A thread about "Nothing"

[SelfSim]

In physics, we occasionally predict never before seen things in nature.

Accurately.

With breath taking accuracy.

That's how we realize the theories are not arbitrary.

Instead, the theories are finding pieces of reality itself, amazingly.

We find, as @sjastro pointed out, Nature really is accurately mathematical.

It's not a fooling ourselves with a 'model'. It's the opposite. Finding what is actually real.

That's how physics (and all applied sub sciences) isn't like other ideas we have like about people or ourselves or any of a million models we also come up with.

Physics is a separate category from mere modeling, and unlike modeling.

There's a remarkable consistency between what our models (theories) predict, and our descriptions of our perceptions (also models). This is all easily explained by the simple observation that we all share in a common mind, of type: 'human', (which is yet, another model of type: 'testable').

Across the population of human types, there are some variations. No two minds perceive in exactly the same ways, eg: a 'rock' perceived by one person, might be described by another as 'a big stone', or 'granite', or 'sandstone', some people might perceive 'a deity' there (who's worthy of immediate worshipping), or a child/sentimentalist might perceive 'a pet' etc. Regardless of the variations there, when they describe their perceptions using in-common language however, they all become models of two distinct types: either testable or untestable.

The things is though, everything I say there, is all objectively testable and produces abundant evidence for obvious mind dependency ... and exactly *zip* for something existing independently from those minds. If you think there is evidence of mind independence, then cite the mind independent objective test for us, that would leave us with no other logical alternative. (Good luck with that .. and invoking philosophical Realism, (Popper's or otherwise), won't work either, because philosophy is clearly focused on the many different ways our minds think with no mind independence there, in the slightest).

Mathematics is a type of language based on logical tautologies which leaves an audit trail for retracing back back to base axioms. In physics which uses models described with math, the axioms have already been objectively tested and the math processes serve to track the consistency with that set of base axioms. Often the relationships with those base, (already tested), axioms are unclear to us. What is then 'discovered', (or revealed to us), is those previously obscured relationships. There's nothing magical about math .. but its ability to reveal these relationships, is a constant 'mystery' for most of us, yet serves as no evidence for something existing independently from the mind of a mathematical thinker (despite what 'the 'Maxs': (Tegmark/Headroom) might have to say about that).

 

[Halbhh]

If you think there is evidence of mind independence

I don't think I'd ever say that. Our brains are of course physical, and affected by our environment. We know that most people can't get past their confirmation bias, etc.

But our real topic is more subtle of course. For one thing we understand in Quantum Mechanics that an observer affects what they observe.

The person doing the observation interacts with the thing observed, and both get changed by the interaction.

I was aiming to convey that earlier in a post to you, so let me point out what I think is useful language by repeating the way I said it before:

A measurement is an interaction.

As you may recall, I said also nothing of any kind exists that isn't an interaction, even.

In order to measure reality, we always alter it some. This matters greatly in Quantum Mechanics

Instead of anything to suggest our minds are independent from things around us (a clearly mistaken idea), I said a thing that is quite different.

I said reality is independent of what we expect or think. Put another way, Nature is independent of our models....

e.g. -- We end up occasionally finding in reality something to be quite different than we expected and were looking for.

We might look expecting to find a particular thing, let's name it X.3.43, and sometimes find just that.

But occasionally we sometimes we find a very different thing entirely, to our surprise.

This often happening event of finding a truly surprising thing that show a model wrong is a norm in life.

Nature is independent of our expectations/models.

It's a fascinating topic in my view, if you wish to discuss it more.

 

[SelfSim]

I've been thinking some more on this sub-topic:

In physics, we occasionally predict never before seen things in nature.

Accurately.

With breath taking accuracy.

That's how we realize the theories are not arbitrary.

Instead, the theories are finding pieces of reality itself, amazingly.

The Mind Dependent Reality hypothesis thinking would say that all that's demonstrably happening there, is our minds are updating the phrase 'reality itself', with more (new) objectively consistent, independently verifiable meanings.

That such observations haven't occurred before, doesn't constitute objective evidence for 'things existing independently' from the mind using the term 'reality itself', to convey what it means by that term.
For example: there are things you haven't seen before, which I have. Does that mean those things exist independently from minds? If so, aren't you forgetting my mind as being human too? The logic just isn't consistent there.

The physics predictions you mention there, I presume, are theoretical (or hypothetical) predictions. In Physics, nothing could be further from the concept of true mind independence than an hypothesis, (or a theory).

PS: Apologies - I was working on this post while you were posting your last post there. Will have more of a thing about that post and respond accordingly.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think I'd ever say that. Our brains are of course physical, and affected by our environment. We know that most people can't get past their confirmation bias, etc.

But our real topic is more subtle of course. For one thing we understand in Quantum Mechanics that an observer affects what they observe.

The person doing the observation interacts with the thing observed, and both get changed by the interaction.

I was aiming to convey that earlier in a post to you, so let me point out what I think is useful language by repeating the way I said it before:
...
A measurement is an interaction.
As you may recall, I said also nothing of any kind exists that isn't an interaction, even.

In order to measure reality, we always alter it some. This matters greatly in Quantum Mechanics

I have no issues with what you've said there.

Instead of anything to suggest our minds are independent from things around us (a clearly mistaken idea), I said a thing that is quite different.

I said reality is independent of what we expect or think. Put another way, Nature is independent of our models....

Well ok then .. can you tell us what you mean by 'Nature' there, in a way which is convincingly exclusive of the mind's models (such as those used in conveying (English) language dictionary meanings of the word 'Nature' .. which themselves, are ambiguous, context dependent models)?

e.g. -- We end up occasionally finding in reality something to be quite different than we expected and were looking for.

