So the only reality is that of vector spaces? — Prishon

No thats not what I said.

What you propose here is a math model of how physics pro- or regresses. — Prishon

I am not proposing anything, at all.

You said:

Thats [ontological relativism] my own invention... — Prishon

So you asked us to construct a counter argument to a position you made up yourself, and that you didn't elaborate on. Neither regarding terminology nor structure. Since I am no mindreader I had to make up a very primitiv basic example myself to show that:

Creating incompatablity to be combined. — CaZaNOx

Is what your position would need to demonstrate to establish multiple realities, rather than different parts of the same reality.

The vectorspace stuff is just to illustrate the ease with wich a combination can be found. And a possibility to show what a contradiction of different frameworks thats not based on content and rather the structure of the onthologies, could look like.

In your example of physics and greek gods you coud just add them together and have a view greek god + physics and that if you only look at physiscs you only look at parts of reality.
Or you come to the conclusion they are mutually exclusive views and therefore either one or the other is false and therefore not a reality.

"Creating incompatablity to be combined"

Im not advocating incompatibility. What I do promote is incommensurability. The Greek gods and quarks are all part of one reality indeed. But they are incompatible and commensurable.

I am not proposing anything, at all. — CaZaNOx

You propose an answer to my question. What is that new reality of vector space? Its a nice analogy but subsumes both gods and quarks under the one reality of a vector space. But non of them is part nor parcel wrt to it. The vector space equalizes things that cant be equalized.

I don't know if you are intentionaly missreading me.

You asked what the counterargument to a position that you made up yourself is. But you didn't state anything about your position.

So maybe in a first step you should actually put forward a position. By formulating two onthologies that are correct and incompatible. And therfore can't be combined.
Btw Ethics already subsumes incommensurable values. I don't see how this ethics term is relevant here.

Once you did that we can look for specific counter arguments. However till you do that a trivial counterargument is that theres no principal reason not to combine stuff in to one ontholgy.

So my answer to your question is: there is no general reason to not assume combineability in to one reality and no specifc case given. Me needing to quasi invent a cheap model to illustrate one version of your idea that you couldnt be bothered to spell out is your shortcoming not mine.

The vectorspace is a tool of humans, it does in a sense nothing other then provide a framework for subsuming content by allowing you to add a desired amount of variables.

The vector space equalizes things that cant be equalized. — Prishon

A vectorspace doesn't equalize anything. What it does it groups it into the same construct without influencing the content.

But it's not important you could also just say greek gods exist and interact with the world, quantum fields exist and interact with the world, therfore bot are things that exist and interact with the world. Again I am not advocating for a specific onthology what I am saying is that it's rather easy to combine things on an abstract theoretical level.

In a sense what I am saying is it is your job to show that two specific onthologies can't be grouped together. Since both are true but also not combinable.

And you talking about an on the fly example I did or two examples you gave cause you got pressed to do it is just diverting from the fact that you should be presenting a specific case or a general argument why I can't combine stuff on an abstract theoretical level or in a specific case. You just stating

can't be equalized — Prishon

is not an argument. It's just an empty statement without backup that can be dissmissed as easily as you positioned it. I can just say "Yes it can".

it's rather easy to combine things on an abstract theoretical level — CaZaNOx

And there you take the wrong road... Didnt you see the warning sign?

I am not taking any road.

The fact that it's rather easy to combine things on an abstract theoretical level is a basic counterargument to your position and answers your question.
Basically one reality ontholgy is because of it's intuitivty and existance of dominant models the default position, so it's your job to argue against it to which counterarguments can be raised. If you don't put forward any argument or position theres no point to swap from a functioning onthology to some random different form that hasn't been spelled out or been reasoned for. So the biggest counterargument is you saying nothing about or for multiple ontohologies.


Did I say it's my position? No. Did I say it's not my position? No.

You pose a question and I provide an answer.

Also stop diverting. Maybe elaborate your view and so on. Try to use arguments like "you are taking the wrong road BECAUSE ... (INSERT ARGUMENT HERE).

I'm not sure why you ignore what I and others have told you that you should
1) clarify the terms
2) Bring forward your view

My answer is as abstract as your question and until you put forward a specific case and further discussing is pointless.

