Is ultimate reality rational?

So is love rational ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IMHO
Most people wouldn't know "reality" if it came up and bit them on the ass.
Most of what we assume is reality is actually a construct of our minds that helps us get over our fear of the unknown. Being but a construct, it must needs be completely subjective.
Is a subjective "reality" reality?

Love, on the other hand provides an unresoned comfort for the tormented soul, a balm that erases conflicts of constructs and provides a quiet sense of the moment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So most people don't, if not can't, know the truth about most things. And they cannot much admit to the possibility that they inaccurately perceive reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure what the mathematical image was about. Like which equations in that are given, and which ones are based on the givens.

Like if a+a = a. Then a can only be 0. And dividing anything by 0 is undefined. So 2/0 = 1/0 is not the same as 2 = 1, but undefined.

Considering this is a science forum, most of the people will have alot of faith in the God of science. I am more geared towards logic. Because the thing about the perceptive world is that measuring anything or trying to define an order to anything might not be as easy as we think.

Consider a dream or a nightmare. Things appear and disappear. Things operate with no sense of order. To presuppose with burning faith that waking life is different might not be the best approach.

We might find that everything we believe about measurable, definable, consistent reality could well fall apart at the seams.

 

We will not find that EVERYTHING we believe about measurable, definable, consistent reality could well fall apart at the seams. IF we are perceiving much of reality incorrectly, the only way to discover it & improve on it is thru science. Meanwhile, we must do the best we can in these bodies, in this world, in these circumstances. You cannot be much more geared toward logic than in science.

 

There's no way to predict if it will or won't fall apart at the seams. In the case of a hallucination, no matter what, the perceiver will correctly measure it according to the parameters his mind is creating. Same goes if what we're perceiving to be physical reality is a hallucination. Science is less logical than people think. But it remains very useful for coming to conclusions about reality. Conclusions may or may not come through science. There's a multitude of methods to come to verifiable conclusions. Science is but one of them. What matters isn't the method. What matters is the answer to whatever it is we're trying to figure out.

 

There are a few things which are true no matter what. Science is more logical than you think. Aside from something self evident, if you properly verify a conclusion, you have practiced science.

 

Ultimate reality is very faithful, and very loving. Our emotions are certainly able and willing to accept ultimate reality, hope, happiness, satisfaction.

 

I don't think science is less or more logical. I don't really have an opinion either way. All I'm saying is that it might be much less logical than you think. It might not. There's no reason for anybody to put too much blind faith into anything that isn't full proof.

 

Quite. The error is in the calculation, not in mathematics.

 

But surely you know there are different TYPES of logic other than Aristotlean logic. Modal logic. Fuzzy logic. Even the paralogical koans of Zen. How do we know which logic is the right one? If any?

 

I don't think any sensible scientist puts "blind faith" into any theory. Nor does he or she subscribe to belief in a "God of science", as you put it earlier.

Science is a series of models of physical reality. We have evidence (from reproducible observation) that the models are getting more and more successful at explaining more and more of the physical world. As Popper pointed out, no theory in science can be proved true, whereas any theory of science can be proved false or incomplete by an observation that does not fit. So science is too pragmatic and provisional to be any sort of "god".

Having said that, any scientist will believe - with good reason - that the scientific approach is the best way to understand how the physical world works. But if you want to grapple with other aspects of the human experience, other tools are more helpful.

 

As Dawkins famously observed, the kind that enables you to fly in safety at 30,000ft is the one to trust.

The way he put it was "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000ft and I'll show you a hypocrite".

 

Logic is what works for a certain landbound bipedal species? How is that? There may be universes where "what works" for us is no longer true at all. Indeed! Would what enables you to fly in safety at 30,000 ft on Jupiter be applicable at ALL?

 

What I was getting at was the fact that most people don't understand that science is completely faith based. In fact, the basis of everything a perceiver trusts to be real is at it's core, based on the perceiver's faith.

The reason I used 'blind' is when the perceiver is unaware he's actually putting faith into something. This includes his senses, reasoning, thought processes, methods of coming to conclusions. In order for the perceiver to make determinations based on all these various factors requires a core of faith in those factors. The 'blind' part of it is just the part of the perceiver that is unaware of such core of faith. Meaning the perceiver is unaware that he has put faith into these factors.

The whole 'religion' comment was just a play on the fact that so many scientists go about unaware of this faith basis. And that awareness is, what I believe, what separates the highest level scientific minds from the rest of the flock. It's a much more advanced way of thinking, understanding, and approach than the 'blind'-faithers who seem to worship science on such a devout level as if it is god. Which is why I believe the greatest scientists in our era were had this level of understanding.

I will requote you in a different way:
"We (as opposed to I?) have faith in evidence (from reproducible observation) that the models are getting more and more successful at explaining more and more of the physical world. As Popper pointed out, no theory in science can be proved true, whereas any theory of science can be proved false or incomplete by faith in observation that does not fit. So science is too pragmatic and provisional to be any sort of "god".

Having said that, any faithful scientist will believe - with faith in his good reason - that the scientific approach is the best way to understand how the physical world works."

