If they are the same, how are we disagreeing? 
Hi Spiritus. Has this thread woke you from a dogmatic slumber?
Then what makes it final? Only that we can’t go further? But if we can make statements about an objective reality we can’t know, why couldn’t we say there are seven or fifteen more layers that we don’t have concepts for?
I appreciate that you are trying. You have not succeeded.
[ul][li]As an individual, I don’t. As a part of a larger reality, I am justified in doing so.[/li][li]You are never an individual. You are never distinct. When are you ever separated from the world?[/li][li]The individual defines what the frame is, and the frame defines what the individual is. They are one.[/li][li]The frame is the objective reality.[/li][/ul]
These statements do not present a consistent usage or teh word “individual” or of the relationship(s) between “individual”, “frame”, and “reality”.
You did. I even bolded the quote.
Remember, the context of this particular element of our discussion is “how do we delineate between levels of reality”. While I am open to the possibility that all kinds of interactions occur within my frame but beneath/beyond my threshold of perception, the only means I have with which to categorize and verify are those which I can perceive.
Okay, I need another clarification. A few, actually:
[ol]Perceptions don’t determine the nature of the world, but the informtion in perceptions creates a sublevel of reality. And [later] that level itself is objective.
[li]I must once more ask you to please specify how you mean the word “objective” to be understood.[/li][li]What distinction (if any) do you draw between a perception and the information in a perception?[/li][li]What, specifically, is the difference between an event and an interaction, especially as it applies to the act?/interaction?/event? of perceiving/forming a perception?[/ol][/li]
Again, this usage is inconsistent with [frame == objective reality] + [individual <=> frame]. You and I are clearly not an identical self, so we clearly do not share an identical frame. Yet here you declare our objective realities==our frames to be identical.
I declare eloquent gibberish.
Quite possibly, but when discussing what we may justifiably assert about reality we are necessarily limited by the information we can glean. Whatever the underlying structure, we can only construct models from the information we can access, and we can only test them through our perceptions.
To draw conclusions from the void, and to assert them in recognition that they can never be tested, is to say nothing.
I thought that the interactions are the only important thing? Are snowflakes and water molecules and atoms and particles interactions? If so, then what “things” are not interactions (events, for instance)? If not, then this would seem to be another indication that your schema of differentiation is inherently arbitrary. (Though not, as I said above, necessarily useless.)
Our language is limited because our selves are lmited. I cannot perceive gamma radiation with my eyes, nor can I see it through my eyeglasses. To find this a fault in my glasses is a bit silly.
erl
My time is so unpredictably consumed these days, that I have been leary of posting even during those times when I find the moments to browse. I don’t like “hit-and-run” posters, as a rule, so I try not to be one. Unfortunately, my resolve is not always sufficient to resist a good philosophical muck fest.
Actually, it was the ontological proof thread that broke down my resistance, though I seem to have once again been too late for that party. I surfed from there to here and then my fall from silent grace was assured.
If William of Ockham had never existed, Spiritus Mundi would have authored the famous Razor himself. His arguments are what I call “clean”. Hang around, Spiritus. If Badchad bites, we’ll be revisiting the ontological proof. Nothing would be more honorable than being sliced by you. 
No, no, no! You keep confusing the reality in which we exist for the realities we create inside our heads!
Our mental worlds are clearly different, since we disagree. We share a more fundamental reality, since we can interact at all.
It has nothing to do with whether we can understand it or not.
It’s entirely possible that any given phenomenon might be impossible for us to understand. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t or can’t happen.
The final layer is the one that isn’t being emulated by any lower layer. It’s not entirely clear that there must necessarily be such a layer (although I have a very strong suspicion that there must be). I make no other claims about what that layer might be like.
Because then they wouldn’t be the final layer, would they? I think we both understand the concept of finality, yes?
Spiritus Mundi: My word use is completely consistent. The problem is that words like “reality” can be used to refer to utterly distinct concepts.
The models your mind constructs are realities, just as the world in which your mind exists is a reality. One is not equivalent to the other, but they are both sets of relationships.
Our knowledge about the greater reality in which we live is limited to our perceptions. It is not.
Whether we understand the nature of the levels is irrelevant to their interaction. The Sun shone before humans had any inkling of nuclear fusion, and it shines despite our lack of understanding of how it functions. Our understanding is not relevant to the workings of the world.
A level of reality is a set of things that interact. The interactions can emulate other levels, and are themselves being emulated by even deeper levels.
