Le 27-juil.-05, à 00:12, Aditya Varun Chadha a écrit :

I think a reconciliation between Bruno and Lee's arguments can be the following:

Thanks for trying to reconciliate us :)

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".

Why ? (I have explicit counterexamples, like the notion of knowledge for machine). Logic has evolved up to the point we are able to build formal theory bearing on non formalizable notions (like truth or knowledge). Amazing and counterintuitive I agree.

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.

Why? We can bet on some theories and derive consequences bearing indirectly on some non perceivable structure.

 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.

Actually I agree with it. I do think Lee is close to what I want to say, at the level of our assumptions. But Lee is quite honest and cannot not be sure that my conclusion must be non sense (which means that he grasped them at least).

Quantum Physics says that an observer and his observation are
impossible to untangle.

OK. But I don't use this. Actually I don't use physics at all. Physics is emergent, not fundamental (once we assume seriously enough "digital mechanism" (or computationalism).

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
reality (models).

Actually I am a platonist, that is, a mathematical realist. I do also believe in physical reality. My point is just that if you make some hypothesis in the cognitive science (mechanism, computationalism) then physics is 100% derivable from mathematics. The physical laws are mathematical (even statistical) laws emerging from what any machine can correctly bet concerning invariant feature of their most probable computational history.

Nihilism is what happens when you believe in both computationalism and materialism. This has been illustrated by La Mettrie and mainly Sade (but also Heidegger and Nietsche in a less direct way, and then perhaps Hitler or Bin Laden in in very more indirect way). I am not at all a nihilist. I just show that the computationalist hypothesis makes the physical world emerge from the truth on numbers. I take those truth as being independent of me.

I am not a physical realist perhaps, although I do believe in an independent physical world. I just don't physical reality is primitive. Like Plato I take what we see and measure as some shadows of something quite bigger, and non material ...

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

OK, but I think those you mention are used in so many posts that I suggest you to remember them:
ASSA = A SSA = Absolute Self-Sampling Assumption,
RSSA = R SSA = Relative Self-Sampling Assumption,
comp hyp = Computationalist Hypothesis (or digital mechanism, ...)
OM = Observer-moment



Reply via email to