What can we know of reality?

[snoopy]

To DoctorDick et al,


What can we know of reality ? Not a great deal as it happens.

We can only make constructs and attempt proofs of the constructs we believe to be true through Mathematics (a test of rationalism) and also through experiment (a test of empiricism).

We cant even know if reality is real but the consideration of the question is ultimately fruitless in that nothing would ever get done if your world view is 'reality isn't real nothing really matters'.

You are kind of forced by a serious of reward and punishments to accept reality is real.

For example
If you do work that ends up in you getting food and drink. You survive.(reward)

If you dont do work and recieve no food and drink. You die. Rather painfully.
(punishment)

(the term 'work' is being used in a way even if you are not currently employed such as foraging for food and water or going to the shops and buying some)


But whether death and life have any ultimate meaning is a question that cannot be answered in any logical or meanigful way. That is to say we cannot know they have meaning or not.

All we can do is create constructs that through consensus we 'believe' to be 'true'.

Such as the sky is blue or 1+1 = 2.

According to Plato knowledge is a subset of of 'belief' and 'truth' and I agree with this statement.

So statements like 1+1=2 or the sky is blue.

Form knowledge as they are by consensus of opinion both 'believed' and 'true'.

Statements like 'You go to heaven when you die' are only part of the set of 'beliefs' and cannot form the set of 'truths' as it is not possible to prove both mathematically and through experiment by consensus of opinion that this statement is 'true' and therefore cannot be knowledge.

This is not to say that statements like 'You go to heaven when you die' are not true but simply you cannot 'know' they are 'true'.

This my opinion on the subject sorry I am coming at it a bit late in the day.

But it's very interesting, so I thought I would add my thoughts to it.

Cheers

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

I'll continue on with the rest later.

Am I to presume that you have already expressed your problems with my post twelve to this thread? That would be that you understand and agree with the rationality of the remainder of that post.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

The absolute first step in that analysis is to recognize that, under my definition of an explanation, there exists only one explanation which requires no epistemological construct at all. That is what I call the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation. That explanation amounts to nothing more than a table of ontological elements available at a specific time. It is a table of the x indices associated with each t index which constitute the past (what is known). A flaw free ”what is”, is “what is” explanation is one which is consistent with the known past. (A valid ”what is”, is “what is” explanation would be one which was a table of valid ontological elements available at each specific t.)

One problem with the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation is that it gives us not a hint as to what to expect; but that does not mean that it yields no expectations. The expectations yielded by the ”what is”, is “what is” explanation are: exactly what was seen so long as the index t refers to the past and exactly equal probability for all possibilities when the index t refers to the future.

If one's expectations are to be seen as given by a mathematical function of those points defined by the indices in that (x,t) plane then the abrupt change in the nature of that function at the boundary of the past (i.e., the function changes abruptly in what has been defined as the present) is a very interesting phenomena. It is essentially equivalent to the phenomena often referred to as “the collapse of the wave function: our expectations go from zero everywhere (from a mathematical perspective, the (x,t) space is continuous so equal probability for every point is exactly zero) to one for every entry in our ”what is”, is “what is” table of indices and zero for every point not in that table.

Note that the above analysis is valid for all pasts within the referenced data. Prior to any specific present becoming part of “the past” the expectations are exactly as describe in the previous paragraph (there is no prediction) and immediately after that present becomes part of the past the entries in the table become fixed (and the actual indices in no way contradict the expectations as they could have been anything).

What makes that explanation “flaw free” is that it yields exactly the ontological elements upon which it is built (including the temporal relations). What makes it worthless is that it makes utterly no usable prediction. What makes it interesting is that it defines exactly what kind of conditions any “flaw free” explanation must fulfill: it must match the ”what is”, is “what is” table exactly. The only difference between a valuable explanation and our ”what is”, is “what is” explanation is that the “valuable” explanation yields non uniform expectations outside that defined ”what is”, is “what is” table: i.e., it establishes some kind expectations above and beyond “anything goes” and gives non zero expectations outside the established past (it is capable of making predictions).

If you have arguments with what I have said, I am ready and willing to defend them further. If you feel my deductions so far are rational and acceptable, I will precede further.

I actually find it somewhat difficult to believe that you see the above as a totally uncontentious presentation. Qfwfq, if you are still reading this, do you find the above clear and reasonable?

Originally Posted by snoopy

But it's very interesting, so I thought I would add my thoughts to it.

Snoopy, I am very happy to see you find the discussion interesting; however, if you carefully review your post, I think you will find it to be a list of things you think are true. The central theme of this presentation is that thinking something is true is of no consequence (outside of mathematics which is being used as a language here under the presumption that the definitions and operations defined under mathematics are the most agreed upon collection of concepts available to us). The construct I am designing is to be applicable to any set of beliefs; sort of like the Dewy Decimal System for enumerating library volumes is designed to be applicable to any publication. If that goal is not clear to you, let me know and I will try to clarify my meanings.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Why don't we just say that we'll deal with causality later.

Speaking of causality, it is also possible to conceive of an explanation which would require some established future to be drawing us towards a fixed outcome. Not that I am proposing such a thing but rather that, unless we can prove such a thing is not possible, our representation must be capable of accommodating such an explanation. The central point being that “causality” is a component of one’s epistemological constructs and not a phenomena required of an underlying valid ontological reference.