Are you familiar with The Game of Life? Go to Conway's Game of Life and run the applet.
In particular, examine the pattern that emulates the behavior of a single square of the Life board. Using that pattern, one could emulate the cellular automata with cellular automata. This emulation would be one level of reality higher.
The concept is similar to the “level of analysis” found in computer science.
More responses will be coming momentarily…
Confuse what with who? You’ve presented me nothing to distinguish the two, except that the reality we exist in is unknowable, but there are many things I don’t know and then learn… does that mean the reality I exist in got smaller as the reality in my head got bigger?
Perhaps you say, “No, erl, the reality in your head is your model, and the real reality is what you are modeling.” But I understand the appropriateness of any model based on other models. What “evidence” is, or means, or both, is a function of another model or models. An interaction out of any context could prove everything, or nothing. So even though I am not looking at the finger, I am still looking at a model when I look at the moon (IMO).
I agree we share something, and that something might as well be called reality. I don’t see why it is more fundamental.
It has everything to do with whether we can understand it or not, for even making a statement like “it exists” is a level of understanding.
It does mean we can’t talk about it, else we would know what we are talking about and demonstrate understanding.
It isn’t clear to me (yet).
That’s ok, we can just stick with the one we’ve got
Very well, actually. But I find it a strange coincidence that the final level is also the level we cannot understand. If we can’t understand it, how are we to know whether it really is final or not? I understand finality, I do not understand the reason you say it applies here. Because there cannot be infinite regression, perhaps?
Spiritus: I understand, and I think the priorities you have definitely outweigh any desire to debate. But it is always good to see you.
Confuse what with who? You’ve presented me nothing to distinguish the two, except that the reality we exist in is unknowable, but there are many things I don’t know and then learn… does that mean the reality I exist in got smaller as the reality in my head got bigger?
Perhaps you say, “No, erl, the reality in your head is your model, and the real reality is what you are modeling.” But I understand the appropriateness of any model based on other models. What “evidence” is, or means, or both, is a function of another model or models. An interaction out of any context could prove everything, or nothing. So even though I am not looking at the finger, I am still looking at a model when I look at the moon (IMO).
I agree we share something, and that something might as well be called reality. I don’t see why it is more fundamental.
It has everything to do with whether we can understand it or not, for even making a statement like “it exists” is a level of understanding.
It does mean we can’t talk about it, else we would know what we are talking about and demonstrate understanding.
It isn’t clear to me (yet).
That’s ok, we can just stick with the one we’ve got
Very well, actually. But I find it a strange coincidence that the final level is also the level we cannot understand. If we can’t understand it, how are we to know whether it really is final or not? I understand finality, I do not understand the reason you say it applies here. Because there cannot be infinite regression, perhaps?
Spiritus: I understand, and I think the priorities you have definitely outweigh any desire to debate. But it is always good to see you.
** No. You asked how we could be considered to have the same objective world if we disagreed.
The whole point is that the “objective” levels of the world aren’t the ones inside our minds, but outside. We communicate: therefore we share at least one level of reality. Our mental universes clearly don’t match; this is why we disagree.
** Well, you’re looking at what we generally call the physical world, which is merely another level of reality. In that sense, you’re correct: it is another model. In another sense, you’re wrong: all you need to model are the things that interact with you. (Do not confuse this with what you’re aware of; awareness is a highly focused subordinate set of interaction.)
Here’s where the tower metaphor comes in handy. If you destroy a level of a tower, the levels beneath it are relatively unaffected. However, the levels above it fall. Change one level of reality, and all those “above” it are destroyed.
Let’s put it this way: we might be able to discover the Grand Unified Theory, but we can never know the future by running simulations.
No. You can’t understand the levels beneath you, and you can’t understand the level you’re on. You can understand some of the worlds you create.
** I suspect there can’t be infinite regression of reality. I can’t tell for sure. My enlightenment doesn’t extend that far.
If I only knew how to clarify my demented ramblings… you clearly understand more than you think you do. My inability to communicate my ideas is hampering the debate.
Such is always the fate of mystics, I suppose…
No, it is not. In fact, you have just admitted that it is not while claiming that it is. The name for the fallacy of inconsistent usage is equivocation. The name for denying and asserting the same thing in one argument is contradiction.
But, since you obviously know what you meant to communicate perhaps you would be so kind as to recast those four sentences while making it explicit in all cases which concept(s) you are symbolizing with the words: **reality, frame, individual, distinct, separated, defines, one, world, **and objective.
