Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

krussell25 t1_j9whzfm wrote

Reply to comment by Otto_von_Boismarck in Reality is an openness that we can never fully grasp. We need closures as a means of intervening in the world. | Post-postmodern philosopher and critic of realism Hilary Lawson explains closure theory. by IAI_Admin

If bottles don't exist, does anything exist?

3

Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9wld4k wrote

Objects with intrinsic properties exist. Which would be whatever are the foundational blocks of all of reality. Quantum fields or what have you. Everything else is extrinsic, so are emerging from those quantum fields interacting with each other. Kind of like how everything on our computer screens are just bits switching on and off.

−1

GepardenK t1_j9xg72u wrote

> Which would be whatever are the foundational blocks of all of reality. Quantum fields or what have you.

Since you seem to be appealing to empirical concepts I feel compelled to point out that according to empiricism this idea that only the smallest components represent reality is just flat out wrong.

Empiricism holds that there is no universal reference frame. Empiricism even go as far as saying, some would argue to a fault, that apriori knowledge doesn't exist at all - i.e. nothing can be said to be true independent of experience.

Thus: the quantum level, or what have you, have no more claim to truth than the cosmic level or any other frame. If a property, like solidness, exists in one frame but not the other then that in no way invalidates it's existence. According to empiricism something is real if it can be experienced; scale matters not.

It is tempting to think that "smaller is truer" because we usually have to go smaller when following the arrow of causality. But finding the origin of causality just means finding the origin of causality; it dosen't make it any more or less true than any other phenomena.

6

Otto_von_Boismarck t1_j9yfeoh wrote

I don't disagree with your point, however my definition of "realness" hinges on the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic properties. And current scientific knowledge does seem to imply there is stuff with intrinsic properties, where interactions between them generates everything we feel, see, and experience in this universe.

I personally also don't put any "virtue" in something being real or not. I couldn't give a rat's ass if the universe was a simulation or a dream for example. Or what have you. So that's why I'm confused as to why people are such ardent defenders in this sub? The fact that all our experiences just arise from almost infinitely complex interactions between infinitesimally small objects is quite beautiful, in my opinion.

Edit: Also my definition isn't based on something as silly as "smallest". It's based on something that is INTRINSIC, meaning that it's something that can't be subdivider into smaller parts and that itself isn't an emergent property of other interactions. Some intrinsic items can be bigger than others. Electrons for example seem to be intrinsic, even though they're interacting with other extrinsic properties all the time. Size or whatever is irrelevant. If there was a huge intrinsic particle the size of a human that we could see, it would still be real vs unreal things.

2

plateauphase t1_ja4k5eh wrote

"current scientific knowledge does seem to imply there is stuff with intrinsic properties, where interactions between them generates everything we feel, see, and experience in this universe."

contrariwise, the standard model, as currently understood through QFT doesn't clearly motivate the existence of corpuscular, individual, intrinsic existents/properties. that's a folk ontology sourced myth. there's a really good book about this, called 'every thing must go' by james ladyman and don ross. also interdependence - biology and beyond by kriti sharma

+ these two articles sketch out some serious difficulties with interpreting QFT and its predictive success and physicalism -

[1] -- does the mathematical nature of physics underline physicalism?
[2] -- what is real?

you also connected your opinion with statements about how experientiality - phenomenal consciousness arises/appears, but physicalist theorizing about consciousness so far has been woefully unclear regarding precise mechanisms and lacking empirical substantiation. the hard problem cannot be handwaved away, the difference between qualitative and quantitative is a principled one, where the latter is an attribute of the former as far as we can know, so attempting to pull out the territory from the map is understandably 'difficult'.

2

Otto_von_Boismarck t1_ja56oaw wrote

If it turns out there isn't anything intrinsic, I'm willing to change my view. Doesn't bother me. But it seems unlikely to me that reality just keeps going smaller ad infinitum. Nothing seems to suggest that, thus with current scientific knowledge it seems like a reasonable conclusion. I also didn't mean to suggest that necessarily it has to be interactions between separate intrinsic items. I just phrased it like that for simplicity's sake. It could also just be a singular intrinsic field with disturbances throughout it, or something else entirely. Just one or several "things" that are intrinsic. I never decided to focus on this point because it's, well, irrelevant.

Also it is my understanding that QTF hasn't actually proven itself as a solid framework as of yet. Regardless that's besides the point.

Hard problem of consciousness isn't a hard problem at all. I never found any of the arguments particularly engaging. Of course figuring out how consciousness emerges is difficult. Doesn't mean there is reason to believe it somehow arises through magic. Absence of evidence of it being an emergent property is not evidence of absence. People used to think the earth was the centre of the universe and now idealists and what have you think the same about consciousness. Please, get real.

The whole consciousness conversation is just boring. Simply a matter of waiting for science to explain it, nothing more.

1