Reality is the novelty-provider - this is complimentary to our minds being Bayesian machines that try to incorporate and try to find the best explanation for, incursions of novelty. Note that novelty wouldn't stand out as a thing unless there was a background of relative predictability and stability. In that sense reality is also the background stability provider too, but it's the novelty we're interested in, and novelty, surprise, irritant quality, orneriness, resistance, difficulty, etc., etc., are the primary reality markers.

Again, relative to our plans, relative to a projected path we might consider taking, reality is that which sometimes offers resistance, sometimes puts a spanner in the works, but sometimes goes as predicted.
What one might call "novelties of the past" (things our ancestors, going back to single-celled ancestors, etc., once encountered for the first time) are things like resistance, solidity, etc. Novelties of the past (what were novelties for our biological or cultural ancestors, whose coping strategies we've inherited) become incorporated as part of the stable, predictable background against which new incursions of novelty appear.

This is at a level of generality that's higher than questions about matter and energy. Those are certainly one form of novelty provision (so your critics are right about that, those are real, they are a form of reality), but it doesn't preclude religious possibilities.

If someone wants to go so far as to say that the physical world is completely independent of us, of course that can’t be true, because, as the animals that we are, as part of this physical world, our actions influence it, determine part of what happens in it, even though on a small scale. That’s true of you, and it’s also true of your dog or cat. — Michael Ossipoff

Your comment misses what the debates on the topic are about, and is therefore trivial. No one is denying that, hence your hypothetical "someone" to shadowbox with.

When someone proposes that the physical world “exists” or is “real”, with the meaning that it’s fundamental, primary, not arising from anything else, then I remind them that they’re expressing what amounts to a religion, even if they don’t want to call it that, and even if they don’t posit a deity. Just saying. — Michael Ossipoff

No they're not, and that's silly position to take. Just saying.

Reality is the novelty-provider

.
Yes, being unknowable, Reality has, and has had, surprises, including a few big ones, for us.
.
Experience is consistent, because there are no such things as mutually-inconsistent facts, but, especially on the larger scale of experience, or at its extremes, there are new or unpredictable experiences that aren’t yet obviously consistent with previous ones.
.
Nowhere is that more obvious or extreme than on the first day of a life.
.
The novelty that you refer to might be what Henri Bergson was referring to by “Creative Evolution”.
.
Anyway, yes of course there’s novelty in our experiences.
.

- this is complementary to our minds being Bayesian machines that try to incorporate and try to find the best explanation for, incursions of novelty.

.
Well, from the biological standpoint, evolution designed us to act according to the regularities and consistencies in our surroundings, known by instinct or by finding-out. So sure, we look for regularity and consistent explanations.
.

…your critics are right about that, those are real, they are a form of reality

.
Of course nothing is unreal, in the sense that it’s all (at least an appearance) in overall Reality, all that is.
.
Reality has been defined like that here.
.
Sankara said something to that effect.
.
And some people in these discussions have defined “real” as meaning part of all that is, which is a broad meaning that doesn’t leave out much, if anything.
.
But the critics that we’re talking about claim that the physical world is “real” &/or “existent” is a way or manner in which the hypothetical system that I describe isn’t “real” or “existent”.
.
I’ve been trying to get an answer regarding just what they mean by “real” and “existent”.
.
They could fall back on saying that it means fundamental, primary, the source of, and metaphysically prior to, all else.
.
That’s a strong statement, and I’ve called it a religious statement.
.
In any case, I’m not asserting that this physical world isn’t like that.
.
I’m merely making the modest and mild statement that, as a claim or proposal, it amounts to the positing of a brute-fact.
.
…whereas the hypothetical systems that I describe are uncontroversially-inevitable, and involve no brute-fact or assumption.
.

, but it doesn't preclude religious possibilities.

.
Exactly. The hypothetical systems that I describe aren’t irreligious, or intended as a substitute for or disagreement with religion.
.
I acknowledge that there’s unexplainability, indescribability and unknowability at some level.
.
I don’t believe that words can describe or explain all of Reality.
.
I don’t think anyone here would deny that there’s unexplainability at some level.
.
I’m just saying that that doesn’t mean that there have to be brute facts or contradiction at the level of physics or of verbal, describable metaphysics.
.
There’s no reason to doubt that those subjects can be consistent, logical and self-contained in their areas of applicability.
….even if influenced, in un-understandable ways, by Reality unexplainable, indescribable, unknowable.
Michael Ossipoff

I’m just saying that that doesn’t mean that there have to be brute facts or contradiction at the level of physics or of verbal, describable metaphysics. — Michael Ossipoff

Yeah I get that, and as someone who's been rediscovering classical philosophy myself recently, I'm sympathetic to it - more than I used to be (I would have been on the other side even just 10 years ago).

