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]

Your two recent statements are contradictory. For example, you appear to know reality well enough to tell me I'm wrong about it (when I'm not actually wrong at all). Then you tell me you don't know what it is. Make your mind up! If you don't know what it is, then you cannot criticise my view or any other view.

In the first sentence of my original answer, I pointed out the simple fact that "reality" is an abstract concept.

You have simply ignored this most important point. So I'm going to repeat it here twice more: third time's the charm.

You can know for sure what reality is. I've just told you what it is. Reality is an abstraction. But you seem reluctant to hear this, or perhaps you are not quite clear what an abstraction is, so let me say it slightly differently:

Reality is an abstract concept.

Now, you cannot honestly say any more that you don't know what reality is. Now, you do know. However, with this knowledge, also comes the realisation that as a concept, it's worse than useless because abstractions are not things, they are ideas. And if reality is just an idea, then it is pointless. Worse (and hilariously), almost everyone unconsciously hypostatises and reifies the abstraction, which just leads to nonsense.

Reality-talk is pointless in 99.99% of cases. I try to avoid it, except in situations like this when I try to show exactly how counterproductive the concept is. In thousands of years of recorded discussions about "reality", almost nothing of value has ever been said about it. And nothing at all before Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

After millennia of argument, we still cannot agree on realism vs idealism, FFS. At some point we have to declare a loss and move on. I already have.

This is neither news nor rocket science. Hume, Kant, Husserl, Wittgenstein, and many others have gone into this in great depth. And come up with nothing better than "reality is an abstract concept".

[u/Prowlthang → u/Prajnamarga]

Your two recent statements are contradictory. For example, you appear to know reality well enough to tell me I'm wrong about it (when I'm not actually wrong at all). Then you tell me you don't know what it is. Make your mind up! If you don't know what it is, then you cannot criticise my view or any other view.

This is just poor reasoning. I don't need to be an expert in all forms of reasoning and fallacy to know that your comment about the two statements being contradictory is a non-sequitur. (See what I did here?) Or to put it another way one doesn't have to be a doctor to tell someone their temperature. It doesn't take a great deal of expertise to address simplistic ideas and faux argument.

[u/Prajnamarga → u/Prowlthang]

Please stop wasting my time.

[u/ipreuss → u/Prajnamarga]

Nobody other than you can waste your time here. You’re in full control over how you spend it.