In other words, if an individual didn't have faith in science, he would never ever use it to come to conclusions. If he didn't have any sort of faith in his own senses, he would never ever use them to measure anything. If he didn't have faith in his own reasoning, than he would never use it to try to understand anything.

 

Yes "faith", as you use it here, is used in its broad sense. As you use it here it means trust, or confidence. Of course you are right that any scholar, in any discipline, puts trust in, or has confidence in, certain things that his discipline tells him are well established.

However, it would be utterly false to equate this general trust or confidence in things for which we have objective evidence, which we all must use to function in the world, with "faith" in its religious sense. Faith in the religious usage has a much more specific and narrow meaning, to do with belief in things that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Scientific confidence is always tempered with a degree of reservation that the model may not be complete. Religious faith sets great store by the absence of reservations.

Both are good meanings of the word "faith", but they are not at all the same and they should not be conflated.

 

Give us an example and we'll listen. If you have none, the point is moot.

 

The term "faith-based" refers to NGOs affiliated with religions, usu. with respect to distributing aid to the needy. If you mean science is founded on religion or superstition, no. If you mean it is founded on converting people to a belief, no. If you mean it is founded on belief, no. If you mean scientists engaged in promulgating various facts about nature (or technology) may hold any number of beliefs, then yes. Other than that I think your statement is false, since Science is completely based in nature (to include technology). It is not founded in belief but in knowledge.

That's not at all correct. Assuming you're using the plain meaning of words: in the parietal lobe perception occurs because real stimulus occurred. If you doubt this, because you doubt your own senses, you can perform the following test. Obtain a mirror and a flashlight. In a dimly lit room, place the mirror close to your face and shine the flashlight in your face. Observe that your pupils contract. Turn the flashlight off. Observe that they dilate. Note that your perception of the light correlates with the status of your pupils. If you're still unsure of your senses, repeat the test. Repeat it as often as you like. However, if unconvinced after, say, a day of this, you should consult a medical professional.

Science has controls against this. In the example I just gave you, there is a method of calibrating your mental perception of light with the autonomic response of the pupils. Scientific measurements of critical data are always referenced to some kind of calibrated reference like this. So your concerns have been addressed.

That's not a bad thing, because the scientist is trained to understand the difference between objective measurements and the thing you're worried about. That doesn't mean there will be mistakes made, or, as we know, rare cases of fraud. And a certain minority of scientists may have mental health issues, such as a preoccupation with the possibility that nothing is as it seems. Nevertheless these folks, if they are working on a critical project, will be exposed through oversight (a boss) and/or peer review. So that base is covered, too.

No, when you perceive the light at the same time your pupil contracts you know the light is on. That is, you can rest assured that your fears that your senses are fooling you were unwarranted fears. Further, your supervisor or peers will stop you before you derail any trains (most of the time).

Might be, but as I explained that doesn't contaminate scientific results, since they are protected against false reports using the controls I mentioned above.

That base is covered in critical scientific reporting.

Yes, because it doesn't matter, since they are trained to use calibrated references and other controls which ensure that the reporting is accurate (within a given tolerance band).

What separates scientists from lay people is that they are professionally trained to avoid all of the potholes in the road that you perceive.

Since we are so dedicated to eradicating the biases to our reports which concern you, we don't allow lay people to dictate how our controls should be done. That's not worship, it's just being thorough. If you ever happen to take a lab class, you'll quickly have the shoe thrust on the other foot, and you'll argue against what you just wrote vehemently, for the sake of accurate reporting.

The greatest scientists are the ones who long ago put your concerns to rest, and developed methods of calibrating and controlling their methods in order to ensure the correct results. Often you will see them creating some custom test apparatus to push the envelope of calibration and control beyond the state of the current science and/or technology. That kind of ingenuity inspires others to reach higher. It's one of the reason technology always increased with time.

That sounds pretty good to me, it's just that I would add to this that science has access to (a) knowledge and (b) controls.

That seems a little weak to me. I would say that scientists working in critical areas of observation have many excellent methods to verify and validate any report in question, beginning with their own methods and data, such that the concerns you mention become trivialized.

This is defective. Scientists are people trained to design controlled tests. When a question of fact is on the table (did I see the light or did I imagine it) they will implements controls and references to verify and validate their results. This is basic to science, so it would be very rare for any one of them to fall into the hole you perceive.

That doesn't have much relevance to modern measurements in general. These days measurements tend to be automated. But in any case the scientist who was doing critical analysis yet failed to institute redundant controls into every test procedure won't last very long. Critical projects tend to deny the syndrome you perceive.

Since controls are designed to remove errors as you perceive them, this concern becomes moot.

 

Sorry..but "we" don't jump thru hoops.

 

I post this in hopes of clarifying the above, while suspecting that it clarifies nothing:

It seems that the human psyche has embedded blind spots which preclude any thoroughly objective and inclusive views of something referenced as "reality".

One rather obvious aspect as referencing "science" is that people are not science. People as scientists are prone to getting invested in their concepts and conclusions to the exclusion of counter-indicative evidence. The same concept was voiced by people as varied as Hitler and Simon and Garfunkel---S&G's version = "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest".
The deeper we look into any subject, the deeper trench of knowledge we create, until we are blinded to all else.

If accurate, how, then could we ever conceive or understand or know "ultimate reality"