• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Objective Reality Exist or Is It Just a Working Hypothesis?

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
10,390
Reaction score
7,997
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Does some kind of an objective reality actually exist or is the concept of reality just a working hypothesis which we humans use as an intellectual crutch to help us manage an irrational and non-causal universe of infinite probability fields and nearly infinite, human-created, observational collapsed superpositions. In essence, is reality a wilful act of faith or a rational construct based on evidence and which cannot be falsified? Does an Ur-reality exist and if so how do we go about finding and presenting evidence for it?

The language I am using is related to quantum physics and the nature of a possible "quantum reality".

A probability field is an aggregate of all possible fates of a particle or wave which actually coexist simultaneously. Because all possibilities co-exist simultaneously and co-locationally within a probability field, causation (cause and effect) don't really exist and causal ambiguity reigns supreme.

A probability field collapses when observation or measurement nudges the probability field to implode and to produce one definite outcome of the many possible outcomes co-located in the un-collapsed field. In other words observation triggers reality rather than observing a pre-existing reality.

A superposition is the specific version of observed reality which the act of observation or measurement triggered/caused by collapsing the probability field and forcing it to coalesce into one definite outcome.

If the hypotheses of the Copenhagen flavour of Quantum physics (for which there is some persuasive evidence and strong predictive success) are accepted, then can an Ur-reality be said to exist? If these quantum hypotheses are rejected, then are we not just forcefully willing upon ourselves a reality which may not actually exist by the imposition of will and purpose on a fuzzy and non-causal universe - essentially an act of faith.

Discuss and debate please. Feel free to use other vocabulary than I have chosen to use, but please define your terms first.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Does some kind of an objective reality actually exist or is the concept of reality just a working hypothesis which we humans use as an intellectual crutch

Objective reality is axiomatic.

To make your claim "does objective reality [etc]" itself, presupposes the fact of reality, in that to make any claim or ponder any claim, necessarily requires being real to do so.
Collapse all the fields you want, but if there is something we discuss, reality is.

Maybe your question is more of a "is reality intuitive"? And I think based on a QM viewpoint, clearly not. But we certainly don't use QM to figure out how to put mail in the mailbox. Saying it's a "crutch" has a negative connotation. It's a powerful tool that resulted from evolutionary adaptation, to observe and interact with reality largely on a "macro" scale. Isn't that the first rule of QM? It's not intuitive? :)
 
Does some kind of an objective reality actually exist or is the concept of reality just a working hypothesis which we humans use as an intellectual crutch to help us manage an irrational and non-causal universe of infinite probability fields and nearly infinite, human-created, observational collapsed superpositions. In essence, is reality a wilful act of faith or a rational construct based on evidence and which cannot be falsified? Does an Ur-reality exist and if so how do we go about finding and presenting evidence for it?

The language I am using is related to quantum physics and the nature of a possible "quantum reality".

A probability field is an aggregate of all possible fates of a particle or wave which actually coexist simultaneously. Because all possibilities co-exist simultaneously and co-locationally within a probability field, causation (cause and effect) don't really exist and causal ambiguity reigns supreme.

A probability field collapses when observation or measurement nudges the probability field to implode and to produce one definite outcome of the many possible outcomes co-located in the un-collapsed field. In other words observation triggers reality rather than observing a pre-existing reality.

A superposition is the specific version of observed reality which the act of observation or measurement triggered/caused by collapsing the probability field and forcing it to coalesce into one definite outcome.

If the hypotheses of the Copenhagen flavour of Quantum physics (for which there is some persuasive evidence and strong predictive success) are accepted, then can an Ur-reality be said to exist? If these quantum hypotheses are rejected, then are we not just forcefully willing upon ourselves a reality which may not actually exist by the imposition of will and purpose on a fuzzy and non-causal universe - essentially an act of faith.

Discuss and debate please. Feel free to use other vocabulary than I have chosen to use, but please define your terms first.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

An objective reality would exist independent of an observer. The moment we describe something we limit it. We place boundary conditions upon a concept when we describe it.

There is only one concept where this limitation does not apply...that of infinity. So infinity is the objective reality...yet we can not define infinity.....Infinity is an irrational concept...