Sorry I can't see any evidence there for the leap you're making for your claim: 'Nature is independent of our models'.

Instead, what I observe from your immediately above quoted post, is that it entirely depends on the meaning you hold for 'in reality'. There are two ways for arriving at a meaning for that phrase: by way of beliefs, or via the scientific (objective) method. I am yet to see the objective test which would lead us to a conclusion of true 'independen(ce) of/from our models', where 'what we expect and were looking for' is clearly yet another (mind) model, as is our descriptions of the eventual observations produced from the tests there.

The hypothesis claims: Everything we perceive, once described using language, becomes a model. Those models are of only two known types, as distinguished via the scientific method: testable, or untestable. That's what the MDR hypothesis means by 'models'. It produces abundant verifying objective evidence for mind dependence with none for the contrary position.

We might look expecting to find a particular thing, let's name it X.3.43, and sometimes find just that.

But occasionally we sometimes we find a very different thing entirely, to our surprise.

This often happening event of finding a truly surprising thing that show a model wrong is a norm in life.

I don't understand what you mean by 'wrong' models .. there are testable and untestable models, which return varying degrees of verifying or non-verifying (of the hypothesis) results.
'Wrong' there, implies the existence of 'Truth' .. which isn't a testable concept in science.

Nature is independent of our expectations/models.

The hypothesis asserts everything we perceive via thoughts or senses, once described using language, becomes a model .. (this, after all, is what is meant by the name of the hypothesis: Model (or mind) Dependent/Independent Reality).

Those models are of only two known types, as distinguished via the scientific method: testable, or untestable.

The resulting tests of the hypothesis return abundant objective evidence for the mind/model dependence of the meanings we assign to the word 'Reality'. There is no evidence for the true existence of some mind independent reality .. there isn't even a mind independent objective test for that, unless you can demonstate one.

 

[Halbhh]

Well ok then .. can you tell us what you mean by 'Nature' there, in a way which is convincingly exclusive of the mind's models (such as those used in conveying (English) language dictionary meanings of the word 'Nature' .. which themselves, are ambiguous, context dependent models)?

Physics is by definition: how-nature-works.

Ergo, "objective reality" is simply physics in action.

Physics already exists. Even if we can't discover much of it.

But after millennia of struggles and inadequate theories, gradually we had moments when we did discover some bits of the actual math of that already existing objective reality, such as when Newton figured out orbits of planets. (an excellent approximation that was later made better in General Relativity)

I read the other parts of your post.

It may help to know that I already agreed, even before we discussed in this thread, even decades ago in my case that "everything we perceive via thoughts or senses, once described using language, becomes a model .." That's an idea I had back in my 20s actually, and I took it for granted afterwards.

We have models about physics also, of course.

But there is another category. The hard real actual reality around us, the objective reality.

Example: How the Earth orbits our star.

It does so by a very precise physics, it's been discovered.

Humanity had very many wrong ideas about Earth and the Sun's moving over time. Millenia.

But then Newton hit on the real thing. We found a bit of the actual objective reality.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Why does the universe exist? Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?

For a minute, let's think about Nothing. When I will use the word "Nothing" with a capital N in this thread, I will refer to a state of reality in which there truly is nothing. No matter. No energy. No spacetime. No God. No laws of physics. No second law of thermodynamics. No law of conservation of energy. No law that says universes don't spontaneously spring into existence out of nothing. No...

Wait, What?

If there is nothing that prevents universes from spontaneously springing into existence, then in our hypothetical state of Nothing, what prevents universes from popping into existence? If Nothing exists, do universes keep popping up?

Perhaps you would say it is actually impossible for the state of Nothing to exist in such a way that it has no law preventing it from generating multiple universes. But in that case we don't really have Nothing. We do have a state that excludes some things like matter and energy, yes, but which does have some laws, such as a law stating that "no thing comes from Nothing". If Nothing cannot exist without having such a law, then we have our answer as to why there is something rather than Nothing. There is something rather than Nothing, because some things (or some laws) absolutely need to exist.

If some things or some laws absolutely need to exist, then which laws need to exist? Must the law that prevents universes from spontaneously creating themselves exist? How do you know?

You might say that the law that states universes do not come from Nothing has to be true, for that is what we observe in our universe. But how is this relevant to our hypothetical state that we will call Nothing? The fact that some event is not observed in The Milky Way does not prove it is impossible in Nothing.

Richard Carrier discusses this at Koons Cosmology vs. The Problem with Nothing.

What do you think?


Added 6/9/2022: The link above is the most recent post by Carrier. If you are interested in what he has to say on this subject, that is not the best place to start. Rather, you should begin with The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists. There he makes a point by point case including 8 propositions. I see a lot of people here want to criticize Carrier on this, but of course, it is not fair to do that without first reading what he says. If you want to criticize Carrier, then please read this second link, and tell me which of his 8 propositions you disagree with.

The question "why is there something instead of nothing?" is an improper and nonsensical question. A "state of reality" is not nothing it is something because reality is the realm of the real or the realm of existence.

Even the word nothing depends on something since nothing only has meaning as a negation of something. Nothing is not a state or another part of reality or a thing, it's the absence of anything.

The person who thinks that there was once a time when there was nothing needs to provide some evidence for this claim. But, there's a problem. What kind of evidence does "nothing" leave behind. And doesn't the concept of time presuppose existence since if time exists then there's not "nothing" but something, namely time?