In a sense you are doing pure sophistry since you are throwing a new term around without adding anything to it and then trying to shift the burden of proof by pretending your still empty position should be the default and the default position needs to defend it's legitimacy despite there not being any other option proposed.

The burden of proof is clearly on you since you introduce a new concept. Until you realize, and accept that, I think further discussion won't provide much value.

The fact that it's rather easy to combine things on an abstract theoretical level is a basic counterargument to your position and answers your question. — CaZaNOx

The different realities can be combined if they each ARE (sub) vector spaces. How would you see the difference between the two realities? What are the base vectors?

Again, the examples are fine, but you haven't defined what you mean by reality. That means I am left to draw my own conclusions by what you mean, and I might be off.

It seems to me you are describing descriptions of reality invented by humans. These descriptions do not necessarily represent reality, as reality is generally known as what simply exists. That's why it's important for you to define what YOU mean by reality, as I may not be addressing your intentions.

Again, the examples are fine, but you haven't defined what you mean by reality. That means I am left to draw my own conclusions by what you mean, and I might be off. — Philosophim

The whole point about these realities is that they cant be defined. By defining them you destroy them

you are diverting and it's irrelevant.

To be able to tell if two "realities" are part of one bigger reality or uncombinable but not mutually exclusive. I would need to know different onthological models, the realties, and the specific conflict.
Since the poster did not provide that, I can't tell you, if it is a vector space or not. Or what the base vectors would be.
You are kinda asking what the solution to the math problem is that you haven't told me yet.

I also don't know how you would see the difference of two realities that aren't given.
Again it is like asking how big the weight difference of two different objects is. Without specifing the objects or the unit or the location that is used to measure.

Basically your descripition is to abstract to prompt a proper answer.
Until you provide a description of realities and the matching onthologies that can't be combined I can't help you.

Btw I tried to do your job by formulating an example for you that would argue your case but since you seemed to read straight past the point I will abstain from that and wait for your answer to the question how you know that there are two different realities and what their difference is.

Okay then. On one subset of your vector space there is the reality of the dreamtime (I merely compare two realities now but thats sufficient). You have acces to it in your dreams only. Its elements are inner world (mental) structures. They consist out of the content of matter in the physical world. Say you see a god in this world than via this inner world they can give you a message from the world of the gods that lays outside of our universe. If you see a god giving you directions you know what to do in the external physical world. You can dream your girl telling you that she loves you.

The physical world, the second example, is the material aspect of stuff only. Say the matter part. It behaves acvording to Natural laws. It can be described by massless rishon fields on top of a 4d curved spacetime. The fields interact by means of 7 gauge fields. They contribute to the curvature of 4d spacetime which itself is developing on a 5d static substrate. There are hidden variables (necessary for communication with the gods). Particles are Planck sized 3d spheres rolled up on the 5d spacetime.

If you can translate these in two vector spaces go ahead. But I think these spaces are unreachable from one another. Of course the three realities I spoke of (with us as intermediaries) are not out of each other's reach. But I dont see how this translates in one vector space.

What are the objections against the view that a lot of different realities can co-exist? — Prishon

By "realities", do you maybe mean "physical universes" (worlds)? Because "realities" refer (among other things) to people's view of the physical universe. Each human being has its own reality. And all these realities coexist and are different. If we agree on something, then we have a common reality. But conflicting or just different realities also coexist. Only that when there is agreement, what happens is that realities become stronger, to a point that they may be confused with the physical universe! For example, all the people on earth agree about the existence of the sun. And because this was happening since the beginning of the human history, the sun appears still more "real" to people and its existence becomes something like an objective, absolute reality for everyone. Yet, the reality around it has changed through time. It was once thought that sun turned around the Earth, since Earth was the center of the Universe! If science were not created, we might still believe that! That is, that would be our reality. (Most probably, tribes today who still have this reality. And they, as ourselves in the past, have all the reasons in the world to believe that ...Even today, we can get the illusion that the sun moves around the earth: "The sun rises and sets", "the sun is up in sky", ... are everyday common phrases!

So, a lot of people talk about an absolute, objective, universal reality. There's no such a thing. I have given a lot of reasons why this is so and explained why, quite a few times. See e.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/578622.

