Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

doctorcrimson t1_j9tup2x wrote

I disagree that we cannot or do not quantify or define what is real. Philosophies like this, to me, always read as an ignorance of science or a poor excuse not to look behind the curtain that is your current shallow understanding of a subject. Best part is, when you start to get far enough along into mathematics and statistics, you realize it all sort of ties back together.

−8

WaveCore t1_j9uh1pw wrote

Why would you disagree? It's not a matter of trying hard enough or being educated enough, what we know and can know of our world is limited by our ability to investigate it.

Imagine you're in a room with various objects, and let's say that you don't have your senses of sight or smell. You'll fumble around the room, eventually stumbling into every object. All you can do to learn more about each object is to feel them, lick them, and hear them by tapping or patting them.

But no matter what, you will never be able to know these objects' color or how they smell. You cannot use the senses available to you to ever determine this information for sure, at best you can make assumptions. You'll never know what colors these objects have, but perhaps in the case of smell you can make an inference based on their taste.

So that's the idea with us trying to understand how the world works. We can only go as far as the tools available to us allow us to.

10

Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9vnq1b wrote

Yea but science has become quite good at tapping, feeling, and licking. The fact we can't know how it "truly looks" is not necessarily needed. We know how atoms work almost perfectly without really knowing how they "look".

0

doctorcrimson t1_j9x0pht wrote

Maybe your ability to investigate it, but try not to speak for others.

−2

zazzologrendsyiyve t1_j9u6or7 wrote

I’m not sure what you were trying to say with your last sentence, but somehow I agree with you.

Could you expand a little?

5

doctorcrimson t1_j9x0kgh wrote

No, it was a pretty simple idea, cannot think of a way to make it any easier to digest. The more math you know the more you see the similarity in how everything is described through mathematics.

0

Mahaka1a t1_j9u66jg wrote

Consider an alternate perspective.

Science is not real. It is amazingly functional. Probably the single most functional tool ever created by humans! But just a tool.

Likewise, my words here are not real/true! They are some degree of functional. A perspective that could have some utilitarian quality in this universe.

Evolution selects for functionality, not the perception of reality. Science does not need to be thrown out or excluded in the context above. Maybe it seems paradoxical, but not incompatible.

4

doctorcrimson t1_j9x03k9 wrote

Again I disagree, the absence of waves or energy is quantifiable as are brain functions and vocal cord usage. You live in a purely physical and real world.

1

[deleted] t1_j9x0o4w wrote

[removed]

2

[deleted] t1_j9x1tdb wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9zb2xf wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j9zb39s wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

passengera34 t1_j9uovje wrote

If you are not aware of the problem of induction, or considered the nature of scientific explanation, then that reflects your own "ignorance of science", I'm afraid.

We can observe what is consistently and reproducibly true, but true knowledge of "reality" is an impossibly high standard for any scientific axiom.

2

doctorcrimson t1_j9x0yrw wrote

If we dont use science as our basis for knowledge of reality then we have absolutely no basis for reality, because nothing else even comes close. We do have it, though, and it is highly accurate, and so choosing not to use it is ignorance.

1

passengera34 t1_j9x2bbz wrote

"...then we have absolutely no basis for reality." Yes, that's right. Have you even watched the video?

"We do have it, though, and it is highly accurate..." How, may I ask, do you know that for a fact?

1

doctorcrimson t1_j9xbuuf wrote

I love how you just cheered for ignorance of science in that first part, basically making my case for me. Reproducibility of results and verification by multiple parties is the only way we know anything, it is constantly proving more accurate than beliefs of any single individual.

1

passengera34 t1_j9xfck1 wrote

If you would consider watching the video, you'd see that no one is cheering for ignorance of science.

Context is always relevant. The context of a scientific hypothesis enables us to do things. That's why "closing" is useful. But experimentation does not say anything absolute about objects in "reality".

Not only that, but there are severe issues that your kind of scientific realism cannot address...

"Reproducibility of results"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

"Verification of multiple parties"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction

Uh oh!

1

doctorcrimson t1_j9xrzox wrote

Lmao linked to Wikipedia while lecturing me on science

0

passengera34 t1_j9ybgoc wrote

Was it too hard for you to understand? Do you need me to draw you a picture?

0

Historical_Tea2022 t1_j9vsyzu wrote

Notice how your opinion feels more real than another person's opinion? Sounds like what's real is our consciousness, and each one is different. You are what you think.

1

doctorcrimson t1_j9x1g98 wrote

A lump of mush and neurons rattling around inside a osseus tissue cavity. We know that because every person who has ever been examined by millions of certified modern professionals says it is so. It was the same yesterday and will be the same tomorrow. Therefor any one of us being any different would be beyond what is statistically possible.

Thats whats real. We can know it very easily and without faith.

1

Historical_Tea2022 t1_j9x5222 wrote

I'm surprised you're on a Philosophy subreddit while possessing such a narrow and unimaginative perspective. Odd.

1

doctorcrimson t1_j9xrx96 wrote

I'm surprised you're on a Philosophy subreddit while possessing such a narrow and unimaginative perspective. Odd.

1