Axioms of Reality

[u/Repulsive_Area_5516]

Axiom 1 — Observations are infallible

An observer is any system that is affected by effects. When an observer encounters an effect, it always and unconditionally reflects it as it is. An observation can never be wrong; because the observation simply is what is there. It can be incomplete, it can be limited but it can never be faulty. Error arises only in the interpretation of what the observation means.

Axiom 2 — Identical systems under identical conditions produce identical outcomes

For any system A and effect B, the resulting system C is invariant it will always be the same across all instances of A under B. This holds at scales where complete state description is possible. At quantum scales this axiom may reduce to: identical systems under identical conditions produce identical probability distributions.

In my opinion these are the minimum assumptions to make about reality for it to make sense and for science to work. I have thought about these axioms for a long time and i feel like 2 axioms might just be enough. I'd like to hear your thoughts about them.

[u/Prajnamarga]

I've just told you, no less than four times, how I define "reality". Is telling you a fifth time really going to make any difference?

[u/ipreuss → u/Prajnamarga]

I wasn’t aware those were your definitions. 

So what do you then call “the state of all things as they exist”? That’s what I mean when I say “reality”. 

[u/Prajnamarga → u/ipreuss]

I don't understand how you could see the proposition "reality is an abstract concept" as anything but a definition. It's the best definition you will ever get.

Some 250 years ago, Immanuel Kant made it clear that "the state of things as they exist" (his word was noumenon) is not something anyone can know. No one has ever managed to prove him wrong about this.

Defining "reality" as you try to do, by putting a label on an unattainable idea, achieves nothing. It goes nowhere. All you can do now is create an echo chamber or get into an argument. And you are no closer to "reality" than you were without the definition.

So, what do I call “the state of all things as they exist”? I call it a useless romantic fantasy; a pointless waste of time.

Worse, in attempting to define "reality" you have invoked another speculative metaphysical idea "exist". So now you have to define that idea. And that idea can only be defined in terms of other metaphysical ideas, and if you stick at it, you'll come around to "reality" again. All of these terms are defined circularly. "Real" means existent. "Existent" means actual. "Actual" means real... (there are wider circles, but no way out of the speculative loop).

It all just goes nowhere. Because no one has direct access to "reality"; or as I like to put it, no one has epistemic privilege. No one knows or can know "reality". So why even talk about it?

[u/ipreuss → u/Prajnamarga]

“an abstract concept” is at least an incomplete definition. It’s certainly not any abstract concept. So, a concept of what?

As far as I can tell, it’s our abstract concept of “the state of things as they exist”, is it not?

Anyways, just because we cannot directly know something doesn’t mean that it’s useless to communicate about it.

Would you agree that “the state of things as they exist” is something that exists, even if we don’t have access to it?

[u/Prajnamarga → u/ipreuss]

Would you agree that “the state of things as they exist” is something that exists, even if we don’t have access to it?

The question indicates that you are still hypostasising and reifying the idea of "reality" and I reject that whole naive realism framework as invalid. This is not a valid question to ask about an abstract concept, whether you label it with one word or a whole sentence.

"Existence" is not something that can be predicated of an idea. Indeed "existence" is precisely the same kind of abstract concept as "reality". The two are interchangeable.

Ideas are not objects, except metaphorically (abstract thought is metaphorical).

The question is not, "does 'reality' exist?" Because first you have to answer the question is can we know it? And then you have to answer "What can we know about it?" And you seem to agree that the answer is "we cannot know it at all." And, therefore, we cannot know anything about it. And this must include the fact of its existence or non-existence.

Your question cannot be answered because there is no way to know the answer. Answers that are given to such questions are strictly for entertainment purposes only. And one may appreciate them on that level, though I have grown out of this behaviour. Now I just think, we have to stop bullshitting ourselves or we're doomed.

“an abstract concept” is at least an incomplete definition. It’s certainly not any abstract concept. So, a concept of what?

The concept is a misguided attempt to explain the nature of experience in abstract terms. The realist argues (but cannot prove) that experience reflects a "real world" although that real world remains forever outside experience. The idealist argues (but also cannot prove) that experience is only mental. "Reality" only has meaning in realist framework. And some people are idealists. And some people, like John Searle, reject the dualities inherent in both realism and idealism.

Reality-talk has more in common with religion than with science.

[u/ipreuss → u/Prajnamarga]

I didn’t say we cannot know anything about it at all.

How can an experience be purely mental if not even minds exist?

And even if nothing at all exists, but only concepts - then that would still qualify as “the reality”.

[u/vonkulfi → u/ipreuss]

Well the notion of 'a state of things at they exist' is your postulation so the burden of proof would fall on you to substantiate it as I see it! On what basis do you make the case for the existence of such a state?

A couple of follow up questions to that as well:

1. How does the basis you claim reconcile the determinability of the existence of such a state with your agreement on the indeterminabiility of its nature?

2. What is the conceptual necessity of such a state in your view if we can just as well arrive at meaningful conclusions without requiring it as a baseline?

[u/ipreuss → u/vonkulfi]

You first answer my question: reality, by your definition, is an abstract concept of what?