Especially in the science driven global culture of today there seems to be a lot of resistence. That is at least what I experience. — Prishon

The science did a lot of good to us by explaining and describing the physical universe so that we could get out of total ignorance and superstitions!
Anyway, again, I believe you mean resistance about coexisting physical universes (not realities), right? Well, isn't that the subject of "Parallel Universes?" :smile:

Anyway, again, I believe you mean resistance about coexisting physical universes ( — Alkis Piskas

I think you make an excellent poit here. But (I wouldnt be me without a but; they even call me the but, "maar" in Dutch; there is Maartje...). For two different people there can be two different physical realities. If I see a complete different physical state of affairs than a fellow man. I can, for example, see sub quarks where others see one quark only. Whats the real thing? Both at the same time? Or are both combined some new physical reality. Or take both approaches in thermodynamics. The statistical approach and the classical. One contains continue media. The other atoms.

I wouldnt be me without a but; they even call me the but — Prishon

"But" is good! It is actually essential in philosophical discussions! :smile:

For two different people there can be two different physical realities. — Prishon

Exactly. Yes, "physical realities". But always individual realities, i.e., they exist in the mind of the individuals, not outside (in the physical universe).

Whats the real thing? — Prishon

What do you mean by the "real thing"?

Both at the same time? — Prishon

Yes, if you talk about realities, mental worlds. You and me can think of the same thing or have the same reality about something at the same time.
As for quantum physics (physical universe), where a particle can be at two places or two different forms (matter and energy) at the same time, well this is something I am not qualified to talk about! :smile:

they exist in the mind of the individuals, not outside (in the
%physical — Alkis Piskas

Why cant they exist in the outside? Cant mental states and physical states coexist? By mediation maybe of the body? Is there an independent physical pulling through our mental states? If so then say a true material circle form pulls through our mental image of it cant we connect it with other physical circels, or otber forms, to create a new physical reality which wasn't present before our thinking?

What do you mean by the "real thing?" — Alkis Piskas

Good question. Depends on the one who's looking.

Let me first clarify. When I speak of Vectorspace I do not mean the stric mathematical definition. Because else I would need to show the mathematical axioms to hold. We can go there but you would need to provide a more detailed explanation of the realities you speak of.

What I mean when I say vectorspace in following parts I mean sth along the lines of:
Vectospaces consist of variables that are either linear independant or not.
If two variables are linear independant then changing one variables value won't change the others value. If the are linearly dependant it will changing one value will change the other value aswell.
Variables in turn are properties of elements. F.e. Position, temperature, humidity, volume and so on.

With that said we can now examine the realities you presented.
Lets take the physical reality. That you refer to as 5d. We could reduce it to 5 variables that are linear independant base but we could freely add other variables that just aren't linear independant.
However we asume that we have a vectorspace here with 5 base vectors.

Now we could consider dreamworld as an emergent phenomena of the physical reality and therefore a subset of the already existing vectorspace. So any properties you would find would just result in adding more linear dependant variable to our vectorspace.

But since you constructed your dreamworld kind of different we would need to look at the reality of the gods that is as you said outside of the physical reality.
Lets first assume that the reality of the gods has properties but the reality of the gods is independant of our physical reality.
In this case it should in theory be possible to find a cobination of vectors that form a base for said reality of the gods of size n. So we would have a n-dimensional vectorspace for the reality of the gods.
Now if the reality of the gods is independant from the physical realites we can just add the different vectorspaces and creat an n+5 dimensional meta reality that includes both sub realities.

If the dreamworld is as you said a inbetween between both realities this only means that variables of the dreamworld would be vectors that are build out of vectors of both realities you mentioned.

Lets say we assume that we cant identify properties of the reality of the gods. We in theory could still expand the basic phsical reality based on variables derived from properties of the dreamworld.

In this case we wouldnt be able to create a complete model since we can not model the possible vectorspace of the reality of the gods.

However if you denie that the reality of the gods has propreties, or can be investigated you have very little ground to assume that this reality exists or that you are able to create an independant ontholgy that would be applicable to the reality of the gods. Invalidating your attempt to have multiple onthologies that describe different realities. As soon as you have valid hints for the reality of the gods like dreamworld there is no clear reason why you shouldn't be able to expand the vectorspace for the physical reality with variables that describe partially aspects of the reality of the gods.