[ul]To save evryone the need to scroll up
[li]As an individual, I don’t. As a part of a larger reality, I am justified in doing so.[/li][li]You are never an individual. You are never distinct. When are you ever separated from the world?[/li][li]The individual defines what the frame is, and the frame defines what the individual is. They are one.[/li][li]The frame is the objective reality.[/ul][/li]
Is there any relationship to which you won’t attach the symbol “reality”?
I am not certain why you feel the need to keep stressing this point. I do not believe that either erl or I have disputed the distinction between what we know and what is. Quite the contrary. I have very specifically made no statements limiting the nature of any hypothetical “greater reality”. It is only you who is attempting to leap that abyss.
What was that quote from the OP? Oh, yes, "Relying on meanings unavailable to examination, clarification, and logical verification is not acceptable."
So the things are the level, not the interactions.
But the interactions can emulate other levels, which are things.
And the interactions are emulated by even deeper levels, which are things.
And the method(s) for examination, clarification, and logical verification of these “things” and “interactions” and “levels” is . . .
I am familiar with both the game of life and levels of analysis. Perhaps my questions have led you to believe I was curious about how a multi-level model might be constructed in the abstract. This is not the case. I have been asking how you specifically are constructing and delineating the “levels” which you assert are “objective realities”.
Now, if there are specific elements of either the game of life or levels of analysis in the field of computing that you think would illuminate the specific nature of the metaphysic which you assert, then please point them out.
Petrosian was one of my favorite chess players.
His technique was unusual in a world of vanity and ego. He played “quietly” while his opponent blustered. He knew instinctively that so long as he played positionally sound chess, his opponent would be unable to muster anything of significance out of the thin air. And so, Petrosian played with enormous patience — an adjustment here, a tweak there, every move intended merely to wait for a mistake, while at the same time solidifying his own position into a formidable fortress.
He was a man who was always content to draw with those he considered his equal. And prudent grandmasters would often offer him draws early on, sometimes even before the opening moves had been completed. The gracious Petrosian, although himself a world champion, would usually accept a draw unless his opponent had already blundered.
But the less prudent and the less skilled interpreted his quiet play as an opportunity for them to show off their tactical prowess. And unless they had the skills of a Bobby Fischer, they would unleash their attack prematurely, and like a flailing fly in Petrosian’s web, they would be dismantled bit by bit until nothing remained of their position but a corpse. Their king would be like Ozymandias — alone, vulnerable, and desolate.
Spiritus is like our Petrosian. He establishes his position carefully and prudently, waiting until we have equivocated, affirmed our consquent, or denied our antecedent. And then he dismantles our arguments, piece by piece until nothing remains but a hollow shell of contradiction and tautology. I tell you, it is a thing of beauty — even when it happens to me.
** All right, since you didn’t pick up on my definition when I specified it:
A “reality” is any set of things that interact in a particular manner. As such, it can be applied to many different things,
**reality, frame, individual, distinct, separated, defines, one, world, **and objective.
This was a response to the question from Spiritus Mundi, “How then, do you as an individual make declarations of existence?” If I were somehow excluded from all interactions, there would be nothing that I could say existed, given my definition of existence. As an individual (one who is alone), I do not make declarations of existence, primarily because I am not an individual. No one is.
You are not autonomous, independent from outside forces. There is no boundary between the things we refer to as “you” and the rest of the things you interact with. The matter that makes up your body is not distinct or distinguishable from the matter that surrounds you.
** Here, I’m using the word ‘individual’ to refer to the standard concept of a person in response to erislover’s use of the term. ‘Frame’: the set of things that interact with a particular thing. The things that can be said to exist relative to something. Existence cannot be used in reference to things “outside” the frame. Nothing within a frame can be completely modelled without taking into account the other things in the frame. The division of the frame into “things” is actually arbitrary: understanding any part of the frame requires understanding of the entire thing.
‘Objective’: actually existing, as opposed to the hypothetical sense of ‘existence’ that’s excluded by my definition of the term.
** Of course. My definition of reality explains what is and what isn’t a reality.
I don’t know what the greater reality is made of. Many different configurations of hardware can perform the same computations. The only claim I make about the deeper realities is that they generate the interactions of the world we’re in.
It’s a good thing I can clarify my terms, then, isn’t it?