Our reality consists of that which we can describe. We are part of that reality. Our reality is self contained...and subjective according to our description. From the perspective of infinity do we exist? Again, what is infinity. A boundless condition which contains elements of self contained reality?...
 
Russell797:

A very good response, thank you.

Our reality consists of that which we can describe.

"Our reality", is a subjective reality, is it not? The universe might not care what we think and thus could have a very different reality from our own. Thus the question about a more objective reality posed here. Can we describe a neutron star or a black-hole or just indirectly speculate about its structure and function from data collected from its event horizon? Can we describe metallic hydrogen in the core of a large gas giant or do we have to make educated guesses? Can we describe an atom or an electron? By describing things do we make them real, independent of an objective reality? If so, we can describe time, money, nationalism, a saint, a god or a devil and conjure them into our reality. Do we really want to go down that perilous road?

Irrationality and irrational numbers are buried in infinite infinities between the integers of "our reality". Thus the universe is far more irrational and infinite that just being infinitely big or infinitely divisible.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Mach:

Objective reality is axiomatic.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/axiomatic

If reality is axiomatic then what is the point of inquiry and science in an axiomatic and thus unquestionable and self-evident world? Let humanity just go along with what is thought to be proper and fitting? There is little rule for learning here.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
... Feel free to use other vocabulary than I have chosen to use, but please define your terms first.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.


YboYNjh.jpg

Ur-Reality is the elephant.
Common sense, religion, art, philosophy, science, and language are the six blind men.
 
Russell797:

A very good response, thank you.



"Our reality", is a subjective reality, is it not? The universe might not care what we think and thus could have a very different reality from our own. Thus the question about a more objective reality posed here. Can we describe a neutron star or a black-hole or just indirectly speculate about its structure and function from data collected from its event horizon? Can we describe metallic hydrogen in the core of a large gas giant or do we have to make educated guesses? Can we describe an atom or an electron? By describing things do we make them real, independent of an objective reality? If so, we can describe time, money, nationalism, a saint, a god or a devil and conjure them into our reality. Do we really want to go down that perilous road?

Irrationality and irrational numbers are buried in infinite infinities between the integers of "our reality". Thus the universe is far more irrational and infinite that just being infinitely big or infinitely divisible.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Yes our reality is subjective deduced..We can measure the universe and all it's features from the very smallest to very largest by means of four fundamental forces. Everything we know about we have gleaned from the transmittance of information by those forces. In reality the only "thing" we detect are those forces..We don't see objects, we detect the electromagnetic energy they emit. We detect objects gravitationally....gravitational waves which travel at the speed of light. Those waves or fields carry with them information about what emitted them. The strong and weak nuclear forces interact with elementary particles to create baryonic matter..The particles themselves represent a form of bound up energy capable of transition between energy and massive particles when they interact with the Higgs field..

My desk is mostly empty space which appears and feels like a solid only because of the way light interacts with the electron components of it's atoms. I can never feel or see "the desk"...only the electromagnetic force interacting with my skin and eyes. Neutrinos which do not "feel" that force pass right on through like there is nothing there.....If I'm a neutrino, does the desk exist?
 
Yes our reality is subjective deduced..We can measure the universe and all it's features from the very smallest to very largest by means of four fundamental forces. Everything we know about we have gleaned from the transmittance of information by those forces. In reality the only "thing" we detect are those forces..We don't see objects, we detect the electromagnetic energy they emit. We detect objects gravitationally....gravitational waves which travel at the speed of light. Those waves or fields carry with them information about what emitted them. The strong and weak nuclear forces interact with elementary particles to create baryonic matter..The particles themselves represent a form of bound up energy capable of transition between energy and massive particles when they interact with the Higgs field..

My desk is mostly empty space which appears and feels like a solid only because of the way light interacts with the electron components of it's atoms. I can never feel or see "the desk"...only the electromagnetic force interacting with my skin and eyes. Neutrinos which do not "feel" that force pass right on through like there is nothing there.....If I'm a neutrino, does the desk exist?

Russell797:

A good post which was well written and concise. Thank you!

