How Different Kinds Of Realism Interact
How Different Kinds Of Realism InteractWhy does 'physical reality' have to have a sensible definition of that kind? I would prefer to treat 'mathematical reality' as abstract by definition, and then assert that 'physical reality' is something else which is simply assumed to exist. I wouldn't call a circle 'physical' even if perfectly circular (in cross-section) physical objects were commonplace. -- VickiKerr
1) In claiming that mathematical reality is "abstract by definition" you are begging the question of what "abstract" means. (Meanwhile, you are conveniently slurring mathematics since it is a common notion that physical reality is "less abstract" than mathematics.) I suspect you haven't the foggiest notion what "treating mathematical reality as abstract" means. Because one of the possible meanings is precisely mine; mathematics is formal manipulation of symbols. But what I think is closest to your view of mathematics is nominalism. In case I need to remind anyone, nominalism is pointless posturing and has the same stink of brainless denial as eliminative materialism.
2) Assuming that physical reality exists is in no way different from Solipsism. What kind of reasoned justification can you give against solipsism when you use exactly the same line of reasoning solipsists do? Additionally, your view suffers the disadvantage of being more complicated than mere Solipsism. It'll be a cold day in hell before I accept solipsism, it'll be a freezing one before I accept that "physical reality simply exists".
Also, it is simply unesthetic for a person to assume physical reality in existence when that same physical reality is supposed to be independent of the person's will. Doesn't anyone understand "And on the First Day, God created an Unmovable Rock ...."?
(Note: you gave no definition of "existence". Perhaps you favour a circular argument wherein existence is defined as that which physical reality does?)
Also, since you've just admitted to creating the Universe, I have a lengthy list of complaints I'd like to lodge with you. I'll send you the first 10,000 items over the next few days ....
3) Your last claim is equally intriguing. Consider the consequences of your argument. "I wouldn't call quarks 'physical' even if such objects were commonplace." Or why not "I wouldn't call atoms 'physical' even if such objects were commonplace." Hell, why stop there? Why not go for "I wouldn't call automobiles 'physical' even if such objects were commonplace." But hey, that's not all!
Because what if instead of subparts being abstractions of wholes, it's aggregates that are abstractions of parts? What if the universe as a totality is an abstraction? Why, then one would have to say "I wouldn't call planets 'physical' even if such objects were commonplace", "I wouldn't call galaxies 'physical' even if such objects were commonplace" and even "I wouldn't call the universe 'physical' even if it exists."
Most people are convinced this is all mindless posturing, meaningless blah blah blah that just goes to show how philosophy is bankrupt and a waste of breath. I'm glad to see you disagree, Vicki. I'm glad you've shown them all that Scholasticism lives!
But before I forget, there's an intriguing symmetry involved in subparts-wholes. What if you accept both "subparts are abstractions of wholes" and "wholes are abstractions of subparts"? Why then, you'd be forced to reduce physical reality to unorganized and unanalyzed sense experiences. No objects, no thoughts, no language in which to form thoughts, nor even concepts or symbols in which to form language! Just a mindless animal with no past nor future (these being pure abstractions). You'd also likely be dead since "the car driving over my broken body" is an abstraction which surely does not exist! Of course, that is a small price to pay, yes? The broken nose you'd get after patiently explaining to a physicist why quarks, atoms, planets, galaxies and even the universe aren't physical would also be a small price to pay, yes?
Wait a minute, I think I made philosophy relevant to the real world. Forget everything in the last paragraph! -- RichardKulisz
1. Mathematics involves formal manipulation of symbols, but is more than that. It doesn't require a concept of physical existence, hence it is abstract.
2. My view differs greatly from solipsism. Since I'm not a solipsist, I neither copy solipsism nor defend it. I made no claim that I created the universe.
3. I wouldn't consider a circle a physical object because it can be defined without making any use of the notion of physicality.
4. Most philosophers are not happy with symbol manipulation being carried out by symbol manipulation alone. Hence the need for something else - the physical universe.
-- VickiKerr
1. "physical existence" as understood by most scientists is completely abstract. Again, "abstract" as compared to what'?
I deny your claim that mathematics is anything more than formal manipulation of symbols, let alone "must" be something more. Perhaps you do not understand what I mean by 'mathematics'. I do not mean the particular theorems which mathematicians construct but refer strictly to the eternal laws that govern these theorems.
Stupid question - what, exactly, do you mean by symbol in the above? -- JoshuaGrosse
But enough of posturing. The central concept I'm trying to get across here is that assuming something into existence (any kind of existence) is a complete no-no. It is verboten, prohibido, interdit, forbidden, comprendo? You don't do it in mathematics and you sure as hell don't do it with physics.
(And at least, I didn't accuse you of being a solipsist. People are constantly accusing me of being a dualist, platonist, nihilist, or solipsist, even though I support none of them. Maybe property dualism ....)
3. "I wouldn't consider a quark a physical object because it can be defined without making any use of the notion of physicality." Or how about "I wouldn't consider the universe physical because superstrings can define it without making any use of the notion of physicality". And since you haven't even defined what "physicality" means, how one would go about "using" that notion is beyond me.
For the record, no physical object requires physical existence in its formal definition. For instance, elves are physical objects, they just happen to not exist. Whether something which does not (and probably cannot) exist could go about "using the notion of physicality" is left as an exercise to the reader.
