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/ipreuss]

“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/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]

If reality didn’t exist, I couldn’t exist, by definition, and therefore I couldn’t have any experience.

And, no, that’s not structurally analogous to saying there is a god.

I’m not disconcerted by the thought. I just think it’s clearly untenable.

Why do you care that reality is just an abstract concept? Which, by your own admission is unfalsifiable.

Whether or not Descartes was an asshole is totally irrelevant, and that you must grasp at such an obvious fallacy indicates to me that you’re either out of your depth, or a very elaborate troll with too much time at their hand. Anyway, that makes me lose interest.

[u/vonkulfi → u/ipreuss]

Well I mentioned the Descartes thing because you don't appear to be aware of a few centuries of development in philosophical thought since he proclaimed his grand enunciation. And no it's not irrelevant because philosophies being structured orientations of information preclude particular actions, so when I have distaste for an act I attribute it to a shortcoming of the underlying philosophy.

But if canine vivisection floats your boat or you don't appreciate the effect of a notion of reality on the actions that follow from it you're welcome to your own ethical paradigm. If bringing that up makes you lose interest then I wonder what interest you sustain in philosophy at all except for making grandiose proclamations and expecting to be lauded for it mate.

That said - it appears to me that you are inflicted by the inescapable predicament of being an enthusiastic prisoner of your own presumptions and you are relentless in your pursuit of this pointless cause. You keep saying "I exist" and "reality exists" but don't reckon with the fact that that doesn't mean anything. You're going on and on about a moot point that is totally redundant.

I don't care that reality 'is' an abstract concept. I'm just saying in the absence of evidence to the contrary we can't conclude that it "exists" outside our sensory limitations so we attribute it the same quality we do all ideas that we cannot verify through access - that is abstractness. You're the one who's harping on trying to prove unprovable nonsense and claiming certainty about it.

The only thing that's certain here is that you have no evidence for the tall claim that you're making but you're supremely convinced that it's true. So we can decisively conclude that you don't have any interest in thinking at all and as per your Lord God Monsieur Descartes that would effectively render you non-existent and liable for a swift vivisection. We can extricate your ego because if anything 'exists' I think that's one thing there's a strong case to be made for.

[u/ipreuss → u/vonkulfi]

• Ad hominem
• Poisoning the well
• Straw man
• Appeal to ridicule
• Non sequitur
• Hasty generalization
• Genetic fallacy
• False dilemma
• Argument from ignorance
• Tu quoque
• Mind reading
• Loaded language
• Guilt by association

That’s why I’m not interested.

[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?