Now some annoying Socratic questioning:

So we live in a holographic universe from string/membrane to universal membrane and beyond? What lies behind the holograph? How indirect do observations have to be before we can deny them as good enough evidence for our subjective reality? Rather than being content to deduce a reality is it not an easy but perilous step to induce another subjective reality based on bias, faith or misapplied reason? How is Bohr's quantum universe any more valid than one created by a Sufi mystic in a ribat (fort) in North Africa who has received the Light of Muhammad? What makes Bohr or Einstein legit and Sufi mysticism invalid, some equations and predictive success in a projected universe revealled by those same equations? If I and thousands see the Virgin Mary at Fatima, does that make the experience objectively real? Or is human pattern-recognition creating attractive fictions by allowing us to falsely correlating data points into what we wish to see?

Credo videre ergo omnia sunt?

Unless one tries to tunnel down behind the holograph to find and interact with the emitter, one might as well accept all subjective realities as equally valid and end further collective inquiry in favour of individual revelation and subjective POV.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Mach:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/axiomatic
If reality is axiomatic then what is the point of inquiry and science in an axiomatic and thus unquestionable and self-evident world?
Let humanity just go along with what is thought to be proper and fitting? There is little rule for learning here.Cheers.Evilroddy.

Maybe it hasn't yet clicked for you. Your post is specifically asking about "Objective Reality" as a whole, that's a fundamental concept to "all of reasoning". Everything. Literally.

You are not asking about rules of the universe, they all still be inquired about.
You are not asking about QM or diving deeper into cosmology, etc., they can be inquired about.
You are not asking about new materials, etc., etc., etc. They can all still be discovered.

So your claim that admitting objective reality is axiomatic, leave little room for learning, is demonstrably false, since everything remains just as unanswered as before you considered it.

Objective reality is fundamental to any/all claims about reality. It's not an answer to a question, it's part of the reason why *there are any questions at all*. If objective reality didn't exist, THEN you'd have no rule for learning...there would be nothing...literally, no questions, no answers, nothing. Notice that it's axiomatic...it's not even able to be inquired about, literally. It must be true for there to be inquiry about itself(!) or anything else.

Take any claim. Any (any).
It's implicit in that claim that objective reality *is*. If not, then you are literally claiming, as you exist, that you don't exist. It's a contradiction. Saying it's OK to be illogical (in all contexts) is absurd.

You seem to be mixing the fact of objective reality, with "how humans understand and perceive our reality", or something similar. It seems to me that's two different things.
You can keep investigating each layer of the onion, and we can see how thinking the outer layer is "reality" is wrong, and it's really this inner stuff, and beyond that, etc. That's normal/fine. The philosophy part though is that there is an onion in the first place. Which layer is irrelevant to that fact.
 
Last edited:
Russell797:

A good post which was well written and concise. Thank you!

Now some annoying Socratic questioning:

So we live in a holographic universe from string/membrane to universal membrane and beyond? What lies behind the holograph? How indirect do observations have to be before we can deny them as good enough evidence for our subjective reality? Rather than being content to deduce a reality is it not an easy but perilous step to induce another subjective reality based on bias, faith or misapplied reason? How is Bohr's quantum universe any more valid than one created by a Sufi mystic in a ribat (fort) in North Africa who has received the Light of Muhammad? What makes Bohr or Einstein legit and Sufi mysticism invalid, some equations and predictive success in a projected universe revealled by those same equations? If I and thousands see the Virgin Mary at Fatima, does that make the experience objectively real? Or is human pattern-recognition creating attractive fictions by allowing us to falsely correlating data points into what we wish to see?

Credo videre ergo omnia sunt?

Unless one tries to tunnel down behind the holograph to find and interact with the emitter, one might as well accept all subjective realities as equally valid and end further collective inquiry in favour of individual revelation and subjective POV.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Some people think that is what we can't help but do. That subjective belief is our only access to reality. So for them, the word imaginary is meaningless.
 
YboYNjh.jpg

Ur-Reality is the elephant.
Common sense, religion, art, philosophy, science, and language are the six blind men.

