What can we know of reality?

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by modest

By the way, I could use your argument to assert that it is always useful to have a worldview where every object in the universe is a banana.

Think about what you are saying. You are asserting that your explanation of reality is that every object in the universe is a banana. Well, I am simply at a loss as to what you mean by that: i.e., I do not understand your explanation. I do not understand how that explanation can be used to determine the acceptability of any specific response to any specific circumstance. It doesn't even begin to satisfy the definition of an explanation.

Originally Posted by modest

I am unable to prove or describe how the banana-worldview is useful for specific non-banana elements

Though I do not understand your explanation of the universe (every object in the universe is a banana) this second comment is still rather silly. If every object in the universe is a banana, what purpose is there to concern yourself with “non-banana elements”?

Originally Posted by modest

I simply assume that whatever the real nature of the universe is, ...

Why are you making assumptions? Anssi and I are trying very hard not to make any assumptions of any kind. I don't think you understand what we are doing.

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

This seems to be straying off topic.

Modest, can I ask you to write a post that lays out the fundamental things we can (are able) to know of reality?

I am interested in your full view.

This will act as a way for me to counter-argue my own analysis, and respond accordingly, not to mention other active posters like DD, Anssih, and others.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Modest, can I ask you to write a post that lays out the fundamental things we can (are able) to know of reality?

If modest can do so then he misunderstands the issue being discussed. The only thing one can know is exactly what is it that he desires to achieve. Call that achievement an explanation or understanding, it really makes no difference, but what does make a difference is exactly what is meant by the concept explanation or understanding.

What it is that you are explaining is not the issue! That is exactly the solution to the problem: i.e., the solution concerns the nature of the required epistemological construct, not the ontological basis. The actual ontological basis is an unknowable thing. Until the reader comprehends that characteristic of the circumstance, my work is simply beyond their comprehension.

Have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by modest

That is my analysis and nothing you've said shows it wrong. Where you assume that the 3D worldview will somehow (you don't explain how) accomplish the task of giving the life form a useful answer—I do not. I assume that it may or may not give him good answers depending on the nature of the underlying ontology.

I guess I should re-iterate, as strongly as I can, that in the beginning of the analysis there exists no assumption about the 3D-worldview always being useful. That assertion of 3D-worldivew being useful, is based on the results of the analysis. I.e. the explanation you are asking for, is the analysis itself.

I'm sorry you feel that repetition gets us nowhere but I don't know what else to do here. The general self-coherence & symmetry requirements can be expressed mathematically (their impact on any valid prediction function), and the fundamental equation is an algebraically modified succint expression of all those requirements.

After few approximations (disregarding feedback from the rest of the universe etc, the exact approximations that always exist in conventional physics) and algebraic manipulation, we end up with Schrödinger's Equation. I.e., the relationship normally known as Schrödinger's Equation, was already embedded in the original general requirements.

I hope your belief, that a 4D world cannot be usefully expressed in a 3D form, does not block you from looking at the proof itself. And I must say, it is quite apparent to me that your argument is coming directly from the "scientific realism" paradigm (your argument rests on assumptions that cannot be objectively defended).

I can once again try to point out exactly where those undefendable assumptions are:

With the life form's 3D worldview he will naturally conclude that 6 are required. His worldview is useful in so far as it is correct. But, the ontological nature of reality need not agree with that worldview. It is entirely possible that a tesseract is required to accomplish the task thus requiring 24 of these square faces to bind the object. Thus there exists a possible and a valid ontological element for which this 3D world view is *not* useful.

When you are thinking about "square faces in 3D perspective" and the same "square faces in 4D perspective", you are thinking about some very specific (and fairly simple) transformation there; I suspect some sort of "projection" scheme, as having a specific setup of square objects in 3D view, and imagine how that would "project itself into 4D world" and vice versa.