Now, whenever anyone asks a why question, they are asking for a cause and a cause presupposes something to be the cause so that there could never be a cause absent some existent. What thing caused this other thing is a perfectly valid question but "what non-thing caused all the things is not. It commits a fallacy called the stolen concept fallacy. Basically, this fallacy occurs when one makes use of a concept while ignoring its conceptual roots such as making use of the concept of a bachelor while ignoring the concept of marriage that it logically rests on.

Stolen concepts are so pervasive that this fallacy is easily the most common error in thinking. Learn to spot them and you will have a weapon of mass destruction for irrational claims and you will understand clearly why such notions as a cause for the universe are fallacious. It's also important to define the concept "universe" objectively. It is the granddaddy of all concepts which denotes existence as a whole. It comes from the Latin uni, meaning one, and versus, meaning turning. Universus means turning into one or whole. So the universe means the sum total of everything that exists and since specific measurements such as time and place are omitted in the process of forming concepts, then "universe" means everything that has ever existed, exists now, and will ever exists, it doesn't make sense to talk about anything existing outside the universe. Proper concepts are formed objectively. They denote objects that we perceive or that we infer. They are not arbitrary nor are they "social constructs". This is why a theory of concepts is so important.

I think it's important to remember the distinction between facts and the means by which we identify those facts. Those laws of nature as we call them don't exist independent of the mind that identifies them. The facts exist, but laws, i.e. principles, are conceptual in nature and are the product of our minds. There are no concepts that exist outside of the subject-object relationship. Even things that we can imagine that don't exist are formed on the basis of things that we have perceived. When I was a kid I used to give myself a headache trying to imagine something that was not some combination of things or qualities that I had at one time perceived. Without some actual perceptions of real objects then there is nothing for the imagination to use as material.

 

[SelfSim]

Physics is by definition: how-nature-works.

Ergo, "objective reality" is simply physics in action.

Physics already exists. Even if we can't discover much of it.

Physics represents the ongoing product of a massive human intellectual endeavour.
Take Classical Mechanics .. I'll highlight all the evidence that humans developed it:

The earliest development of classical mechanics is often referred to as Newtonian mechanics. It consists of the physical concepts based on foundational works of Sir Isaac Newton, and the mathematical methods invented by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Joseph-Louis Lagrange, Leonhard Euler, and other contemporaries, in the 17th century to describe the motion of bodies under the influence of a system of forces. Later, more abstract methods were developed, leading to the reformulations of classical mechanics known as Lagrangian mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics. These advances, made predominantly in the 18th and 19th centuries, extend substantially beyond earlier works, particularly through their use of analytical mechanics. They are, with some modification, also used in all areas of modern physics.

Show me how any of those terms highlighted is in any way evidence that the people who developed Classical Mechanics, discovered it existing independently from their own minds.
The notion they did, is completely unsupported by any objective test based evidence.
It is thus just another belief.

See, all you can do is keep repeating the same tired old claims, over and over again .. but I can show clear evidence supporting the mind dependence of one of the main parts of Physics.

But after millennia of struggles and inadequate theories, gradually we had moments when we did discover some bits of the actual math of that already existing objective reality, such as when Newton figured out orbits of planets. (an excellent approximation that was later made better in General Relativity)

Whaaa? Looks like we can add your name to the Max Tegmark/Max Headroom list, @'Max' Halbhh!

Relativity was, in a major way, a product of Einstein's thought experiments. Show us how he did that by not using his mind in conducting those experiments .. after all, that's what discovery of something 'mind independent' means, doesn't it?

It may help to know that I already agreed, even before we discussed in this thread, even decades ago in my case that "everything we perceive via thoughts or senses, once described using language, becomes a model .." That's an idea I had back in my 20s actually, and I took it for granted afterwards.

I couldn't care less what ideas you had back in your 20s .. Why should I care about that?
Where's you testable hypothesis you created back in your 20s? That's all that matters there .. and thus far, in your case, you have presented no evidence of that having ever happened(?)

But there is another category. The hard real actual reality around us, the objective reality.

Do you know how that reality got to be 'objective'? I'll answer that .. it was developed following the Objective Scientific Method .. that's how!
Science couldn't have otherwise worked so well ever since, if it hadn't happened that way.
All of science's definitions pertaining to existence and all of its model, are operationally defined.

Example: How the Earth orbits our star.

Each of 'Earth', 'orbit' and 'star' are testably objective models (or operational model definitions). They aren't these things you simply keep repeating are objective 'things' because you keep repeating that. Show us your (supposedly) mind independent test, and your results.

Here's another one: how can the definition of a planet, Pluto, change overnight, by an IAU Resolution, (6a of 2006), if 'planet'(s) exists independently from the voting members of that IAU resolution? If this isn't evidence of 'planet' being a human developed model, then I don't know what you'll accept is?!

It does so by a very precise physics, it's been discovered.

There you go again, simply repeating the claim without even citing the test!

Humanity had very many wrong ideas about Earth and the Sun's moving over time. Millenia.

But then Newton hit on the real thing. We found a bit of the actual objective reality.

See the Wiki quote above .. where it clearly states: 'based on foundational works'.
Show me how 'foundational work' exists independently of people like Newton, (etc).
I'll let ya off the hook .. just show me your test for supporting your claim of discovery of something supposedly existing independently from a human mind!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Physics represents the ongoing product of a massive human intellectual endeavour.
Take Classical Mechanics .. I'll highlight all the evidence that humans developed it:
Show me how any of those terms highlighted is in any way evidence that the people who developed Classical Mechanics, discovered it existing independently from their own minds.
The notion they did, is completely unsupported by any objective test based evidence.
It is thus just another belief.

