reality and reconcile all myths and principles into a single system — Tom Storm

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion.

Perhaps a better question would be: How do we understand things? Please consider:

"If and when we consider things, contemplate things and try to understand things, we can consider anything. In doing this we must convert some anything into something. And there are only two ways we can do this: First we could designate some name (perceive some possible purpose) to some collection of anything and then contemplate some valid description of this specific collection. If we can agree on the unique things in this collection we have named, we could have a meaningful conversation about something. This is then the notion of a system, how we understand all physical things, even those physical things that give us a perception and an understanding of abstract things. Let us name this Systems-thinking, for future reference.

If it is not possible to name something and agree on its constituent parts - we could consider some anything in terms of something else. If we could agree on such a relationship, a meaningful conversation could also ensue. This is how we form an understanding of all conceptual things. And this we could name Relation-thinking for future reference. In both instances some anything is understood as something. p16 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion. — Pieter R van Wyk

I was just describing something I’ve seen. I don’t think it’s a particularly important point. Whether someone is a monomaniac or not hardly matters. We can always ignore them. Who knows, one of them may eventually turn out to be Kant.