In other words, you have already defined a very specific transformation, and furthermore assumed that it is possible to take a 4D reality and define it self-coherently into exactly such 3D form, which would generate that exact "projection transformation" between them. What's more, you have assumed that that sort of transformation is the ONLY possibility open to us. (I suspect it was completely hidden from your conscious thought, that you had actually made this assumption)

The possibility of that sort of "projection transformation" was never part of my assertion, but you assumed it was because you are interpreting my assertions in terms of your "scientific realism" paradigm; you automatically thought something along the lines of "if reality was actually a set of 4D objects, then the case of "perceiving too few dimensions" would lead us to see the projections of those 4D objects as the objects with persistent identity."

Remember when I said that a hyperbox wouldn't be seen as a "box" in a 3D conception... Your thoughts on the issue are a typical case of "naive realism", and I've been trying to point out many times that after the transformation from 4D to 3D you would probably see quite a different features of reality as "the objects having persistent identity". Yet, you are only concerned with why I have not addressed the problem of "not being able to bind an object between 6 plates"*.

I'm sorry that I'm not able to explain the issues clearer. There are many pitfalls here if you are not careful with your thoughts, and I think the post #346 would be my best attempt at warning you about the dangers of overlooking your hidden assumptions.


Now, if you can take a step back and shed your specific ideas of "how 4D projects into 3D", please think about where we actually are before having defined dimensionality into our worldview. We are trying to build an explanation, based on patterns, which defines those patterns into what we suppose they mean, in terms of a worldview where "persistent identity" exists.

You don't believe it would be in any way possible to live in a 4D world, that would be transformed into a prediction-wise valid 3D conception. Take into account, that what would be a single persistent 4D object, might translate into some part of your explanation having to do with multiple objects and very specific dynamics between them. It is probably not possible to have a "4D box" that would, after the transformation through "patterns" to "defined 3D entities", still look something like a "box".

Just as a sidenote, perhaps you are able to appreciate the fact that one can look at Minkowski spacetime as "a set of static 4D objects", or as a "set of 3D objects plus some dynamics between them".

ps, in case you are wondering, I don't think this is a diversion from the topic at all, as I think the fact that you see problems with this analysis is probably an indication that many other people see exactly the same problems (how many lurkers do we have?). I hope I am able to explain this, at least to the extent that I persuade some people to look at the epistemological analysis with an open mind and more or less from the correct perspective. I really think this is important.

-Anssi

* If this needs further commentary, then notice that you are ultimately trying to form expectations about the raw patterns. How do you suppose it would be possible to ever be surprised, that a box was not able to bind your object, if we had never in the history of the world had the experience of a box binding something?

I didn't want to point this issue out before, because it can lead to quite many further confusions, but perhaps after all the commentary I have already provided to this issue, one can begin to understand that in the case you describe, we would probably never even see that situation as a "box" and "object inside", as it probably wouldn't be very valid worldview if its objects were defined in such a way that they could just disappear and re-appear willy-nilly. I mean, those kinds of features of the data would probably not be seen as "persistent objects".

And even that last paragraph is really quite incoherent and somewhat naive way to put it, if you think about it for a while. Noticed how I just injected ontological ideas into epistemological issues quite incoherently, when I gave the impression of "objects disappearing and re-appearing"... Everyone who don't know what I mean by that, please just ignore EVERYTHING after the asterisk, as I think it would just lead you to misconceptions.

Hmmm, I think I see a pattern here, as in me and DD are trying to explain the issues from as coherent perspective as we manage, which only results to complaints saying that we are not really addressing your specific arguments... Well, I can assure you all that I'm trying to address your arguments as accurately as I can!

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If modest can do so then he misunderstands the issue being discussed. The only thing one can know is exactly what is it that he desires to achieve. Call that achievement an explanation or understanding, it really makes no difference, but what does make a difference is exactly what is meant by the concept explanation or understanding.

What it is that you are explaining is not the issue! That is exactly the solution to the problem: i.e., the solution concerns the nature of the required epistemological construct, not the ontological basis. The actual ontological basis is an unknowable thing. Until the reader comprehends that characteristic of the circumstance, my work is simply beyond their comprehension.

Have fun -- Dick

Firstly, at this point, going by the totality of my knowledge (hmm understood information?) all I can do is agree with what you have said here above, because, for as long as I have studied and thought about this myself, I have never been able to produce any reasons that should tell me otherwise. However, I do have some nagging problems.(ill get to that later)

When I look at the fundamental basics, of reality, after a series of logical deduction, I always end up with two things I can hold in my hands.