See, all you can do is keep repeating the same tired old claims, over and over again .. but I can show clear evidence supporting the mind dependence of one of the main parts of Physics.

Whaaa? Looks like we can add your name to the Max Tegmark/Max Headroom list, @'Max' Halbhh!

Relativity was, in a major way, a product of Einstein's thought experiments. Show us how he did that by not using his mind in conducting those experiments .. after all, that's what discovery of something 'mind independent' means, doesn't it?

I couldn't care less what ideas you had back in your 20s .. Why should I care about that?
Where's you testable hypothesis you created back in your 20s? That's all that matters there .. and thus far, in your case, you have presented no evidence of that having ever happened(?)

Do you know how that reality got to be 'objective'? I'll answer that .. it was developed following the Objective Scientific Method .. that's how!
Science couldn't have otherwise worked so well ever since, if it hadn't happened that way.
All of science's definitions pertaining to existence and all of its model, are operationally defined.

Each of 'Earth', 'orbit' and 'star' are testably objective models (or operational model definitions). They aren't these things you simply keep repeating are objective 'things' because you keep repeating that. Show us your (supposedly) mind independent test, and your results.

Here's another one: how can the definition of a planet, Pluto, change overnight, by an IAU Resolution, (6a of 2006), if 'planet'(s) exists independently from the voting members of that IAU resolution? If this isn't evidence of 'planet' being a human developed model, then I don't know what you'll accept is?!

There you go again, simply repeating the claim without even citing the test!

See the Wiki quote above .. where it clearly states: 'based on foundational works'.
Show me how 'foundational work' exists independently of people like Newton, (etc).
I'll let ya off the hook .. just show me your test for supporting your claim of discovery of something supposedly existing independently from a human mind!

Do you have any sources other than Wiki links? Who are your scholarly influences, Selfsim?

 

[Halbhh]

Physics represents the ongoing product of a massive human intellectual endeavour.
Take Classical Mechanics .. I'll highlight all the evidence that humans developed it:
Show me how any of those terms highlighted is in any way evidence that the people who developed Classical Mechanics, discovered it existing independently from their own minds.
The notion they did, is completely unsupported by any objective test based evidence.
It is thus just another belief.

See, all you can do is keep repeating the same tired old claims, over and over again .. but I can show clear evidence supporting the mind dependence of one of the main parts of Physics.

Whaaa? Looks like we can add your name to the Max Tegmark/Max Headroom list, @'Max' Halbhh!

Relativity was, in a major way, a product of Einstein's thought experiments. Show us how he did that by not using his mind in conducting those experiments .. after all, that's what discovery of something 'mind independent' means, doesn't it?

I couldn't care less what ideas you had back in your 20s .. Why should I care about that?
Where's you testable hypothesis you created back in your 20s? That's all that matters there .. and thus far, in your case, you have presented no evidence of that having ever happened(?)

Do you know how that reality got to be 'objective'? I'll answer that .. it was developed following the Objective Scientific Method .. that's how!
Science couldn't have otherwise worked so well ever since, if it hadn't happened that way.
All of science's definitions pertaining to existence and all of its model, are operationally defined.

Each of 'Earth', 'orbit' and 'star' are testably objective models (or operational model definitions). They aren't these things you simply keep repeating are objective 'things' because you keep repeating that. Show us your (supposedly) mind independent test, and your results.

Here's another one: how can the definition of a planet, Pluto, change overnight, by an IAU Resolution, (6a of 2006), if 'planet'(s) exists independently from the voting members of that IAU resolution? If this isn't evidence of 'planet' being a human developed model, then I don't know what you'll accept is?!

There you go again, simply repeating the claim without even citing the test!

See the Wiki quote above .. where it clearly states: 'based on foundational works'.
Show me how 'foundational work' exists independently of people like Newton, (etc).
I'll let ya off the hook .. just show me your test for supporting your claim of discovery of something supposedly existing independently from a human mind!

Let's try an entirely different way of conversing. Let's try to start finding what we do already agree on, so that we have a starting point for any discussion (that could be useful).

So, below, try to see what you agree with.

Ok?
(if not, don't respond please)

Humans make models of what is happening around us. It's our main way of thinking about the world around us.

The models aren't accurate to reality, in that they occasionally (or often) fail -- 'failing' meaning to predict something incorrectly.

Like if Stan expects outcome X, and instead Y happens instead where X is not equivalent to Y. Stan's model failed.

That's a key way to see our human made models in our minds aren't the same as reality (don't congrue with reality faithfully). If they were the same, they would not ever fail.

Do you agree?

But there is an area where something radically unlike the above happens.

In the 'hard sciences', like physics, we can after centuries of effort find some (not all!) theories that never fail.

Theories that consistently work perfectly (make perfect predictions), never failing even once in hundreds or thousands of varied tests.

That's not at all like regular human thinking.

An absence of failures in predictions is not like regular human models.

Do you agree with this?

General Relativity (GR) is an interesting example. It not only predicted something never seen before, so it took years to even make an observation to test the prediction, which was proven correct...

...but also GR has been tested over and over in in a large variety of ways for decades. Often physicists try to find new ways to test it, and they do, over and over.

Because physicists want to find a GR failure.

Even a small one.

It would be revolutionary, and perhaps win a Nobel prize, etc.

There is always hope and much effort to try to find a place GR fails.....