Except you would find incompatablities that prevent you from doing so.

At least thats how I conceptualize it.
And just to have it said thebkey part is not if its a vectorspace or not. The key point is that you need a strong case that invaldiates expanding a existing framework to include new knowledge. So in a sense a systematic issue that prevents the new knowledge to in principle be included in a framework and any future expansion of it.

The key point is that you need a strong case that invaldiates expanding a existing framework to include new knowledge. — CaZaNOx

I read your idea with great interest! Naturally, I dont agree. Partially. I agree that all material aspects of the true stuff (I' ll explain later what I mean by that) can be expressed by a vector space. Different people though see different material stuff (being part of the wider real stuff). The dreamworld is not emergent from matter though. Is emergent from the real stuff, probably making it even more easy to represent both out of one vectorspace cotaining both matter and magical essential content. The real stuf contains both. In our dreamworld only the manifestation of content is present. In the outside physical world only the material manifestation is present. Once upon a time these two were one only. There vector spaces coincided. With physical hidden variables contact with the gods is possible. Only they know the true Nature of that magic content of matter. How to model them by a vector space? I duuno. It would be blasphemy I guess. These are only two of the possible realities. You can see it as one I guess. But I havent discussed the reality and incommensurability of different physical theories. I havent discussed the real dreamtime of Aboriginals (Im not an Abo). And then there is the reality of vectorspaces. All different realities. All truly existent.

In a sense you are not realy giving a counter to what I said.

Im curious. If we assume gods exist and have knowledge of their reality, dreamworld and the physical reality would they be able to construct a vectorspace that would include all aspects of reality in a single framework.

Because if you would argue for multiple realities you would need to argue that even the gods can't build one unified framework.

However if you think theres no principal reason why they can't then at it's core the reason why we can't do it is not vecause it's in principle not possible and rather human limitations.

However given those human limitations constructing an adittional framework for the reality of the gods would be futile. So you would still end up with only one framework including the properties we can reasonably talk about.

In short if you are not specifically arguing that the gods can't build a unifying framework of reality because of reason x. The entire point for different frameworks for different realities kinda falls short because you say we can know properties of the reality of the gods while simultaniously saying the opposit when a different framework is used.

The gods can do whatever they like. But why should they transform reality in a black and white vector space? You can give the vectors color but dont they need instructions first (like us) to transform the elements of reality into vectors? Vectors are just linepieces with an arrow. Whats the difference between a quark arrow and a dreamed quark arrow? Lets assume the gods could make such a space appear instantly. Aint that reality, if WE could construct it, a reality thats artificial?

Why cant they exist in the outside? Cant mental states and physical states coexist? — Prishon

Do you ask it the reality that I have in my mind about a tree I am just observing also exists as such in the physical universe? How can that be? One is mental and the other is physical. What I have in mind is a representation of the tree. What exists in the physical universe is the tree itself.
Or maybe you mean something else?

By mediation maybe of the body? Is there an independent physical pulling through our mental states? If so then say a true material circle form pulls through our mental image of it cant we connect it with other physical circels, or otber forms, to create a new physical reality which wasn't present before our thinking? — Prishon

I can't get any of this ... Try maybe to create and post here a drawing that shows all that ...

incommensurability — Prishon

Incommensurability in the sense of using different scales (or spectrums / continuums of scale) to measure has never been sensational.

Angels on pinpoints (not heads) was metaphorical (I don't know what for) till a few nutcases tried to allege it was literal.

"Angel" has probably a completely different meaning from usual, in context. In any case, everything in the world "tells us something". The meaning and the story of what is, is "Is".

Last night I found "ontological relativism", later today I'll put it here for you (whether it's the same as Prishon had in mind or not). I'll also think out vectors and dreamtime because they don't fit in the way you might think.

The thread you have started means you need to accept all our answers alongside each other. I recommend more reading on all subjects. Reasoning doesn't work without background knowledge of all kinds.

You asked what the counterargument to a position that you made up yourself is. But you didn't state anything about your position — CaZaNOx

This is a fair point.