On the one hand I have the unknown, which when I attempt to comprehend, I begin by thinking of the incredibly tiny quantum world, and then jump one step further to reach lack of description. This hand holds the source to hardcore undefined data, it is pure potential and because it is so, it seeps from my mind, like water seeps through a net scooping for particles out of a tank.

On the other hand I have everything I can see, measure, and feel that I comprehend on a much larger scale. I begin by trying to comprehend a very large and real object, or as much of a universe as I can. The further I mentally leave my, central point of view, the further I travel into my predicted future. This hand holds the masterpiece my mind is able to create. It is full of meaning and static entities. It is a series of patterns mingling with patterns, like harmonics mixing with harmonics to form other octaves.

And when I compare these two things in my hand they seem extremely different, and worthy of separation, and recognition of their validity.

Even so, I still ponder, how or maybe why is it that some locations, like a planet for example, contain more concentrated data that another location such as empty space?

I respond to myself: that relative to the hand of the very tiny, there is no static conception of space, and as such, what I think as a concentrated area and non conenctrated area is only my unique perspective of a point on a massive scale of time. I try to recognize that this concentrated area of data (like a planet) on a massive scale of time is many more things than a static object in space. If I were to observe every point of its life, it would consist of billions of locations in trillions upon trillions of different states. States such as dust, or gas, or in the future as part of a star, or even further in the future as sucked into a black hole. In essence I try to recognize the fact that my perspective is not universally special, or of any greater superiority than any other perspective of this concentrated area. Which leads to the conclusion that a concentrated area, is only a snap shot fantasy, of the more accurate fact that in the span of time, it is also a void area, or a more concentrated area, and may or may not be any of those conditions relative to any hypothetical observer.



I am not in a qualified position to say whether or not your actual mathematical work has any errors, flaws, or misinterpretations. But, I am comfortable with the position of the theory, and philosophical manners. My purpose is to validate my theory with responses including your mathematical insight. As well as recieve any other persons counter-arguments and explanations and doing so, they can expose to the discussion the limit of their insight. When that limit is exposed they should be left with a question. The answer to that question "they've reached" should thus take them one step further in the direction towards comprehending this theory and your work. And I quote.

Until the reader comprehends that characteristic of the circumstance, my work is simply beyond their comprehension.

So "If modest can do so", it is true, he might expose how and where he misunderstands the issue being discussed. Not only this, but he may share his preferred methods of interpretation. He may show his strongest arguments. He may show the bridging points of his understanding and the destinations this theory intends to take you.

If Modest could expose his interpretations, as to, his deepest insight that take us right to the very limits and barriers of his explanations, in respect to him, this discussion should leap forward. This goes in respect to any participant of this discussion.

I am confident to say, the people whom understand this discussion inside and out, are prepared to deal with those limits and barriers in peoples explanations, and lead them into understanding what exactly is being discussed.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Think about what you are saying. You are asserting that your explanation of reality is that every object in the universe is a banana. Well, I am simply at a loss as to what you mean by that: i.e., I do not understand your explanation.

I'm equally at a loss as to what Anssi means that any ontology is usefully expressed in 3D. I do not understand his explanation.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Though I do not understand your explanation of the universe (every object in the universe is a banana) this second comment is still rather silly. If every object in the universe is a banana, what purpose is there to concern yourself with “non-banana elements”?

Your comment "If every object in the universe is a banana" shows a misunderstanding. I'm not asserting that every object in the universe is *really* a banana. I cannot know the real nature of 'elements' in the universe. I'm representing them as a banana regardless of their real nature.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Why are you making assumptions? Anssi and I are trying very hard not to make any assumptions of any kind. I don't think you understand what we are doing.

"Assuming that whatever the real nature of the universe is..." is exactly what this quote does:

Originally Posted by AnssiH

DD's work is essentially an explanation as to why, the mental 3D representation is very useful way to represent the data, and why it is valid regardless of the ontological nature of the expressed data.