But it keeps working perfectly.

e.g. -- Recently, these telescopes have measured the deflection of radio waves by the Sun to extremely high precision, confirming the amount of deflection predicted by general relativity aspect to the 0.03% level.
Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

 

[partinobodycular]

@SelfSim, being an epistemological solipsist I can appreciate your argument concerning the mind dependent nature of reality, and the idea that reality may have no existence independent of the mind perceiving it. However I would argue that the mind isn't actually the cause of reality but rather reality and the mind perceiving it are both inevitable byproducts of something more fundamental. Such that the mind doesn't create reality, nor does reality create the mind, instead they're both inevitable byproducts of something else. Something which by its very nature produces coherency, and that coherency is manifested as both a 'physical' reality and an accompanying consciousness. But neither one actually gives rise to the other.

Richard Feynman used to explain why light always travels in a straight line by explaining that photons are waves, and that as those waves travel from the source to the observer they interact both constructively and destructively, such that by the time that they reach the observer the only waves that survive are the ones that take the shortest path through spacetime, i.e the ones that take the straight path. Thus there's no need for complicated physics, just the simple fact that the only paths that survive are the straight ones. No paths going here, there, and everywhere, no need for a complicated set of physical laws, just a simple underlying substructure and the inevitable consequences of cause and effect.

Now think of reality in the same way, that there's an underlying substructure which by its very nature produces coherent outcomes by naturally eliminating the incoherent ones. And those coherent outcomes are manifested as both a conscious reality and a seemingly independent physical reality. No need for complicated physics, just incoherent paths interacting destructively, and coherent paths interacting constructively, consequently giving rise to two coherent things, consciousness and the reality in which it finds itself.

If this is the case then physical reality doesn't give rise to consciousness, nor does consciousness give rise to physical reality, but instead they're both complementary manifestations of something else. Something more fundamental which simultaneously gives rise to both of them by naturally eliminating incoherent outcomes in favor of coherent ones.

Oddly enough this would mean that reality is triune in nature. There's an underlying substructure accompanied by two distinct yet inevitable components, a 'physical' one and a conscious one. It's not that one gives rise to the other, which gives rise to the other, it's that they're three indivisible aspects of the whole.

That's a key way to see our human made models in our minds aren't the same as reality (don't congrue with reality faithfully). If they were the same, they would not ever fail.

I would argue that just because our models fail doesn't prove that reality exists independent of our minds. I think that it's possible that while the mind may be the thing around which reality coalesces it's not necessarily the thing that determines how it coalesces. Reality may by necessity always be coherent because there's an underlying substructure that effectively keeps it that way, and makes both reality and the conscious mind perceiving it possible. So it may not be that reality can exist independent of the mind, nor that the mind can exist independent of reality, but rather that they are two necessary and distinct things that cannot exist independent of one another.

It may be that a coherent mind can only exist within a coherent reality, and a coherent reality can only exist within a coherent mind. But this codependency means that neither of them can be the fundamental cause of the other. Therefore there must be some other underlying cause.

 

[Halbhh]

So it may not be that reality can exist independent of the mind, nor that the mind can exist independent of reality,

That's actually one of the many competing Quantum Mechanics interpretative theories. One speculative theory even implies that we cause reality by observing in a way that goes past the basic Copenhagen Interpretation that when we observe the wave function collapses into a definite state -- making reality dependant on the observer. (note that there are many competing QM interpretative theories, and no one theory has any unique supporting evidence save the basic early 'Copenhagen Interpretation' which many feel isn't all there is to find) (see note at end)

Said more generally, we have a somewhat similar statement that is already supported: when we observe something, we can only do so by interacting with it, so that both observer and the thing observed are altered. So, I like to say this as "Measurement is an interaction."

Note that above, unless I miswrote, I was trying to say that reality is independent of our ideas/thoughts/knowledge/understanding about it. That's not the same as saying reality is independent of our minds. Notice the distinction there, as it's perhaps subtle. It's not our minds I'm saying reality is independent of (it might not be!), but instead I'm saying reality is not dependent on our notions/ideas/models/viewpoints! (here I'm assuming we notice the fundamental difference between 'reality' (an objective something we haven't even observed often yet) and in contrast the much lesser thing many call 'reality' by which they only mean merely their own ideas/notions/views, which are often just entirely mistaken, and other times only partly realistic, etc....)

=======
Interesting stuff: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

 

[partinobodycular]

That's not the same as saying reality is independent of our minds. Notice the distinction there, as it's perhaps subtle. It's not our minds I'm saying reality is independent of (it might not be!), but instead I'm saying reality is not dependent on our notions/ideas/models/viewpoints!

I agree!

Of course I'm wondering whether @SelfSim would argue that reality IS our notions/ideas/models/viewpoints.

 

[Halbhh]

I agree!

Of course I'm wondering whether @SelfSim would argue that reality IS our notions/ideas/models/viewpoints.

Yes, that seems to be his point, as I took it, from the start, and which I agreed with him over and over on, but then I said more, a thing perhaps that is hard to believe unless one has done enough experiments hands on or such(?)...or seen enough of experimental results, or somehow learned how amazing physics is in actual practice. I'm unsure how physics seems to someone without a degree or work in the fields, because it could seem as if....only merely theoretical, in the sense of being not really different than...say anthropology (to use a hyperbolic example). Until one has seen or done some experimental stuff or otherwise learned how definite and independent physical reality is, and wonderfully mathematical in structure, without that is it even possible to appreciate what I'm trying to point out? Reality is 'hard' -- it has a definite existence in itself -- in that it will behave consistently in its own way, regardless of what we expect/understand/know.