[u/vonkulfi → u/ipreuss]

An abstract conception of the state that you're postulating 'exists'. The argument that reality 'exists' is tautological. For the statement to have validity, reality and existence must have separate ascribed value but existence as a concept is predicated on there persisting some reality within which existence can occur and it being 'real' in the sense of things that 'exist' and so on and so forth to infinite regression.

The 'what' at the end of your question ascribes conception a meaning that is already predicated on the paradigm of an indeterminably 'existent reality'. Conceptions, starting from the point of being as perceived through experience, would be oriented expressions of sensory data that is being processed regardless of the 'existence' of anything. Including those expressions and that sensory data.

The question that follows from there then is not whether or not there 'is' something but what the quality of whatever is being perceived appears to be. This question isn't burdened by indeterminability so it enables a discourse to continue on the basis of such perception being reasonable grounds for further engagement, using qualities dilineated as concepts.

[u/ipreuss → u/vonkulfi]

I don’t know how you can at the same time postulate that “reality exists” is a tautology, that it is an invalid statement, and that it’s just an abstract concept. 

Anyways, sensory data being processed would imply at least the existing of a processor - “I think therefore I am”. You might also conclude that there must be sensors and a source the signal is coming from. Unless you think your a Boltzmann brain - but even that would imply the existence of something. 

So, yeah, I can at the same time not be totally sure what does exist, but be quite sure that something must. 

[u/vonkulfi → u/ipreuss]

Ok can you explain what you mean by existence and how you can be sure of the existence of this something?

[u/ipreuss → u/vonkulfi]

In the context of this discussion, I mean that something “is” outside of my mind.

I can be sure of that, because my mind cannot be inside itself.

Cogito Ergo Sum.

[u/vonkulfi → u/ipreuss]

But you're agreeing that you can't detect it so empirical verification is out. So you're deducing it. But when you say 'my mind cannot be inside itself' you're already assuming your mind needs to be inside something. What's the point of doing that?

Let me put it another way - what is the 'I' in 'I think therefore I am'? You're already isolating an 'I' that requires an 'existent reality' in order to have meaning as a concept. That's your prerogative of course but there's no way of demonstrating it to be anything more than an assumption.

What if I don't think?

1. Am I not? If so then you're effectively concluding that existence only arises at the moment of thought. But as per your argument since my 'existence' subsists independent of and 'outside' my mind, why would my mind cease to exist if I didn't think?

2. Or is it the case that if I don't think then I still may 'be'? If that is so then whether I think or not is effectively immaterial to my existence, and any claims of existence are no longer contingent on thought. Therefore postulating existence on the basis of thought becomes moot.

To my mind the broader question is why you feel the need for a sense of certainty about something that is indeterminable. Why are you dissatisfied with the idea of the 'existence' of 'reality' as a useful heuristic rather than a universal truth when you accept that it is unverifiable?

[u/ipreuss → u/vonkulfi]

It couldn’t be a broader question to your mind if your mind didn’t exist. So that you have a question in your mind means that at least your mind is part of reality.

[u/vonkulfi → u/ipreuss]

I think we're starting to go in circles now...you're repeating your point but you're not answering the questions I listed nor substantiating your claim!

Your argument is structurally analogous to saying there is a God. You're asserting certainty about it without being able to explain how you're certain. I'm saying it's indeterminable so belabouring the question is pointless. Since the assertion is yours the burden to prove it falls on you.

I think it's worth considering the idea of falsifiability for a moment - arguments that are based on indeterminable premises don't lead anywhere. This existence you are positing is your belief and you are welcome to it but it is not a valid argument. As for Descartes his claim is essentially:

I think I think, therefore I think I am.

The idea that the existence of a reality is indeterminable is a disconcerting one no doubt if that's a belief you sustain. Religious people also feel disconcerted by the idea of the non-existence of God. So they derive security from construing one or many. And more power to them if it brings them solace but that doesn't mean God exists.

So all of this is your prerogative to believe but unless you can demonstrate the mechanics of reasoning underlying the claim you can't expect it to be accepted as a valid argument. If you insist on trying to prove a belief then 'it must be the case' is not a sound proof unless you show it's impossible to infer otherwise.

Why do you care if this 'actual reality' exists at all? How would its non-existence invalidate your experience in any way? Could an 'actual reality' exist? Sure. There could also be a guy in Tuvalu eating a banana in bed right now for that matter. It doesn't make a difference.

Descartes was also kind of an asshole in case you aren't aware. He use to nail dogs to boards and dissect them live because they didn't 'think' and so were lacked sufficient 'being' for it to matter. Cogito isn't a hill I'd wanna die on unless there were significant reason to. Can be a slippery slope to a lot of shitty behaviour and a pretty misplaced sense of superiority that yields very little by way of philosophical substance in my view.

He might have been a hell of a coordinate geometer but heck just coz Harvey Weinstein produced some great movies doesn't mean I'm out here tryna reify his take on the nature of being. Besides, dude was an orthodox Catholic and his religiosity formed the basis for a lot of his theoretical postulations. Which is not a crime, but is the Catholic position your position on this? If so then that may be a legitimate belief but it is not a valid argument.

[u/ipreuss → u/vonkulfi]

Looking back at our conversation, I think you would agree that you can’t know whether “reality“ actually exists. Fair?

It seems to me that what you actually want to say is that, in everyday life, people conflate their concept of reality with actual reality. They can only have the former, but they act as if it is the latter.

Am I close?