Have fun -- Dick

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Qfwfq, if you are still reading this, do you find the above clear and reasonable?

I was able to follow it, yeah.

[snoopy]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Snoopy, I am very happy to see you find the discussion interesting; however, if you carefully review your post, I think you will find it to be a list of things you think are true. The central theme of this presentation is that thinking something is true is of no consequence (outside of mathematics which is being used as a language here under the presumption that the definitions and operations defined under mathematics are the most agreed upon collection of concepts available to us). The construct I am designing is to be applicable to any set of beliefs; sort of like the Dewy Decimal System for enumerating library volumes is designed to be applicable to any publication. If that goal is not clear to you, let me know and I will try to clarify my meanings.

Yes I understand what you are trying to do. Just doubt the validity of why you are trying to do it.

Mathematics cannot explain the universe alone.

E= hV

means nothing unless you know what h and V represent and you have to use language to do that.
Cheers

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I was able to follow it, yeah.

Well, that shows feint interest if I have ever seen it. Put that together with the addition to your signiture:

...

I can only presume that your interest is somewhat lacking. As Idsoftwaresteve has not responded for almost a month, I am beginning to get the idea that I have exceeded everyone's attention span again.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If you have arguments with what I have said, I am ready and willing to defend them further. If you feel my deductions so far are rational and acceptable, I will proceed further.

If Idsoftwaresteve responds or someone else expresses an interest, I will continue. If not, I will let the discourse die.

Originally Posted by snoopy

Yes I understand what you are trying to do.

Now why is it that I tend to doubt that?

Originally Posted by snoopy

Just doubt the validity of why you are trying to do it.

This line makes no sense to me at all. You "doubt the validity of why” I am trying to do something? I presume English is not your first language.

Originally Posted by snoopy

Mathematics cannot explain the universe alone.

Now that, of course, is a very common belief; but I am afraid I have never seen any proof of such a statement! Do you happen to have a proof? If you do, I would love to see it.

Originally Posted by snoopy

... means nothing unless you know what h and V represent and you have to use language to do that.

In that case, it is incumbent upon you to explain to me exactly how you come to know the meanings of those words you intend to use to “explain” what “h and V” represent.

In actual fact, I am of the opinion that the true power of language is that it makes it very easy to hide the fact that you do not know the truth of your beliefs. Instead, it makes it quite easy to hide the problem of understanding that process by burying it in a problem so difficult that everyone backs off from trying to solve it and, instead, takes the trivial out of presuming their understanding is a mere self evident truth not worth examining. Mathematics, on the other hand, puts the hard problem directly in front of you. My point is that millions upon millions of children solve that “hard problem” every year.

I am not claiming that the solution is correct (as does almost everyone else) but I am claiming it is a solvable problem and that I have discovered a solution. My difficulty is quite simple: no one seems at all interested in looking at my solution. The reaction is universal and simple: everyone takes it as given that “there can exist no solution to that problem”. So be it!

It's been fun -- Dick

PS – I saw a “T” shirt today with an excellent quote on it.

Be what you are; say what you think and feel
Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind!

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I can only presume that your interest is somewhat lacking. As Idsoftwaresteve has not responded for almost a month, I am beginning to get the idea that I have exceeded everyone's attention span again.

Mustn't one first have everyone's attention in order to exceed its span?

[Qfwfq]

I was hoping to gradually get a better understanding of what you mean by the things you talk about, you were doing a better job of explaining it all, in this thread. Don't be touchy about my sig. Being my sig, it doesn't concern just that post, or even just this thread, you should well know this, and I added it some time after that post too. G'night.

[snoopy]

[quote=Doctordick;181278
This line makes no sense to me at all. You "doubt the validity of why” I am trying to do something? I presume English is not your first language.
Now that, of course, is a very common belief; but I am afraid I have never seen any proof of such a statement! Do you happen to have a proof? If you do, I would love to see it.
In that case, it is incumbent upon you to explain to me exactly how you come to know the meanings of those words you intend to use to “explain” what “h and V” represent.
[/quote]

Wow you are really grumpy.

It is not incumbent on me to prove that math alone cannot explain the universe.

The general view is that math along with experiment and some natural philosophy can explain the universe.

This is my view as well, so I don't have to prove anything.

Your statements that you can 'prove' that you can do everything with mathematics 'alone' without experiment and natural philosophy is unusual and I think you need to 'prove what you are saying'.

Can you prove what you are saying ?

I have seen no evidence that you can but remain generally interested to see if you can or will you just revert to illogical insults to people who take an interest in what you are saying.

Cheers


(La connaissance est sans valour à moins que vous la mettiez en pratique.)

QEdit: don't start an unnecessary pissing contest.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by snoopy

Wow you are really grumpy.

He knows that he is. If you're annoyed by his grumpiness, just avoid the thread. If you want to see how he can prove what he claims, exercise patience. Without comparing knowledgeabilty or the likes.

[Rade]

The question "what can we know of reality" is answered thus:

1. To have knowledge is to say you have a mental grasp of the "fact(s)" of reality.

2. The facts of reality are that which exist.

3. There is nothing antecedent to existence (or the facts of reality)--existence is a self-sufficient primary.

Therefore the answer to the OP question reduces to an axiom not open to discussion---reality exists and you (we, I) know it.

This is what I know of reality--but I would be interesting in hearing what the OP author [Doctordick] knows of reality. For example, does he know he exists ?