1. Cant mental states and physical states coexist? By mediation maybe of the body? Is there an independent physical pulling through our mental states? 2. If so then say a true material circle form pulls through our mental image of it cant we connect it with other physical circels, or other forms, to create a new physical reality which wasn't present before our thinking? — Prishon

In what sense do you mean "create"? Are you talking about awareness in perception? To piece together or discern might be what you mean?

I think Phenomenology, a contemporary introduction by Walter Hopp (2020) will delight you.

Do you ask it the reality that I have in my mind about a tree I am just observing also exists as such in the physical universe? How can that be? One is mental and the other is physical. What I have in mind is a representation of the tree. What exists in the physical universe is the tree itself.
Or maybe you mean something else? — Alkis Piskas

I understand what you mean. The reality of you thinking about a tree and actually seeing one (let's limit ourselves to vision only; other sensory sensations can be treated the same way but with modification of what's observed; our ratio, be it religious, scientifi, instinctive, or whatever, orders these sensations, impressed by the senses), are two different ones. The minds eye view (including whatever ordening is involved) is the same as the view when looking. If you daydream you can imagine walking around a tree or climbing in it. This is different (obviously) from walking around a tree in the physical world. That tree has a physical , matter-like existence.This matter is not present when you think. Obviously. But whats the Nature of matter? Isnt it possible that it contains some "magical" "stuff"? That consciousness emerges because of this stuff? That it doesnt emerge because the physical process is complicated but because this "essence" content" moves along with these complicated matter processes (as they are tied together, the magic being the content of matter)? In the brain only the magic stuff reveals itself, though it can be examined materialistically in say a neuron scan, just as looking at that tree. The matter side of the medal manifests itself as matter only when the magic side of the medal has separated too, in the brain. The tree has magic stuff inside too. But in a tree the two sides of stuff (so, again, matter with magical essential content, which are inseparable; only a living creature experiences the two sides separatly) are still two unmanifested ones. The division matter-essence has not yet taken place (the stuff isnt litterally divided as matter and magical essence are inseparable). The body is the intermediate between the mental (essential, magical) inner world and the material outer world. The inner world can potentially contain all sructures there are in the matter world and can influence that matter world. By thought patterns or by the body. For now... my brain hurts... A physical process with magic content. But not nice. Things like experience of space and time are emergent but they show the world as it is. But... and now I stop...

We were posting exactly the same moment! I think about the create question. It was crystal clear the moment I wrote it... My brain is tired. The inner world tells me to slow down a bit... :smile:

And so is my wife...

The inner world can potentially contain all sructures there are in the matter world and can influence that matter world. By thought patterns or by the body. For now... my brain hurts... A physical process with magic content. — Prishon

:rofl: It can seem that way because our imagination is the laboratory atop our shoulders. Also since Hume (or Bacon) we have all been taught not to use any inference.

Donna Williams helped me understand that first we get either a sensory impulse we don't identify (or a memory or spontaneous imagining of one) then it "takes" form or we identify or interpret its kind and location, then thirdly we accord it value. Only after all of these ("fulfilment") do we move beyond perception to judgment, i.e inference. Deliberate revaluing can influence the way we handle the last of these. Hence assumptions (crucial in Occam, Husserl, Nietzsche et al) are vital in valuing as well as inferring. The second stage meantime depends on us matching prior learning with impulses.

I saw things on the floor when I was getting out of bed. I soon concluded they were feet. Then I decided they must be mine. That was the first two stages in three because I'm slow. Then I decided it's not so surprising, and that is valuation. Then I judged it's OK to carry on with my day and not plan to call for help (about that specifically), and that was my judgment or inference.

Your usage of "magic" is poetical. It's good to gain a sense of wonder.

Analogy tells us something is partly like something else in some way, but it doesn't tell us more than that. The world where we eat and track the sun and build and talk and study, is firm enough for those purposes, yet our knowledge is made up of partial likenesses to other partial likenesses. We know it is firm enough due to inference (much as we're told not to try). Logic is putting knowledge together with other knowledge.

All language is metaphorical. All words allude, and when we have several intersecting allusions, we can begin to see meanings in what is said. (This is where reifiers and fundamentalists go wrong.)

Analogy shouldn't be mistaken for a solid asteroid-like piece of gunk. Things (at every level) are like people who tell us part of a story. It has always worked like this.