** There aren’t any meaningful distinctions between ‘interactions’ and ‘things’. Every ‘thing’ you can refer to or show me is just a set of interactions between other things, and those things are interactions as well. I’ve stated this over and over… how should I further clarify the position?
** Logical analysis. More simply, we look at the characteristics of the things we refer to (otherwise known as “the real world” and determine what they have in common. We then discuss the consequences and implications of these properties.
But I don’t construct them. Determining whether given things are part of a reality is only possible empirically: those things that interact in a particular way are realities. I supply the definition only.
I’ve been trying. [sigh] I’ll try again in a bit.
Lib, you flatter me. I am not a student of chess, so I took a moment to research Petrosian. I found, among other things, this site which offers a replay of the 10th game of his title defense against Spasky in 1966. It is beautiful. I find it amazing to think that such an elegant example of positional play took place on the stage of a world championship. If I saw it in a movie I would suspect the filmmakers of taking liberties in order to paint an unsullied picture for the audience.
erl, it is always good to see you, too (even though it awakens guilt that I have yet to comment upon teh material you sent me). One of the things I find so compelling about this board is that it can foster such connections between strong-willed people who disagree on passionate issues. I recall moments where you and I thought we could only be civil to each other if we didn’t talk about philosophy or economics. I distinctly remember Polycarp once wondering whethe Lib and I were creating our own mutual Hells for each other. Yet when I have so little time to deote to free thoughts I find myself often picking through Great Debates for posts with the names Libertarian or erislover.
It might not be good for my blood pressure, but it is good for my soul.
Spiritus wrote:
How’d you like that Qh8+!
[Gomer Pyle voice] Surprise! Surprise! [/Gomer Pyle Voice] 
By the way, here is his famous game against Unzicker in 1960.
Here, you’ll get to see his patented maneuvering. He moves his knight out, moves it back, then moves it elsewhere. He takes his own king on a stroll from corner to corner while Unzicker (a grandmaster) desperately tries to mount an attack. All the while, Petrosian has set up a position so powerful that the ending will leave you bewildered. What the fuck!? Why did Unzicker resign?! And then you start looking closer and closer, and lo and behold there is nary a move available to Unzicker that is not a disaster!
[…wiping tears] You gotta check it out.
Spiritus Mundi: you’re clearly familiar with computer science and information theory.
I think I can safely assume that you understand the basic concepts of using cellular automata to perform calculations. Let’s say that, using the applet of The Game of Life I linked to earlier, we construct a pattern capable of accepting new information and generating a meaningful output. We’ve now made a computational device that can handle specific types of problems (say, addition of two digits).
This computer is entirely virtual: it exists only as data within a physical structure of another computer, within the information represented by patterns of electrical impulses and magnetic domains.
Which computer is ‘real’?
And what, exactly, is that particular manner?
As to applying the term to different things: certainly it can, but then if you wish to communicate clearly you will need to develop either a grammar which makes it clear which of those different “things” is being addressed or a more specific terminology which escapes issues of equivocation.
Personally, I am not quite sure why you have chosen to apply the symbol “reality” to this concept, but as I said above: I will try to match whatever consisent usage you establish for your terms.appropriate specificity.
Ah – so the first sentence was semantically empty. As an infallible interpretive consciousness, I understood that intuitively. As a human being, I did not.
Truly? THere is no way to distinguish between the matter in my finger and the matter in the moon? Then why do you admonish erl for looking (in your opinion) at the one and not the other?
Interesting. Then, given the frame which is defined by TVAA and all that interacts (in whatever that particular way is) with TVAA, what is constructing the models?
Yet you also declare: “The part cannot comprehend the whole. Since we’re part of the reality, we can’t know what it is.” Thus, your defined set of “things understood” is empty.
So, with what exactly does the frame interact?
Or do we have one of those, “definition of is” moments? Or perhaps a confusion of types where we pretend that the frame is an element of itself?
Yes–you define it by a “particular” relationship, yet you seem to be unwilling to give the particulars. Maybe you can just give me an example of a relationship which is not a reality. Would that be easier?
Greater, deeper, lower, higher – you lack justification for making pronouncements about any of them. By your own criteria, you also lack justification for making any pronouncements about the reality (realities?) of which you are an indeterminable part.
It will be, yes.
Perhaps by not using the words “things” and “interactions” as if they were distinct. You also might answer my question about events, which you have said are not interactions (and thus not things, either.) You might also clarify how “events” can “exist” in “reality”, since they are not “interacions”. (“Who said it was accessible solely by your perceptions? It’s your interactions that are important. Your perceptions are events, and as such, they exist in reality, but they don’t determine the nature of the world.”)