 

[SelfSim]

Well, I can see that you guys just aren't getting it.
The issues here are not merely a matter of whether or not I agree (or not), with anyone's belief-based opinions. We are in a Physical Sciences forum and this is about a testable hypothesis .. and not concurrence with a common belief or opinion. It is clear that folk have completely lost sight of how to identify, create and test a scientifically formed objective hypothesis.

Believers appear to have achieved their overall end-goal of obscuring scientific thinking in supposedly, (ie: self-designated), 'Objectivists' around these parts ..(?)

@Halbhh has already been referred to the objectively testable Mind Dependent Reality hypothesis that's under test here, but I'm unsure whether @partinobodycular or @The happy Objectivist have encountered it before or not(?) (See here also for past discussions on the same topic). I believe I have maintained consistency with its principles throughout my presentations in this thread and no-one, thus far, has even come close to producing their own objective test for convincing anyone of the pure belief that some sort of truly 'mind independent reality actually exists'.

For the record, here is the testable Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) Hypothesis, (being tested in most of my posts):

1) Scientific thinking does not rest on personal opinions. Science really couldn't work that way .. it has to always be based on what can be objectively demonstrated, or else it ceases to be science, and starts to be something very different from science, and;

2) Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of "reality" (or "exists") in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind.

The purpose of these observations, among other things, is to show that:

1) the widespread idea that science actually uses a notion of mind-independent reality is dead flat wrong, and;
2) at times, a notion that science accesses a mind-independent type of reality, can actually be a barrier to scientific progress, as has happened many times in the history of science.

Finally, it is worth noting what the MDR perspective is not saying:

1) no claim is made that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is what reality actually is". Instead, the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.

2) it is clear that most scientific models do not explicitly include our minds in the model. This is a standard type of idealization, constantly used in science, and is totally different from claiming that a model that does not explicitly include a role of the mind, does not require a role of the mind to interpret and use that model.

3) For the purposes of forming conclusions, beliefs can be detected by scientific thinker by applying the following distinction of 'a belief':

A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Both conditions must be met).

In the context of this hypothesis, application of the scientific method and the evidence produced in this thread, one is well justified in drawing conclusions that the notion of the existence of mind independent reality, is nothing more than just another belief:

I rest my case, as the arguments presented by others, in their lengthy opinion based posts, in this thread, all fail in presenting any objectively sourced data which would favour of some type of counter-hypothesis, (which is thus far completely absent and has been replaced by not much more than just appeals to arm-waving, repetitive and vacuous mere assertions, of 'what must be so' style of arguments).

 

[SelfSim]

Note that above, unless I miswrote, I was trying to say that reality is independent of our ideas/thoughts/knowledge/understanding about it. That's not the same as saying reality is independent of our minds.

Double talking weasel word argument .. it is exactly what you are saying.

Notice the distinction there, as it's perhaps subtle. It's not our minds I'm saying reality is independent of (it might not be!), but instead I'm saying reality is not dependent on our notions/ideas/models/viewpoints!

Cite your objective test then which demonstrates the distinction between what you mean by 'reality' and what minds do, such as conceive 'notions/ideas/models/viewpoints' to convey meanings!

..(here I'm assuming we notice the fundamental difference between 'reality' (an objective something we haven't even observed often yet) and in contrast the much lesser thing many call 'reality' by which they only mean merely their own ideas/notions/views, which are often just entirely mistaken, and other times only partly realistic, etc....)

You haven't shown us just how you arrive at whatever you happen to mean by the word 'reality' you're using there.
Oh and science doesn't just assume claims asserted as being true (as you have done there) .. it tests them. So where is your test for that?

Interesting stuff: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

Smoke and mirrors tactics in order to avoid confronting the fundamental inconsistency of your position.

 

[SelfSim]

..(here I'm assuming we notice the fundamental difference between 'reality' (an objective something we haven't even observed often yet) and in contrast the much lesser thing many call 'reality' by which they only mean merely their own ideas/notions/views, which are often just entirely mistaken, and other times only partly realistic, etc....)

You haven't shown us just how you arrive at whatever you happen to mean by the word 'reality' you're using there.
Oh and science doesn't just assume claims asserted as being true (as you have done there) .. it tests them. So where is your test for that?

Further: You are attempting to distinguish a meaning of 'reality' by way of belief, from science's way, which is via the scientific objective method.

The test which reveals that distinction is the Mind Dependent Reality hypothesis, cited above.

 

[partinobodycular]

In the context of this hypothesis, application of the scientific method and the evidence produced in this thread, one is well justified in drawing conclusions that the notion of the existence of mind independent reality, is nothing more than just another belief:

As I mentioned in my previous post I'm an epistemological solipsist, so I really do empathize with your position. As with solipsism I find your position to be logically impossible to disprove. It's an inescapable consequence of the egocentric predicament, we can never gain a perspective outside of ourselves. Therefore our minds and their mental constructs are all that can be certain to exist.

The question that I, @Halbhh, and many others have is how the mind goes about creating these mental constructs if not through interactions with an actual external source. It would seem to be, if not logically impossible, at least extremely counterintuitive for the mind to create these mental constructs completely on its own. In a way I'm with you, in that I don't think that an external reality is actually necessary. I think that a coherent mental construct can arise completely on its own. But what I find difficult to explain is how that mental construct can be its own cause. In fact I don't think that it can. I think that it needs a cause independent of itself. Something which by its very nature gives rise to coherency, and that coherency manifests itself as both an emergent consciousness and an accompanying mental construct.

