[Return to Essay List]


Ideas of Reality

An essay on the perceptions of reality:


I have rewritten this from the original post (Msg#103808 [Ideas] thread, hyperlinked new).

It was originally written after reading The Dancing Wu Li Masters: (click) An Overview of the New Physics by Gary Zukav - Bantam ; Reissue edition (September 1, 1984). I have deleted the original [technology] section (Msg#89752 [Ideas] thread, hyperlinked new) and the original [White Hills] section (Msg#87734 [Ideas] thread, hyperlinked new) because they were cumbersome and did not fit with the flow of other ideas.

I have added a few new ideas at the end to develop further the concepts of nonsense quotient and the perceptions of reality.

Is there one reality or 6 billion?
(Return to Top)
The Philosophy of Pragmatism
The mind is such that it deals only with ideas. It is not possible for the mind to relate to anything other than ideas. Therefore it is not correct to think that the mind actually can ponder reality. All that the mind can ponder is its ideas about reality. (Whether or not that is the way reality actually is, is a metaphysical issue.) Therefore, whether or not something is true is not a matter of how closely it corresponds to the absolute truth, but of how consistent it is with our experience.
Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, An Overview of the New Physics

The mind can only deal with ideas. For it to deal with an idea it must first either (a) be presented with the idea from an outside source, (b) deduce the idea from observation of the (individual's) perceived reality, or (c) combine previous ideas (including the ideas of observations) into a new idea.

(a) Is the essence of education.
(b) Is the essence of rational thought.
(c) Is the essence of creating theories.

For any of these ideas to be perceived by an individual as true, they must be consistent with the experiences of that individual. But each experience is recalled as an idea of what occurred, so the experiences of an individual are the all the previous ideas of that individual. The individual combines all previous ideas into a reality map against which new ideas are tested.

Where there is a conflict between two ideas, then either one or the other or both must be incorrect (or incomplete) and it is time for a new idea. The new idea can either be a test to see which old idea is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved.

Because it is impossible for the [experiences / ideas] of one person to match the [experiences / ideas] of another person, it follows that perceived truth for one person is necessarily different from perceived truth for another person.

Where there is a conflict between two perceived truths, then either one or the other or both must be incorrect (or incomplete) and it is time for a new idea. The new idea can either be a test to see which perceived truth is correct (or more complete), or it can be a new way of structuring the old ideas so that the conflict is resolved.
(Return to Top)
Beginner's Mind
The importance of nonsense hardly can be overstated. The more clearly we experience something as "nonsense," the more clearly we are experiencing the boundaries of our own self-imposed cognitive structures. "Nonsense" is that which does not fit into the prearranged patterns which we have superimposed on reality....

Nonsense is nonsense only when we have not yet found that point of view from which it makes sense.

...the creative mind...is characterized by a steadfast confidence that there exists a point of view from which the "nonsense" is not nonsense at all - in fact, from which it is obvious.

What is nonsense and what is not, then, may be merely a matter of perspective.
Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, An Overview of the New Physics

What is true for me may not be true for you and vice versa. The test of the truth of any view is how well it explains everything in a consistent, logical, manner versus how many things are label as "nonsense" - the higher the "nonsense" quotient the more inconsistent the view.
(Return to Top)
The Jigsaw Puzzle

"If our ideas about reality do not provide a sufficient lever to pry off the lid of the Universe and examine it, what is the point of this post or of any conversation?" - Ken 052246

Maybe we can tease the lid off...

The problem is how can we tell when the ideas that govern our perceptions are close to reality and whether there is any convergence between perceived realities of different people. If two people experience the same phenomenon (repeat the experiment with the same results) then they both experience a convergence of ideas.

Let's say that there are 20 people in a room, and a person comes in with 20 boxes of jigsaw puzzles that he hands out and says for them to assemble their puzzles individually - they can discuss the puzzles, but each works on their own.

The boxes all have the same picture on them, but the puzzle inside is different from the picture, and each is incomplete in different areas. The people work for several hours and are beginning to show results when the person returns.

Most have rejected the box early because it just doesn't match the evidence of the pieces; they have different areas filled in and some have pieces placed out in the open areas, located through discussions with others. More than that, by discussing areas that are completed with overlaps of areas that agree, a more complete picture emerges that is consistent with all the pieces, a picture, an 'idea', of the true puzzle.

Some, however, have only a few pieces on the table, arranged so that they do match the picture on the box, and only the pieces that match the box are on the table - they refuse to believe the other people that the 'idea' of the picture is wrong, and the evidence before them supports their belief: but only by ignoring the dissonance of the pieces that don't fit, and the dissonance with the reality of the others. (and maybe one person has only the one green piece from the box set in the middle of the table, and claims that it is the center of the puzzle...).

The problem is not to make reality fit the idea, but to make the idea fit reality.
(Return to Top)
The Glass of Water

"As a prior assumption science also assumes that there is an objective reality - when we see a tree it is in fact there. If you've watched any of the Matrix films (especially the first one) you know that that assumption is not necessarily true even though everyone perceives it. In that sense science is as much a faith as any religion - though a bit easier to accept than most." - DJBurtonA

Are there ways we can objectively measure subjective experiences?