How can we determine what “they” have in common when:
[ul][li]All distinctions between “things” are arbitrary.[/li][li]There is no way to distinguish between the matter that makes up a “thing” and the matter that does not.[/li][li]We cannot understand the whole of which we are a part.[/li][li]We cannot understand a part without understanding the whole.[/li][/ul]
Or we string meaningless symbols into aesthetic patterns and declare them to be metaphysical insight.
But “The division of the frame into ‘things’ is actually arbitrary”.
But to supply the definition which establishes an arbitrary delineation is to construct that delineation.
on preview
Both are real. The “virtual” distinction is an arbitrary human construction. Both computers are fully defined by the physical states of their component elements. One simply has a more persistent and recognizeable image in human perceptions.
Lib
I saw that one, too. And I had exactly the “what the fuck!?” reaction you describe. My favorite part was actually in the midgame where Unzicker could do nothing but move his king back and forth between teh same 3 squares for 9 out of 12 moves while Petrosian manueverd his pieces into position. I had no idea what Petrosian was planning, but there was no doubt that Unzicker was staring into disaster.
It can be any manner. It’s arbitrary. I can consider the information stored in a computer to be a separate system if I choose, but it’s still a part of the larger system of physics. On the other hand, perceiving that information as being different from the information contained in, say, my hand, is often useful.
Do you have any suggestions on how such a task could be begun? I suspect that mathematics would be a good start (I don’t think current math is sufficiently complete to fulfill this function), but my skills in mathematics are far too weak to accomplish this.
Because my experience has been that when people talk about something being “real”, that’s what they tend to mean.
Haven’t you heard that Zen admonition before? It’s another way of saying “Look at the territory, not the map.”
The deepest level of reality, of course. What’s constructing that? If it were something, then that would be an even deeper layer, and so it would be inside the system we’re trying to explain. It’s not possible to talk about what causes the deepest layer; what could be said about it?
For lack of a better term, I call it the Tao.
No. We understand things. The things we understand are not the things we’re trying to model.
Frames don’t interact with anything. If they interacted with other frames, there wouldn’t be more than one frame, would there?
The frame we can discuss – the concept of a frame, and the computations of its properties – is not the frame we’re in. The concept is not the reality (referencing the one we’re in), although it’s a subreality (a system of things that interact in a particular manner).
Ah, I think I understand the trouble. I’m not saying that things with a special relationship are realities, I’m saying that any system composed of any type of relationship is a reality. The nature of the relationship is not restricted.
** No.
I could learn the Grand Unified Theory (assuming there is one), but that doesn’t give me the ability to understand and predict the entirety of the universe. I cannot know the complete configuration of the realities I exist in, but I can think about the properties they possess nevertheless.
Did I say that? I shouldn’t have. Perhaps that’s a typo, or perhaps I wasn’t thinking when I wrote that. I’ll look over the thread and try to find where I said that.
Events are interactions, too.
“Things” are perceptions. I perceive my fingers and the keyboard as distinct (and I have to talk about them as if they were), but they’re really not. There’s no true boundary between them; that boundary exists only in my mind.
I am deeply offended. There’s nothing aesthetically pleasing about this metaphysic.
** There, are you sure that we don’t understand each other? (Possibly I don’t understand you…)
Are they both real in the same way?
Are they both physical in the same way?
Are there any truly non-physical computers? If they can interact with physical things, can we say they’re not physical themselves?
I must revise my “favorite part”. There is something deliciously sublime about forcing one’s opponent to resign by meekly moving one’s king out of check:
Unzicker: Rook to b6, check.
Petrosian: King to a2.
Unzicker: Damn! I resign.
Spiritus:
Yep! Sublime, it is.
Vorlon wrote:
Wow. Credit where credit is due. I think even El Hajj Malik El Shabazz would call that progress.
And it’s damn hard to make a living doing it, but it’s fun.
Thanks, Spiritus and Lib for linking to those “real” good games. They were a fine way to spend my first my pot of coffee. Look out erl, I might’ve learned something today. The queen on c2…
Put a sock in it, Lib. I didn’t say I might not understand you.
From what little I’ve seen of Spiritus’ posts, he’s everything you should be but aren’t.
He even makes intelligent responses to arguments! Hallelujah!