Now you're absolutely right that this is pure hypothetical hogwash with no objective evidence to support it whatsoever. But I'm still wondering how the mind can create a coherent mental construct that it seemingly can't exist without in the first place? How can it possibly do that?

As I say I'm empathetic to your position, I just can't quite wrap my head around it.

 

[SelfSim]

As I mentioned in my previous post I'm an epistemological solipsist, so I really do empathize with your position. As with solipsism I find your position to be logically impossible to disprove. It's an inescapable consequence of the egocentric predicament, we can never gain a perspective outside of ourselves. Therefore our minds and their mental constructs are all that can be certain to exist.

The question that I, @Halbhh, and many others have is how the mind goes about creating these mental constructs if not through interactions with an actual external source. It would seem to be, if not logically impossible, at least extremely counterintuitive for the mind to create these mental constructs completely on its own. In a way I'm with you, in that I don't think that an external reality is actually necessary. I think that a coherent mental construct can arise completely on its own. But what I find difficult to explain is how that mental construct can be its own cause. In fact I don't think that it can. I think that it needs a cause independent of itself. Something which by its very nature gives rise to coherency, and that coherency manifests itself as both an emergent consciousness and an accompanying mental construct.

Now you're absolutely right that this is pure hypothetical hogwash with no objective evidence to support it whatsoever. But I'm still wondering how the mind can create a coherent mental construct that it seemingly can't exist without in the first place? How can it possibly do that?

As I say I'm empathetic to your position, I just can't quite wrap my head around it.

Understandable .. so did I when I first encountered it.
The thing is, an hypothesis in science doesn't have to be 'disprovable'. That's where all you philosophers get caught up. A scientifically formed hypothesis should make risky predictions. This is an important issue, because it gets to the heart of 'what is the scientific basis of the MDR (Mind Dependent Reality) hypothesis?'
The MDR hypothesis is really two rather separate things, neither of which is conventional philosophy because they are both intended to be tested scientifically, which can be judged separately on their own evidential merits. They are:

1) A repudiation of the common idea that the Mind Independent Reality (MIR) belief is part of science, a requirement of science, or some kind of explanation of why science works. All of those claims have been soundly repudiated by evidence from science itself, in my posts on it, in this thread (and many others). What's more, your remark at least, sort of acknowledges this.
So this first thing that the MDR hypothesis achieves is hardly in doubt at all there, (with you).

2) A scientifically testable hypothesis in the Popperian sense that does indeed make "risky predictions" that test out well. This conclusion is less clearly established, but I think the evidence for it is still pretty good. The predictions made by the claim that 'the reality concept in science means the mind-dependent sense we make of our perceptions, and neither refers to, nor is intended to refer to, anything mind independent', are indeed 'risky' in the sense that if the Realist stance was a good scientific model, then we should not expect the mental choices made by the physicist to appear in the way physics theories describe reality.

Consider, for example, this Realist claim by the realist philosopher Moore:
"Blue” is as much an object, and as little a mere content, of my experience, when I experience it, as the most exalted and independent real thing of which I am ever aware.
The MDR hypothesis makes the prediction that this version of what 'blue' means, cannot hold true, but instead experiments should be possible that clearly distinguish 'the experience of blue' from 'independent real things.'
This is because the MDR hypothesis claims that the 'experience of blue' is mind dependent, and should be able to be demonstrated as something different for different minds. This prediction tests out well, because we can easily distinguish the 'experience of blue' from the 'experience of reading a spectral analyzer that peaks in the blue part of the spectrum.'
Both of those are mind-dependent capabilities of humans, but what matters for this argument is they are clearly different, putting the lie to Moore's Realist claim. Experiments, such as on that infamous relatively recent 'internet dress' that to some people looked blue, and to others a completely different color, do indeed clearly show the difference between the experience of seeing blue, and the experience of reading a spectral analyzer that does not give the result 'blue'.

In any event, my evidence for conclusion (2) is: all the physics theories that cannot be properly understood until the role of the choices of the mind of the physicist is included in the physics (eg: the need for QM interpretations: Copenhagen, MWI, etc).

My evidence for conclusion (1) is that the burden of proof for philosophers to establish that Realism (MIR) plays any role in scientific thinking, has clearly never been met in this thread (or many others) where it happens to come up. No objective tests for MIR, cited as yet .. but one might appear someday .. (after all, science doesn't deal in 'absolutes', even though sometimes, in the heat of making a point, it may often seem that way).

 

[partinobodycular]

Understandable .. so did I when I first encountered it.
The thing is, an hypothesis in science doesn't have to be 'disprovable'. That's where all you philosophers get caught up. A scientifically formed hypothesis should make risky predictions. This is an important issue, because it gets to the heart of 'what is the scientific basis of the MDR (Mind Dependent Reality) hypothesis?'
The MDR hypothesis is really two rather separate things, neither of which is conventional philosophy because they are both intended to be tested scientifically, which can be judged separately on their own evidential merits. They are:

1) A repudiation of the common idea that the Mind Independent Reality (MIR) belief is part of science, a requirement of science, or some kind of explanation of why science works. All of those claims have been soundly repudiated by evidence from science itself, in my posts on it, in this thread (and many others). What's more, your remark at least, sort of acknowledges this.
So this first thing that the MDR hypothesis achieves is hardly in doubt at all there, (with you).

2) A scientifically testable hypothesis in the Popperian sense that does indeed make "risky predictions" that test out well. This conclusion is less clearly established, but I think the evidence for it is still pretty good. The predictions made by the claim that 'the reality concept in science means the mind-dependent sense we make of our perceptions, and neither refers to, nor is intended to refer to, anything mind independent', are indeed 'risky' in the sense that if the Realist stance was a good scientific model, then we should not expect the mental choices made by the physicist to appear in the way physics theories describe reality.