If there is a valid explanation for how a 3D representation is useful and valid for *any* ontology then I've yet to see it. In asking to see it I've gotten nothing but the assumption repeated.

Originally Posted by arkain101

Modest, can I ask you to write a post that lays out the fundamental things we can (are able) to know of reality?

In the words of Descartes, all I can say for sure about reality is that "I exist". The rest may well be a devil tricking me, or in modern parlance... the matrix.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

After few approximations (disregarding feedback from the rest of the universe etc, the exact approximations that always exist in conventional physics) and algebraic manipulation, we end up with Schrödinger's Equation. I.e., the relationship normally known as Schrödinger's Equation, was already embedded in the original general requirements.

Schrodinger's equation is just as valid in 4D as 3D. Why the derivation of Schrodinger's equation would mean a 3D mental representation would be useful in any conceivable (and valid) universe... I can't imagine.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

And I must say, it is quite apparent to me that your argument is coming directly from the "scientific realism" paradigm (your argument rests on assumptions that cannot be objectively defended).

And that's what the rest of your post deals with... which misses the point and misjudges the issue.

Have you seen me say: "a 3D representation is useful because the universe really is 3D"? No, but that's pretty much all you've responded to.

~modest

[arkain101]

Notes:
-please take the time to read through, I cut it down and trimmed it as much as I possibly could, without eliminating clarity
-If you would like to skip the introduction (although I don't recommend it since I will be using certain terms and abreviations) skip down the problem,question,solution in red text.




This question requires a preface/introduction.


In this theory (you do call it a theory right?) based upon your fundamental equation, I've come to recognize a problem. At least, a problem that I have found when making this investigation on my own terms. I have produced a possible solution but I have yet to be bothered dive into heavy math to validate that solution.



I should be able to summarize this, in respect to the fact I believe we both understand this quite well.

Basically we have two mutually exclusive realities.
(A)One that is known, because it belongs to us as our map of the territory(contained / produces by our senses and consciousness).
(B)And another that is entirely unknown, because it is the territory with no map applied(beyond our senses and separate from out consciousness)


"A" tells me there is locations in space where there is greater and lesser concentrations of "B" this unknown. These variable concentrations are represented in "A" as bodies of mass like planets and objects, gas, dust, found and observed through out the cosmos.


So. Even though "A" might acquire data that has an origin that is entirely unknown(B), it manages to do a pretty good job at determining where planets and things are.






Plausible Problem



A person considers the following (the plausible problem):

"Whether we think of an object, like a planet, as known(A) -where in this respect it is projected to exist in a location-, or if we think of an object as a point of origin where unknown data -in higher concentration relative to other locations- makes its way to the observer "ready to be processed and mentally projected", the conclusions are essentially the same. That is, we can't just answer this as simply as saying "the planet does not exist", it takes a inclusion of all areas of science to respond respectfully. We can't just say it does not exist because in respect to A, clearly it does exist. It refuses change due to its mass/inertia. It warps space-time around it according to relativity. Objects can crash into it. It reflects light, etc.





Plausible Question(this is specifically the question I am looking for you to answer)



So the question is, how can we successfully call it (transfer it to the catagory) an unknown without essentially causing its attritbutes (that do all these things: It refuses change due to its mass/inertia. It warps space-time around it according to relativity. Objects can crash into it. It reflects light.) to disapear?

(I want to make sure the question is absolutely clear so I am going to type it again with the bracket section removed and add to it a bit more detail.)

So the question is, how can we successfully call that zone an unknown without essentially causing its attritbutes to disapear. And what this says in other words is, how do we still have a bundle of mass and energy, that correlates to that of a planet in the "B" respect? ((unknown light traveling from unknown source to here, so that it can be transformed into a mental projection)





Plausible Solution



My solution involves acknowledging a plausible mistake. That mistake is that we neglect to think under the terms and conditions of Einsteinian Relativity & Quantum Physics, and have resorted to the 'Naive-Newtonian-Cornerstone' , picture/idea/conception of reality.

What happens when we correct this mistake is that, the planet is no longer thought of as a planet, in respect to "A"(thinking). It is then thought of as subject to terms of special and general realtivity & quantum potentials and fluctuations.