When I pour water into a glass I can see the water fall until it is contained by the glass, with the occasional spill. When you pour water into a glass I can see the same phenomenon occurring, and we can both agree that this is what we see happening in both cases. This gives us a clue that the objective reality is that water was poured into a glass and the glass contained the falling water, less whatever spills happened.

However we could be hypnotized into thinking we were pouring water into a glass when in fact we are on stage empty handed. The test would be to check with all the other people to see if they too saw water falling and being contained in a glass, and to see if the same kind of experience could be repeated by others in a different time and location. If everyone on the world agrees that pouring water into a glass is the same apparent objective reality, then the only logical conclusions are (1) that the falling water was contained by the glass is an objective reality, or (2) that the whole world is hypnotized (the Matrix model).

The first conclusion leads to a series of repeatable actions, observations, predictions of actions, tests, etcetera ... the scientific method, and this leads to further actions and tests.

The second conclusion leads to the conclusion that the whole world is false, there is no way to test for the validity of this conclusion, and leads nowhere.

A third possibility is that there is a mixture of objective reality experiences and subjective reality (hypnotic \ spiritual) experiences, and that the objective ones can be shared but the subjective ones cannot. In this case there could be a series of subjective experiences by several people that could appear to be similar, but which end up different in details. Going back to the hypnotic stage scene, we both appear to observe the same experience of pouring water into a glass, but when questioned about it the sequence you observe will be different from the sequence that I observe, who goes first, what hands are used, how much spills, when and by whom ... etcetera. 

Careful observation will show differences in subjective reality experiences, differences that will none the less appear real to each person.
(Return to Top)

Mobius strips, models and reality

"As a wary student of reality, what answer would you give the questioner who asked you whether a rectangular paper strip ... can be shaped into a surface having a single side and a single edge? " - ScholiastVA

The original precept of the whole argument is what the wary student of reality would observe, so the focus is on the reality of the model object and not on the theoretical construct.

Thus we look at the edges and see them instead of ignore them, we look at the paper thickness and note how it differs from the theoretical concept of a idealized planar strip of zero thickness, we look at the overlapped, glued or taped ends and note that they are not continuous across the joint, and we note that there is an inside and an outside to the surface of the actual factual model object regardless of how it is constructed.

We note, as a wary student of reality, that, topologically speaking, the strip of paper is no different from a cube made of solid paper, nor even from a sphere made of solid paper.

We note that if a construct is carved (from wax or wood or clay) as a complete loop with [n>2] facets and an (twist) offset [p>1] such that there is no common denominator of both [n] and [p], that the multi-faceted face will twine around the loop until it comes back on itself in one long face, but that the construct is, topologically speaking, no different from a torus shape.

We note that, topologically speaking, none of these objects qualify as single sided objects.

Creationists love to create models that can then be used to show that [X, Y or Z] could not have happened in reality because they violate the model -- mistaking the model for reality (when the proper reaction is that the model does not match reality, so the model is invalid).

But scientists do this too, when they get caught up in the modeling and is particularly evident where mathematical models are used to represent trends, behavior, etcetera. Look at physics, where theories are judged based on how elegant the math is rather than on the accuracy of the model.

A truly wary student of reality knows the limitations and the assumptions built into the models used to help understand the universe, he knows that there is no such thing as a two dimensional plane surface in reality, or a one dimensional line, that the paper strip when viewed from the subatomic level is a veritable universe of particles dancing in and out of existence in time and space and that it is made up of more space than matter and that what is seen as the "surface" is an illusion.

A truly wary student of reality knows that the idea is not the reality and that the reality is not the idea.
(Return to Top)
What is real?

How then can we measure reality when there are differing subjective experiences?

The key to me is to look for nonsense quotients: what [experiences \ views \ observations] must be declared nonsense for the subjective reality to be consistent and how does the total nonsense load compare to the total experience load? The higher the nonsense quotient the less likely the subjective experience measures an objective (actual) reality.

Thus for someone to believe that the genesis of life as detailed in the (which one?) [bible \ torah \ vedas \ etc] is actual objective reality, they have to dismiss not only all the other [hundreds of contradictory] creation myths but several whole branches of science as nonsense, from physics to astronomy to biology to genetics to evolution to geology ... etcetera: a very high nonsense quotient compared to a person who accepts the science views and has to dismiss only one more [of hundreds of contradictory] creation myths as nonsense.

Now at one basic level all our perceptions of reality are subjective experiences and there are no objective experiences of reality. This becomes obvious when you look at witnesses to an accident that recall different things happening, yet each is sure of what they saw.

At one level we are all hypnotized to see sub-atomic particles agglomerations as physical objects like a glass and water when in reality they are 99% empty voids.

At one level we are all working on an individual puzzle, trying to fit pieces into our picture of what the puzzle looks like.

At one level we are all working on making reality fit our idea of reality

The only rational guides to the objective reality is the concurrence of many subjective realities and the wary measure of the nonsense quotients.


Enjoy

(Return to Top)

(Note: this is an essay and as such represents the opinions of the author. You can e-mail comments to me at RAZD8@yahoo.com)

[Return to Essay List]

we are limited in our ability to understand
.... by our ability to understand
Rebel A American . Zen [ Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...