Hi Lee,
I am trying to speak up for Realism! I feel your exasperation! The
problem is that our language is demonstrably NOT any good at giving us a
basic set of tools to make sense of our common "world outside their skins"!
The closer we look at this world of ours, including what is inside our
skins, we find that our naive ideas simply are wrong. If we are to have any
hope of finding models and methods to make sense of our universe we
absolutely must take into consideration all of the empirical data that we
have so far found. I would really like to see a version of realism that can
handle the implication of the "delayed choice" experiments!
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EverythingList" <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:17 PM
Subject: RE: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
Aditya writes
Although it is of course debatable, I hold that what we call reality is
our minds' "understanding" of our sensory perceptions.
It's just amazing on this list. Does no one speak up for
realism? The *default* belief among *all* people up until
they take their first fatal dive into a philosophy book
is that there is an ordinary three-dimensional world that
we are all running around in.
(Yes---one *may* look at it as a model, but is this *really*
necessary? It prevents accurate understanding as well as
fosters terrible misunderstandings.)
When 99% of the human race use the word "reality", they mean
the world outside their skins.
If you sacrifice our common understanding of "reality", then
you'll find yourself in a hole out of which you'll never climb.
Janos wrote later
How do you (all) imagine experience/knowledge WITHOUT
experience and knowledge to absorb/create it? It is a
(vicious?) circle. Do we start with a blank form to
fill in? What empty lines? what relations? where from?
You all use the word "reality" - who's and who knows
what is 'behind' it? We interpret some figment by our
own (1st mostly, but applying 3rd pers. info as well -
to the extent how we absorbed it as our own 1st pers
compliance) We are part of the "reality"-word....
See? This is what happens.
Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
agree---this is *very* simple conceptually.
Next, look at this picture after 14.7 billion years. Guess
what has evolved? Finally, there is intelligence and there
are entities who can *perceive* all this grandeur.
So, don't forget which came first. Not people. Not perceptions.
Not ideas. Not dich an sich. Not 1st person. Not 3rd person.
NOT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE. Keep to the basics and we *perhaps*
will have a chance to understand what is going on.
And have a common language with which to describe it.
Lee