1. Not relevant. I didn't mention or refer to '"physical existence" as understood by most scientists'. However, scientists often use the word 'physical', so they seem to think it's not the same as 'abstract'.
2. I stated no implication of the kind you asserted - just gave my reason. You've accepted now that I'm not a solipsist, so your references to it are no longer pertinent. I didn't make any mention of the creation of the universe. I simply prefer to assume there is a physical, non-abstract universe rather than prove it. I make no claim that scientists turned philosophers have the same preference. Note that I'm not saying 'one must assume', which would be related to solipsism. Also, I originally stated a preference, which is not the same as making a claim, so I don't know what claim you are referring to.
3. Scientists do, of course, create abstract models. But relating to what? Sometimes, other abstract objects, but also physical objects. The existence of these is tacitly assumed, whereas elves, say, are merely invented objects, so they're abstract. I distinguish a 'real' elf, if one exists, from an invented one.
I don't know what 'formal definitions' of physical objects you had in mind. Formal definitions tend to be of abstract objects, or relate to objects which are assumed to exist physically. Such assumptions do not, of course, cause the objects to exist, and my original use of 'assumed to exist' was not intended to mean 'brought into existence by assumption'.
I am not assuming that the physical existence of anything depends on my will, or any other abstract object, including the laws of physics, since those laws are descriptions, rather than rules devised and enforced. The apparent obedience of physical laws doesn't imply there's any actual enforcement process, just as no-one forces 5 to be a PrimeNumber - it just happens to be one.
-- VickiKerr
1. Scientists seem to think a lot of things. But they aren't metaphysicians so they can stuff themselves.
2. I see. Your "I prefer to assume" means "I prefer to turn off my brain and not think about the subject at all". I wonder then why you bother to discuss it here, or anywhere. I wonder also at your reasons for complaining about people who don't turn off their brains when it is inconvenient for them.
Lots of people find it convenient to simply assume that modern physics is right, but they don't bother physicists with such inanity. Nor do they try to justify their position, thus implicitly arguing that physicists are in the wrong for doing further research in the field. Apparently, it's only philosophy that earns this special level of disrespect; "I don't want to do philosophy and I don't think anyone else should either".
I can see that defining physical existence can be difficult. I didn't 'turn off by brain' as a result. I simply tried to avoid the difficulties. The sort of definition you seem to want isn't necessary.
I'm not commenting on whether modern physics is right or wrong, nor am I implying anything about that. I'm simply choosing an approach that doesn't ensnarl me in terminological difficulties or lead me to bizarre conclusions. Other approaches may also work. -- VickiKerr
Formal definitions of existence, reality and physical reality are necessary to do metaphysics. I only brought up physics for the sake of analogy since nothing we were discussing was physics, only metaphysics. Perhaps you were misled about the focus of the discussion. -- RichardKulisz
Formal definitions would indeed be expected for metaphysics. But it's hard to provide satisfactory definitions, and such definitions are not needed to reply to WhyDoesTheUniverseExist. Asking that assumes it is caused to exist, which isn't known, and the lack of evidence suggests there is no cause. -- Vickikerr
The title of a WikiPage and its actual focus may be very different in practice. Your implicit claim that they weren't is another example of ConversationalChaff I would be happy to remove.
Note: not all "why" questions refer to causes. -- RichardKulisz
To say that something is real is to make a statement about it being independent of language, cognitive processes, and states of mind. Something is real if its existence is independent of people's thoughts, hopes, and fears about its existence.
It is obvious that mathematics is real in this sense. Equally obvious, mathematical realism isn't the same thing as physical realism. Not so obvious, mathematical realism is not the same thing as platonism.
Some people claim that in order for something to be real, it must be physically real, or its reality traceable back to physical reality. To them, the only reality that matters is physical reality. This is intellectual narrow-mindedness at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst.
A third type of realism is mental realism. The contents of one's mind exist and they do so independently of anyone else's thoughts, hopes and fears on the matter. To an extent, it's even the case that a person's states of mind are independent of their states of mind. That is, whether a person is afraid is (largely) independent of whether or not they think, hope or fear being afraid.
What are common positions among scientists and philosophers?
I agree with a fair amount of that, though not the notion that my thoughts aren't real (but your definition of real could probably be adjusted to avoid that). We seem to disagree on (a) what abstract reality (or abstract) and physical reality mean, and (b) whether some aims of metaphysicians (to provide certain definitions) are attainable and worthwhile. I had noticed the page contents moving away from what the title asked, and also the dead end probably being approached. I see no problem in choosing my assumptions, providing they are not contradictory. -- VickiKerr
What does "that" refer to in "I agree with a fair amount of that"? From the "though not ..." it seems that you agree with most of the notions I discard as absurdities ...?
The only concrete reality is mental reality. Even if physical reality is derived from mental reality, perhaps by being logically derived from it, it remains largely or wholly abstract. And of course, mathematics is even more abstract. But since I don't use the term "abstract" as a slur on something's reality, it doesn't matter as much to me what is and what is not abstract.
-- RichardKulisz
"The only concrete reality is mental reality."
Maybe. We are confined in this respect. But to those who value discovery of, and participation in new experiences, this is not a progressive approach to reality. And what is there to recommend a mathematical realism? If I had to, I would choose a realism that exists for the sake of, and not to justify and explain experience. Fortunately I don't have to choose. -- ChrisSteinbach
EditText of this page
(last edited March 27, 2006)
or FindPage with title or text search