Angel:

The give those six men the "white canes of reason" and the drive of insatiable curiosity and then send them out, lightly tapping towards a better understanding of the Ur-elephant. Ensure no mice are present to avoid any unpleasant mishaps!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Russell797:

Maybe it hasn't yet clicked for you.

You're right. I have reread your latest post several times and I do not follow what you are saying. I need to do more homework and reflect on your words for awhile, before I respond.

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to reply.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Devildavid:

Some people think that is what we can't help but do. That subjective belief is our only access to reality. So for them, the word imaginary is meaningless.

And yet if the universe can only be comprehended as an imperfect subjective reality through remote sensing and mathematical manipulation then there is an element of truth in that apparent delusion. It befuddles me.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Russell797:

A good post which was well written and concise. Thank you!

Now some annoying Socratic questioning:

So we live in a holographic universe from string/membrane to universal membrane and beyond? What lies behind the holograph?

A question wrapped up in an enigma. If the holograph is 2 dimensional there needn't be a behind or a before.

How indirect do observations have to be before we can deny them as good enough evidence for our subjective reality?

If observations are ambiguous or leave us uncertain, then the best we do is say we don't know.

Rather than being content to deduce a reality is it not an easy but perilous step to induce another subjective reality based on bias, faith or misapplied reason?

Very much so. However, for all intents and purposes we can deduce our reality, that which we operate and interact with 99.99999% of the time, as our objective reality understandable through logical deduction, science and what we deem the laws of nature.

How is Bohr's quantum universe any more valid than one created by a Sufi mystic in a ribat (fort) in North Africa who has received the Light of Muhammad? What makes Bohr or Einstein legit and Sufi mysticism invalid, some equations and predictive success in a projected universe revealled by those same equations?

Because quantum mechanics is an observation of our reality which is used in practice to consistently and successfully describe a particular realm of our existence, even if we don't currently understand how to make sense of it all. Science works by building a framework one piece at a time..It's a process lead by evidence rather than a presupposed result. Mysticism on the other hand fails to tie together with nature in any consistent way..there is no logical chain where mysticism can even make predictions let alone successful ones.

If I and thousands see the Virgin Mary at Fatima, does that make the experience objectively real?

Yes the experience is real..does it represent what those who experience it claim? I have no way of knowing that, but to be consistent with our rational, logically deduced impression of reality as limited as that may be, I would suggest the answer is no.

Or is human pattern-recognition creating attractive fictions by allowing us to falsely correlating data points into what we wish to see?

That's the logical explanation...people saw what appeared to be lines on the planet Mars and imagined them to be canals built by Martians. People viewed a cloudy Venus and being closer to the Sun than Earth envisioned a very warm, swampy surface environment. Some people see the Man in the Moon, others see a rabbit.



Unless one tries to tunnel down behind the holograph to find and interact with the emitter, one might as well accept all subjective realities as equally valid and end further collective inquiry in favour of individual revelation and subjective POV.

To each his own I agree...but all subjective realities are not equally valid. We will progress as a species by applying our knowledge to real world problems..Pragmatism and probability dictate so. The wall in front of me may not be in every sense real, but in all probability if I punch it with my fist it's going to hurt a whole lot!
 
Last edited:
Russell797:

Maybe it hasn't yet clicked for you.

You're right. I have reread your latest post several times and I do not follow what you are saying. I need to do more homework and reflect on your words for awhile, before I respond.

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to reply.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I didn't write that line...Mach did...or am I missing something?
 
I think there is an objective reality. Granted, at the quantum level things exist more as probabilities rather than concrete “objects” but I still think that can be part of an objective reality.

Now, I have serious doubts that we can ever truly know what that objective reality is, given our limited senses and being constrained to our three spacial dimensions. The best we can hope for are useful models that allow us to navigate the world and make predictions.
 
I didn't write that line...Mach did...or am I missing something?

Russell797 and Mach:

Argh! Screwed over by my own subjective reality occluding objective reality. How humiliating and how ironic. My apologies to both Russell797 and Mach for the mix-up. Mea Culpa!

Cheers.
Evilroddy (the confused)
 
Back
Top Bottom