I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the following:
Our perception of reality is limited by the structure and composition
of brains. (we can 'enhance' these to be able to perceive and
understand 'more', but at ANY point of time the above limitation
holds). I think this is closer to what Lee wants to say, and I totally
agree with it. This is what I have tried to elaborate on in my earlier
(my first here) email.
But the very fact that this limitation is absolutely inescapable
(observation and understanding is ALWAYS limited to the observer's
capabilities) gives us the following insight:
That which cannot be modelled (understood) cannot figure in ANY of our
"models of reality". Therefore although our models of reality keep
changing, at any given time instance there is no way for us to
perceive anything beyond the model, because as soon as something
outside our current model is perceived, we have moved to a future
instance, and can create a model that includes it. Thus it is kind of
senseless to talk of a reality beyond our perception. In other words,
we can call something "reality" only once we perceive it. In this
sense "models may be more real than reality" to us. This is an
argument of the "Shroedinger's Cat" kind.
In fact if I am correct about what both Bruno and Lee want to say,
then Lee's arguments are a prerequisite to understanding to what Bruno
is hinting at.
Quantum Physics says that an observer and his observation are
impossible to untangle.
>From the above fact,
A Realist (Lee) would conclude that "absolute reality" is unknowable.
(follows from heisenburg's uncertainty also btw:-) ). But for this the
realist assumes that this "absolute reality" exists.
A Nihilist (Bruno) would conclude that since this tanglement of
observer and observation is inescapable, it is meaningless to talk
about any "absolute reality" outside the perceived and understood
None of the views is "naive". In fact neither view can ever disprove
the other, because both belong to different belief (axiomatic)
systems. apples and oranges, both tasty.
If what I have said above sounds ok and does help put things in
perspective, then I would like to think that in this WHOLE discussion
there is NO NEED of invoking terms like "comp hyp", "ASSA", "RSSA",
"OMs", etc. I, being clearly a lesser being in this new domain of
intellectual giants at eskimo.com, would highly appreciate if atleast
the full forms are given so that I can google them and put them in
On 7/27/05, Lee Corbin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno writes
> > > Look, it's VERY simple: take as a first baby-step the notion
> > > that the 19th century idea of a cosmos is basically true, and
> > > then add just the Big Bang. What we then have is a universe
> > > that operates under physical laws. So far---you'll readily
> > > agree---this is *very* simple conceptually.
> > >
> > > Next, look at this picture after 14.7 billion years. Guess
> > > what has evolved? Finally, there is intelligence and there
> > > are entities who can *perceive* all this grandeur.
> > >
> > > So, don't forget which came first. Not people. Not perceptions.
> > > Not ideas. Not dich an sich. Not 1st person. Not 3rd person.
> > > NOT ANY OF THIS NONSENSE. Keep to the basics and we *perhaps*
> > > will have a chance to understand what is going on.
> > But both the quantum facts, and then just the comp hyp are incompatible
> > with that type of naive realism.
> At this level of discourse, dear Bruno, I don't give a _______
> for your *hypothesis*.
> Moreover, please google for "naive realism". You'll find that this
> is the world view of children who have *no* idea of the processes
> by which their brains are embedded in physical reality.
> Since no one claims to be a naive realist, this rises to the level
> of insult.
> But then, I'm not too surprised that the most *basic* understanding
> of our world has been forgotten by some who deal everyday with only
> the most high level abstractions.
Aditya Varun Chadha
Mobile: +91 98 400 76411
Home: +91 11 2431 4486
Room #1034, Cauvery Hostel
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Chennai - 600 036