A term like "predicate" is often taken in two separate senses: its presence and function, or its content.

The reality of you thinking about a tree — Prishon

What kind and who's reality this is?

The minds eye view (including whatever ordening is involved) is the same as the view when looking. — Prishon

Re "the view when looking": What kind of view this is? A view mainly means the ability to and action of seeing something from a certain point (both literally and figuratively). It may also mean a sight.

That tree has a physical, matter-like existence. This matter is not present when you think. — Prishon

Present to/for whom? And why is it not present? It it is me, do you mean that I'm lost in my thoughts or anyway, my thoughts kind of block out my sight of the tree? (Most probably not, but what else?)
When I observe a tree, it is implied that this tree is present (for me, not someone else) at that exact moment. Otherwise, how could I observed it? If I only think of it, it means that I am not observing it, and I can do that even if the tree is not present (for me) at that moment.

Otherwise, you cannot say that something is "present" in general. Something is "present" if someone observes it. There must be a point of view for something to be considered "present". You can't say, e.g. that the tree you saw sometime ago is still present (exists at that location) at this moment if you don't see it. It may well have been cut out in the meantime!

But whats the Nature of matter? Isnt it possible that it contains some "magical" "stuff"? — Prishon

You lost me there! :smile:

Speculating what gods can do is not the best starting point because I intuit that gods were always meant as a metaphor for a metaphor, even for peoples who go through very "serious" looking motions (and I'm not touching on relative revelation as such). Their reality is different from reifying them. As we don't have gods and little understanding of them, in common, they can comprise a weak term in discussions yetawhile.

In my young day we were taught not to be superstitious of metaphors, either pro OR anti. I think dreamtime is saying some things worth saying that some people don't think of saying and not saying some things some people do think of saying, I don't think it's more complicated than that. Where we need to critique is what is too dumbed down which is disrespectful to us all.

For your enjoyment a vector diagram:

https://www.friesian.com/images/onto-14.gif

I've only just discovered that site, https://www.friesian.com/ (it is run by Kelley Lee Ross). I for one am going to enjoy dipping into it much more. I think neglected thinkers like Fries have much to tell us.

I should have added to my previous, it's also vital not to be superstitious about others' or even our own observations.

My take on the issue is rather simple I'm afraid bit for what it's worth I'd like to share it. There are two realities/worlds and it behooves us to consider them both if we're to get the whole story so to speak. The two realities/worlds are the mental world and the physical world. In the former, two different, mutually contradictory ideas, may coexist and not only that, many variations of them may be part of what's available for subscription e.g. there are theists and atheists, physicalists and nonphysicalists. It bears mentioning though that not usually in the same mind; nevertheless cognitive dissonance has been widely reported in the population. It's thought-provoking that the so-called physical multiverse is, at the end of the day, (just) an idea!

Thanks for the link! I can read there:

Although now with several contributed works, the number of submissions to the journal remains thin, often inappropriate, and all but never from academic philosophers or graduate students, whose concerns still seem to reflect unhealthy preoccupations with Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Marx, and the farcical and pretentious mash of "Theory," often with the addition of a term, "Critical," that really only means "Marxist," that is circulated in departments of English, Sociology, Anthropology, etc. -- and which has now spilled out into museums, the media, general "education," politics, and cowardly corporations.

How true!
Im writing a book. I have experience in writing, buf a philosophical/scientific story I havent actually written. Many short pieces yes. Mainly a lot of questions and answers on various physics sites and almost all sites on StackEchange (FACKExchange...). Only to be banned. I have started writing about my adventures on these sites and can use that to hop from subject to subject. From biology (I got banned for questioning the central dogma), to economy (idem dito for questioning the growth model), to physics (idem dito for proposing the rishon model), to philosophy (idem dito...), the brain, AI, cosmology, etc. etc. Now finally the pieces have fallen in place, I find it time to speak out (as I already did a bit here...). The book has as a working title is: "Hallo, wij schrijven...", meaning "Hello, we write...". The first words preceding the announcement of a suspension, ban, and a network-wide ban finally. Now Im not the uncomprehended guy. I think I just have found a truth about the physical and non-physical universe and all magic going on inside it. And I want others to join me on the trip. Thats all...