The Relativity terms and conditions allow and require us to say, this planet it potentially +n time or -n time relative to a specific observer, in respect to how I observe it with my own eyes (respect to A). Thus the the planet in A is contemplated as Potential defined by an observer, and the planet in B is contemplated as potential undefined.

The quantum potential terms and conditions allow and require us to essentially say the same things, only it talks about obviously the details of the quantum world weirdness and defines the planet furthermore different from my newtonian perspective that is projected in my mind (that I think is out there and beyond).

Furthermore, in order to satisfy this solution, I must take into consideration that my specific observation of this planet in respect to "A", IS NOT UNIQUE OR SPECIAL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, and thus is lending the planet to the powers that be and letting it succumb to the idea of potential, not static ontological reality. Thus, and FINALLY, requiring my acceptance as an observer that is NOT a Newtonian-Cornerstone to reality, and that thinking I am classifies me as a 'Naive-Newtonian-Cornerstone'








This is my presentation of the plausible problem, and its plausible solution.


Doctor Dick. I would very much appreciate your upmost level of response to this. What is your solution, and is my solution invalid or valid in your opinion?





This has got to be the biggest question I have ever formed (in terms of text. Its practically an essay)

[modest]

Originally Posted by arkain101

So the question is, how can we successfully call that zone an unknown without essentially causing its attritbutes to disapear. And what this says in other words is, how do we still have a planet in the "B" respect?

You don't still have a planet in the B-respect. A "planet" is a human idea that resides entirely on our map of reality. The map is good if it is useful—if you can successfully land a rover on Mars for example. But, our idea of a planet is an explanation of our senses and should not be considered the nature of reality itself.

So, you don't still have a "planet" in B. You have something unknown in B which is usefully represented as a planet on your map. The question is: given something which is completely unknown, how do you build a useful map?

I suggest trial and error

~modest

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by modest

You don't still have a planet in the B-respect. A "planet" is a human idea that resides entirely on our map of reality. The map is good if it is useful—if you can successfully land a rover on Mars for example. But, our idea of a planet is an explanation of our senses and should not be considered the nature of reality itself.

So, you don't still have a "planet" in B. You have something unknown in B which is usefully represented as a planet on your map. The question is: given something which is completely unknown, how do you build a useful map?

I suggest trial and error

~modest

Thanks for pointing out that specific misuse of words. You interpreted it exactly how I was trying to avoid. *shucks*. I edited the question, to this:

And what this says in other words is, how do we still have a bundle of mass and energy, that correlates to that of a planet in the "B" respect? (unknown light traveling from unknown source to here, so that it can be transformed into a mental projection)

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by modest

"Assuming that whatever the real nature of the universe is..." is exactly what this quote does:

If there is a valid explanation for how a 3D representation is useful and valid for *any* ontology then I've yet to see it. In asking to see it I've gotten nothing but the assumption repeated.

Did you read what you quoted? The part where I say that DD's work (i.e. the epistemological analysis under discussion) is the explanation for exactly that issue.

Schrodinger's equation is just as valid in 4D as 3D. Why the derivation of Schrodinger's equation would mean a 3D mental representation would be useful in any conceivable (and valid) universe... I can't imagine.

That's sort of the point; that Schrödinger's Equation is valid regardless of dimensionality. The fact that the general symmetry requirements have Schrödinger's Equation embedded to them, regardless of the dimensionality of the issue, means any data can be classified and ordered exactly like we classify and order reality in our view, in any number of dimensions.

Then I went on to talk about cost-benefit assesment, indicating that "more dimensions" is not always "more optimal" for a survival machine; that when adding more dimensions to a model, there is a point where more dimensions only starts to complicate the representation of a given dynamic situation.

The counter examples you came up with are operating with definitions that are simply not compatible, because of the way they have been defined, but not because we'd be forced to do those definitions. I wanted to point out exactly why that is, because I don't want you to think that "it simply cannot be possible to reach such conclusion", and use that as an excuse to not even look at the proof.

If you feel that you don't have time to invest to examine the proof, that's fine, but I don't think it is fair to claim "it is impossible" without looking at it.

-Anssi