Have you read "Good and Real" by Gary Drescher? The subtitle is "Demystifying paradoxes from physics to ethics" :) Highly recommended book (though hard, the guy is super smart and makes no concessions).

About Classical philosophy, I recently read something interesting about Aristotle that I didn't know before. (...but it's probably well-known here.)

In Tim Holt's book of interviews regarding why there's something instead of nothing, one of his interviewees said that he felt that Good is the basis of Reality. That's my impression too, that what is, is good, and that there's good intent behind what is, that Reality is good, and that in fact Reality is Goodness itself.

Of course that isn't original.

Like anyone's impressions about Reality, of course that isn't provable, arguable, assertable or a topic for debate.

(...which is why I wonder why Theism vs Atheism is sometimes considered a debate-topic.)

Anyway, I fairly recently read that Aristotle said something like that. When I was a kid, all we heard about Aristotle was theories about the shape of the Earth, or the configuration of the planets, etc..

...but wouldn't one have expected that--instead of just physical, geographical and astronomical theories from a time before before there was scientific information about those things--that his views about Reality, which haven't been disproved, would get mentioned as much?

I'll check out that book by Drescher. I know that paradoxes usually mean that incorrect premises are being used.

Michael Ossipoff




.

If someone wants to go so far as to say that the physical world is completely independent of us, of course that can’t be true, because, as the animals that we are, as part of this physical world, our actions influence it, determine part of what happens in it, even though on a small scale. That’s true of you, and it’s also true of your dog or cat. — Michael Ossipoff

Your comment misses what the debates on the topic are about, and is therefore trivial. — Sapientia

Thank you Sapientia. Actually I've heard about the doctrine that this physical world would still "exist" (whatever that would mean) even if there were no living-beings in it.

But strictly speaking, it isn't true, because it obviously wouldn't be the same physical world then. It would be a different one.

Anyway, the doctrine that I mentioned in the paragraph before the one before this, is of course standard among Materialists, but is also sometimes heard from some Idealists.

No one is denying that, hence your hypothetical "someone" to shadowbox with

Here's a quote, as an example:

.
It is in our nature to believe the world actually exists independent of ourselves

1. It isn't independent of us, because we're part of it.

2. A physical world with no living-beings would be a different physical world, not this one. Therefore this physical world wouldn't exist without living-beings.

When someone proposes that the physical world “exists” or is “real”, with the meaning that it’s fundamental, primary, not arising from anything else, then I remind them that they’re expressing what amounts to a religion, even if they don’t want to call it that, and even if they don’t posit a deity. Just saying. — Michael Ossipoff

No they're not, and that's silly position to take. Just saying.

Merriam-Webster:

Religious:

1. Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

Materialism:

A theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as machinations or results of matter.

----------------------------

I'd said

"...exists with the meaning that it's fundamental, primary, and not arising from anything else..."

If you think that religion only refers to belief in a deity, then you certainly have right to disagree with Merriam-Webster. the primier U.S. dictionary.

Michael Ossipoff

Thank you Sapientia. Actually I've heard about the doctrine that this physical world would still "be there" or "exist" (whatever that would mean) even if there were no living-beings in it.

But strictly speaking, it isn't true, because it obviously wouldn't be the same physical world then. It would be a different one. — Michael Ossipoff

Firstly, your use of loaded language is counterproductive. For those of us who can see through it, it reflects back on you and only serves to cast doubt on your credibility. It's a position, not a doctrine.

And, secondly, despite your qualification, that still misses the point by a country mile. You're right that it would obviously be different, but no one is claiming that it would be exactly the same. It's not exactly the same from one moment to the next, let alone absent all living beings. That's not a charitable reading at all.

Here's a quote, as an example:

"It is in our nature to believe the world actually exists independent of ourselves"

1. It isn't independent of us, because we're part of it.

2. A physical world with no living-beings would be a different physical world, not this one. Therefore this physical world wouldn't exist without living-beings. — Michael Ossipoff

You don't understand the position you're attacking, which isn't a good place to start. Either that, or you're intentionally misinterpreting it, which would be worse.

1. That we're part of the world doesn't imply that the world is dependent on us. That might well be your interpretation, but that's not what independence means by those who actually make that argument. By independence, they mean that the existence of the world does not dependent on the existence of us, by which it is meant that if we were to cease to exist, then the world would continue to exist without us, and not cease to exist, simultaneously, all of a sudden.

2. If you wish to misinterpret the claims of those you're arguing against so as to suggest that they're advocating a contradictory position whereby there's an obvious change in the world, yet no change in the world whatsoever, then you're free to do so, but it won't gain you the upper hand. On the contrary, it makes you look worse.

And yeah, sure, it's a religion. Whatever you say. And I'm the pope. Do you want to be taken seriously or not?