Consider, for example, this Realist claim by the realist philosopher Moore:
"Blue” is as much an object, and as little a mere content, of my experience, when I experience it, as the most exalted and independent real thing of which I am ever aware.
The MDR hypothesis makes the prediction that this version of what 'blue' means, cannot hold true, but instead experiments should be possible that clearly distinguish 'the experience of blue' from 'independent real things.'
This is because the MDR hypothesis claims that the 'experience of blue' is mind dependent, and should be able to be demonstrated as something different for different minds. This prediction tests out well, because we can easily distinguish the 'experience of blue' from the 'experience of reading a spectral analyzer that peaks in the blue part of the spectrum.'
Both of those are mind-dependent capabilities of humans, but what matters for this argument is they are clearly different, putting the lie to Moore's Realist claim. Experiments, such as on that infamous relatively recent 'internet dress' that to some people looked blue, and to others a completely different color, do indeed clearly show the difference between the experience of seeing blue, and the experience of reading a spectral analyzer that does not give the result 'blue'.

In any event, my evidence for conclusion (2) is: all the physics theories that cannot be properly understood until the role of the choices of the mind of the physicist is included in the physics (eg: the need for QM interpretations: Copenhagen, MWI, etc).

My evidence for conclusion (1) is that the burden of proof for philosophers to establish that Realism (MIR) plays any role in scientific thinking, has clearly never been met in this thread (or many others) where it happens to come up. No objective tests for MIR, cited as yet .. but one might appear someday .. (after all, science doesn't deal in 'absolutes', even though sometimes, in the heat of making a point, it may often seem that way).

As a solipsist I've had to deal with any number of attempts to refute my position over the years, and many of the arguments that I've had to address would seem to be just as applicable to your position as well.

For example, I've been asked in the past how my mind can create a college textbook on advanced mathematics when my mind has absolutely no prior knowledge of advanced mathematics? How would you respond to that question? Absent an external reality from which to draw how does the mind create something about which it has no prior knowledge?

As a solipsist my answer is fairly simple, the mind doesn't actually create anything. The mind, and the reality in which it finds itself are both emergent properties of some underlying substructure, and it's the nature of that substructure that guarantees that reality will always be coherent and consistent. Like Feynman's explanation of why light always travels in a straight line, it's the nature of that underlying substructure that guarantees that the past will always be consistent with the present, and the present will always be consistent with the future, and so that college textbook on advanced mathematics will always be consistent with the rest of reality, regardless of whether my mind has any advanced knowledge on the subject.

I realize that this is complete conjecture on my part, but it's how I personally explain the mind's ability to create something about which it has no prior knowledge. But I'm curious as to how you would explain the mind's ability to do that.

 

[SelfSim]

As a solipsist I've had to deal with any number of attempts to refute my position over the years, and many of the arguments that I've had to address would seem to be just as applicable to your position as well.

For example, I've been asked in the past how my mind can create a college textbook on advanced mathematics when my mind has absolutely no prior knowledge of advanced mathematics? How would you respond to that question? Absent an external reality from which to draw how does the mind create something about which it has no prior knowledge?

Don't ask me! I'm no solipsist .. and neither is the MDR hypothesis, in any way, Solipsism. Solipsism is a dead end and is yet another useless philosophy, IMO.

Coming from the MDR hypothesis perspective however, I'd simply answer: Ask someone qualified, who can demonstrate how they acquired that knowledge, or acquire that knowledge for yourself.

As a solipsist my answer is fairly simple, the mind doesn't actually create anything. The mind, and the reality in which it finds itself are both emergent properties of some underlying substructure, and it's the nature of that substructure that guarantees that reality will always be coherent and consistent.

From the MDR perspective however, its sufficient to observe that that's just what we mean by 'a mystery' and for further research.

Like Feynman's explanation of why light always travels in a straight line, it's the nature of that underlying substructure that guarantees that the past will always be consistent with the present, and the present will always be consistent with the future, and so that college textbook on advanced mathematics will always be consistent with the rest of reality, regardless of whether my mind has any advanced knowledge on the subject.

Yet he didn't state the simplest and most obvious inference there .. that time might also be a mind dependent model .. hence the consistency observed by alike (human) minds, with some noted variations in perceptions, across that population.

I realize that this is complete conjecture on my part, but it's how I personally explain the mind's ability to create something about which it has no prior knowledge. But I'm curious as to how you would explain the mind's ability to do that.

I'll give my standard commentary/anecdote to illustrate:

Say I talked about planets that form, have rivers cut canyons on them, and then freeze into oblivion as their stars die, and no mind ever knows anything about those planets? Those are not mind independent planets-- because it was my mind that just told you about such a hypothetical entity, and hence my mind gave meaning to everything I just said. Since I could not possibly know what meaning you took from the words I just used, then your mind also gave those words meaning-- again the mind dependence is completely clear, and you and I might not be picturing the same planet there at all. That's mind dependence.

When you learned about a planet, (call it planet X), your mind gave your knowledge meaning. That meaning simply did not exist yesterday, it didn't exist in some unformed ethereal glow that you could call mind independent, simply because your knowledge didn't exist. Perhaps some other person knew a bunch of stuff about planet X before you did, and then their minds gave meaning to their knowledge, which is of course demonstrably different from your knowledge. More mind dependence there. Nothing anywhere in that story is mind independent-- I can see quite easily the role of all the minds involved.