Is Objective Reality a Metaphysic?

[Ludovic]

In This thread I wrote:

objective reality is a theory, because it fits the best observations. It is impossible to entirely prove a theory. It would be possible, within the realm of science, to show that objective reality is no longer the best universal model, if the facts overthrow this theory.

Lib responded:

That doesn’t address the point I made, which was that an objective reference frame is necessary for an objective proof. You agreed with this earlier.

Still, I don’t know what you mean by objective reality being a theory. It is generally considered to be a metaphysic.

I see nothing to imply that it cannot be a theory AND a metaphysic. I certainly was going to reply that it was a metaphysic, but I thought that was sort of redundant. What I mean is that if it is shown that objective reality is not the “true” reality, then we can discard this. I do not know how one would do this, though. Definitely not by the scientific method (see below), but one does not have to arrive at a conclusion via the scientific method in order to have it be a theory in the sense ofa set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms, which the metaphysic of objective reality certainly does.

I wrote:

Subjective reality may be just as valid as objective reality, but there is, by definition no information exchanged between peoples “delusions” (as I call them, for lack of a better word: I am not the one to declare that a person’s subjective experience is invalid) If there were meaningful information exchanged between people’s subjective expereinces, they would by definition not be subjective and would assume some objective reality. It would then be up to science to classify and study this.

Lib wrote:

You’re teetering. If there is no way to exchange the information, then a falsifiable test cannot be devised. Science is not equipped to evaluate nonfalsifiable phenomena.

I am not teetering.

I will grant you that it does contradict with when I said that it may be possible someday, if we discover reality to differ from our previous hypothesis, to discard the metaphysic of objective reality BY SCIENCE. The only way I see us discarding the metaphysic of objective reality is if the universe changes to such an extreme extent that the scientific method no longer functions.

Or if, by some magical power, my mind is “enhanced” and I can see the “truth that I have been missing all along”, that Objective Reality is false. Then, I will have to discard that theory, along with the theory of the Scientific Method.

However, what I meant in the above passage is that if there CAN be information exchanged between subejctive experiences, they are NO LONGER SUBJECTIVE, BUT OBJECTIVE. Therefore within the realm of science.

I never claimed that science can falsify subjective reality. My metaphysic is, to coin a phrase on the spot, agnosto-materialism. That is, materials[1], and by that I mean anything that is in the objective world and can exchange information, are “real”, and that existence of things outside this is unknown and unknowable.

i wrote:

There is an objective reality. None of us can experience it. When we have percieved something, the reality has already changed.

lib wrote:

I agree with your first two assertions, but your last assertion gives me pause. Are you saying that perception is pro causa?

No, I was merely stating a fact. This sentence, in fact these three sentences, dont really have much to do with the current argument.

Currently, we are limited in our perception by our sensory organs. This alone would tend to prove the hypothesis that we cannot know reality for certain. However, when you get extremely fine-grained about it, quantum mechanics kicks in and even with ultra-powerful enhancements, the exact state of the universe cannot be known by its constituent materials.

(it’s another argument entirely, and probably deserves another thread, as to whether or not the universe as a whole knows about itself.

Suffice it to say, there was a debate in the mid-20th century about the phenomenon of seeming faster-than-light communication. In certain physics reactions, two particles move in opposite directions in an unknown quantum state. When one of these quantum states is determined, the other particle instantly changes its state too.

Some physicists theorized that when the particles were created, they “knew” exactly how they would react under certain circumstances. Other scientists shot this down, unfortunately I do not understand the physics behind this.

The upshot of this, is that, even if, long ago the entire universe was quantumly entagled together, the universe is not omniscient

[1]currently the only known materials are particles, besides the conductors of gravity waves, which have not been discovered yet. (the particles that is, not the waves.)

[TVAA]

Not to be a wiseass, but what do you mean by objective?

If the universe is everything (if you think in terms of a multiverse, use the word ‘cosmos’), how could there ever be an objective perspective on it? Any perspective would necessarily be within the universe.

[Inoshiro]

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
**
I am not teetering.

I will grant you that it does contradict with when I said that it may be possible someday, if we discover reality to differ from our previous hypothesis, to discard the metaphysic of objective reality BY SCIENCE. The only way I see us discarding the metaphysic of objective reality is if the universe changes to such an extreme extent that the scientific method no longer functions.

**

I would say that science itself is based on objective reality and requires it as an axiom. If science were to disprove objective reality we would have an ouroboros (snake eating it’s own tail). I also don’t think that science can prove objective reality either. I am reminded of Godel’s incompleteness theorem which states that any formal system that is “strong” enough to prove it’s own axioms is false. Granted, science isn’t quite the sort of thing he was talking about but I can’t help but think that something like this might apply here.

We all start with subjectivity. The realization that we exist. We can stop there too. There is no way to for any person to verify that they are not the only person in the universe and that all the universe is not some kind of illusion. For most of us, however, we begin with the subjective and then conclude that there IS something outside of us - objective reality. We also see that there are other subjects like us. We then apply the scientific method based on these observations. So the chain of reasoning is something like Subjectivity → Objective reality → Science.

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
**
However, what I meant in the above passage is that if there CAN be information exchanged between subejctive experiences, they are NO LONGER SUBJECTIVE, BUT OBJECTIVE. Therefore within the realm of science.

**

If there ever turns out to be anything to the “Psi” effects we would have verified direct subjectivity-to-subjectivity contact. Finally, the whole issue of “qualia” (internal subjective states) might be resolved and we would know if our internal sensation of “blueness” is the same as everyone else’s. Subjective states would then indeed be part of objective reality and we would have a true “science of the mind”.

[Ludovic]

Dr, the one issue I have with solipsism is that I am not even sure that I exist.

Oh, and, its a tradition around here:

Welcome to the boards!!!

[TVAA]

But what would it mean for you to exist?

[erislover]

Ludovic

I see nothing to imply that it cannot be a theory AND a metaphysic.

Ask: how would I test a theory that objective reality exists without an a priori assumption about what reality already is?

What would the data have to be?

What I mean is that if it is shown that objective reality is not the “true” reality, then we can discard this.

Think about what it takes to demonstrate something, however. It takes perception, data, etc… all of which has its meaning inside of a metaphysical perspective.

The only way I see us discarding the metaphysic of objective reality is if the universe changes to such an extreme extent that the scientific method no longer functions.

What? Why? Why does the scientific method require an objective metaphysic? I seem to remember being in a debate once about what things were required for science to “work”, but that was hotly disputed. Which means: it is a good point to bring up and debate!

However, what I meant in the above passage is that if there CAN be information exchanged between subejctive experiences, they are NO LONGER SUBJECTIVE, BUT OBJECTIVE.

Just a terminology nitpick: many of us would instead say that they are inter-subjective, that is, part of the subjective experiences of a group, whose communication is itself subject to subjective interpretation. “If there CAN be inforamtion exchanged”, yes… now, how would you test whether information was exchanged without attempting to exchange information? What is your standard for successful communication?

Currently, we are limited in our perception by our sensory organs. This alone would tend to prove the hypothesis that we cannot know reality for certain.

And what do we use to arrive at the conclusion that “We are limited in our perception by our sensory organs”? I don’t mean to throw all sorts of questions at you willy-nilly, but there is a whole lot of metaphysics in making these claims.

Almost tangential, but ponder this. Here are two objective descriptions of something that can happen to a person. One, an event is perceived incorrectly through some chemical problem, some coating on the eye, something. Two, an event is perceived correctly, but the memory is stored improperly. What can a person do to distinguish between these two objective events? How many people would it take to overcome this?