First, of course my discussion about whether this physical world would continue to exist if all life were to vanish from it (because what would then exist instead in place of it would be a different world) is a trivial quibble and an unnecessary and regrettable distraction.
.
I only brought it up to point to some careless wording. Careless wording and undefined terms result in a lot of nonsense-philosophy—as an earlier thread pointed out.
.
I emphasize that that trivial quibble has nothing to do with the main metaphysical statements that I’ve been making (and isn’t needed to support them), and has nothing to do with the metaphysical questions that I’ve been asking people (regarding what they mean).
.
That quibble is only a distraction from what I was saying before, and, as such, is regrettable.
.
(…but I’ll comment later in this post about the existence of a lifeless physical universe…in a way different from the quibble that started this argument.)
---------------------------------
So, because I’ve distracted from them, maybe I should briefly re-state the metaphysical statements and questions that I’ve been making:
.
1. If someone claims that this physical world is “real” or “existent”, in some way that the hypothetical system I’ve been discussing isn’t “real” or “existent”, then that person is positing a brute-fact about that alleged stronger “reality” or “existence”.
.
2. In particular, just to speak of one example, the above paragraph is particularly obviously true if the person says that this physical world is “real” or “existent” in the sense of being all of reality, primary and fundamental, the fundamental reality, the ground of all being, and/or the source of all that’s real.
.
3. But pretty much everyone who has claimed that this physical universe is “real” and “existent” in a way that isn’t true of the hypothetical system that I’ve been describing, has failed to say what they mean by “real” or “existent”, suggesting that they don’t know what they mean.
.
4. The hypothetical system that I speak of doesn’t involve or require any brute-fact or assumption.
.
(…which can’t be said of theories that this physical world is more than or other than that hypothetical system.)
.
Here’s what I mean by “the hypothetical system that I’ve been describing”:
.
I’m referring to the uncontroversially-inevitable, and infinitely-many, complex systems of inter-referring implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with their infinitely-many mutually-consistent configurations of hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
…and the uncontroversial fact that, inevitably, one of those infinitely-many complex hypothetical logical systems models your experience.
.
…and that there’s no evidence or proof that your experience is other than that.
----------------------------------------
About whether there could be a physical universe containing no living-things.
.
Of course there could be and are such universes.
.
(By “this physical universe”, I refer to our Big-Bang Universe (BBU), and any physically inter-related multiverse that it might be part of. In other words, our BBU and all that it’s directly or indirectly physically-related to. By “physically-related”, I refer to physical causation, physical origin, common physical origin, physical interaction, or possibility of physical interaction.)
.
There could be and are such universes, because the abstract facts that make up your life-experience possibility-story aren’t different from other abstract facts.
.
…such as abstract facts that aren’t part of a physical possibility-world or experience-story.
.
…or abstract facts that comprise an objective-view possibility-story of a possibility-world with no inhabitants or experiencers.
.
In other words, we needn’t be animal-chauvinist.
.
For such a world, or for abstract facts that aren’t part of any world or story, of course it can still be said that there are those abstract facts, at least in the sense that we can mention them.
.
In fact, Max Tegmark speaks of this physical world (and infinitely-many others) having objective existence, quite aside from the matter of whether such a world has any inhabitants/experiencers. His MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis) has been described as Ontic Structural Realism (…as opposed to the Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism (OSSI) that I propose). Tegmark once said that he starts from a principle that he called the External Reality Hypothesis. So he sounds like what is called a “Realist”.
.
Obviously, just as there inevitably are an infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there are also an infinity of hypothetical objective-point-of-view possibility-stories about physical universes, like the ones that Tegmark describes. And many (surely most) of them have no life.
.
It’s just that they aren’t what I talk about, because they aren’t experience-stories. Not wanting to advocate animal-chauvinism, I acknowledge them, but I’m more interested in the hypothetical logical systems that are about experience. It goes without saying, as a truism, that such hypothetical “experience-stories” are what are about our experience.
.
So I’m not saying that there aren't uninhabited &/or uninhabitable universes.. I’m only saying that they aren’t of interest to us. Or at least they aren’t of explanatory interest to us.
.
I should mention that some physicists specializing in quantum-mechanics say that QM has laid-to-rest the notion of our physical universe being an objective physical world. (…but lots of academic philosophers, and people here who believe them, seem to disagree with those specialists.)
.
I’ve cited one such physicist here, when asked to, and, since then, I’ve noticed other similar remarks from other QM specialist physicists.
.

And yeah, sure, it's [Materialism?] a religion. Whatever you say.

.
Actually no, it’s what Merriam-Webster says.
.
You can quibble forever about your personal interpretation of word-meanings, and you can have your own language. I was just telling of the widespread standard usage, as reported in this country’s premier dictionary.
.

And I'm the pope.

.
By what standard usages or definition(s)?
.

Do you want to be taken seriously or not?

.
Merriam-Webster is taken seriously when it reports widespread standard or majority usage.
.
Michael Ossipoff\