4 ms·

You're reading too much into it. "Reality" here is used as a metaphor to aid in learning. Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all

You're reading too much into it. "Reality" here is used as a metaphor to aid in learning. Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all just as true, or just as false. None of them is more "real". The metaphor uses that word, but it doesn't make them unequal in any other way than comprehension by humans. As humans, especially in mathematics, concepts are all we have. Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real. What is an electron, really? Is this question even answerable, or is it more refined concepts all the way down? Can you even perceive anything real, raw, without interpreting it into a high level concept like a color or a neuron firing (Kant comes to mind). The decomposition is taking place. The decomposition isn't taking place. It's all the same.

xpe 3y ago
> You're reading too much into it. What do you mean by this? I'm getting it wrong? I'm mistaking the author's meaning? (How do you know what the author's meaning is?) I shouldn't reflect on this? Something else?
xpe 3y ago
> Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all just as true, or just as false. I don't mean to discount this statement, but it is a tautology. > ... it doesn't make them unequal in any other way than comprehension by humans. Spot on. > As humans, especially in mathematics, concepts are all we have. Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real. What is an electron, really? Is this question even answerable, or is it more refined concepts all the way down? Can you even perceive anything real, raw, without interpreting it into a high level concept like a color or a neuron firing (Kant comes to mind). Your comments and questions are temporally relevant to my recent experience; I'm listening to a podcast discussion between Tim Mauldin and Sam Harris: "#318, Physics & Philosophy, A Conversation with Tim Maudlin", "the author of books on the foundations of physics, logic, and foundations of mathematics. His books include Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Truth and Paradox, The Metaphysics Within Physics, Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time, and Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory." My background includes engineering and philosophy, and I plan on reading more of Mauldin's work. To your credit, your paragraph above is in some ways a better summary of the concepts in play than the podcast above. [1] This particular interview shows Harris not at his best, but Mauldin shines. That said, I'm puzzled by your sentence "Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real." I claim that reality is still there, whether or not we see it or understand it. This is known as epistemological realism. Do you hold this view? I agree that humans have the feeling of unknown as we do deeper "down the stack"; e.g. from molecules to atoms to quarks and so on. So why do we go deeper? Where do we stop? Scientists seek models for explanation and prediction. Philosophers seek truth. At some point, we stop. Why? Likely because (1) we run of technical ability; and/or (2) going further involves adding more words and concepts without aiding our 'project', whether it be models or truth. I agree ([2]) with your rhetorical question "What is an electron, really?". An electron is either a composite of deeper things -- or we stop and say "it exists". [1] Generally speaking, I've gained a lot of insight from Harris, his guests, and the ideas he highlights. ¶ I don't care much for caricatured or uncharitable characterizations of Harris (or anyone). These 'controversies' to me seem to be more of a sign of attention-seeking, brand-building, and tribe-definition than truth-seeking. [2] Can one agree with a rhetorical question?
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  "Reading too much" means that the article is not using "reality" in the philosophical sense, and while it's not "wrong" to think about it, it's also orthogonal to the apparent purpose of the article, which is teaching. I'm not saying whether the reality exists or not. I'm saying that you are not able to learn (about) it without wrapping it in concepts. I doubt there's any such thing as naked, concept-less reality. You can always dig deeper, but if you try, you'll either find more concepts, or the naked unknown, but not the naked real. Saying "it exists" is different, but does not free us of concepts. It is accepting that all we have is this concept, and that there's nothing more real than this concept.

xpe 3y ago

> You're reading too much into it. What do you mean by this? I'm getting it wrong? I'm mistaking the author's meaning? (How do you know what the author's meaning is?) I shouldn't reflect on this? Something else?

xpe 3y ago

> Given equivalent mathematical descriptions of something, they are all just as true, or just as false. I don't mean to discount this statement, but it is a tautology. > ... it doesn't make them unequal in any other way than comprehension by humans. Spot on. > As humans, especially in mathematics, concepts are all we have. Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real. What is an electron, really? Is this question even answerable, or is it more refined concepts all the way down? Can you even perceive anything real, raw, without interpreting it into a high level concept like a color or a neuron firing (Kant comes to mind). Your comments and questions are temporally relevant to my recent experience; I'm listening to a podcast discussion between Tim Mauldin and Sam Harris: "#318, Physics & Philosophy, A Conversation with Tim Maudlin", "the author of books on the foundations of physics, logic, and foundations of mathematics. His books include Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Truth and Paradox, The Metaphysics Within Physics, Philosophy of Physics: Space and Time, and Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory." My background includes engineering and philosophy, and I plan on reading more of Mauldin's work. To your credit, your paragraph above is in some ways a better summary of the concepts in play than the podcast above. [1] This particular interview shows Harris not at his best, but Mauldin shines. That said, I'm puzzled by your sentence "Dig deep enough, and you'll hit the wall of the unknown rather than the real." I claim that reality is still there, whether or not we see it or understand it. This is known as epistemological realism. Do you hold this view? I agree that humans have the feeling of unknown as we do deeper "down the stack"; e.g. from molecules to atoms to quarks and so on. So why do we go deeper? Where do we stop? Scientists seek models for explanation and prediction. Philosophers seek truth. At some point, we stop. Why? Likely because (1) we run of technical ability; and/or (2) going further involves adding more words and concepts without aiding our 'project', whether it be models or truth. I agree ([2]) with your rhetorical question "What is an electron, really?". An electron is either a composite of deeper things -- or we stop and say "it exists". [1] Generally speaking, I've gained a lot of insight from Harris, his guests, and the ideas he highlights. ¶ I don't care much for caricatured or uncharitable characterizations of Harris (or anyone). These 'controversies' to me seem to be more of a sign of attention-seeking, brand-building, and tribe-definition than truth-seeking. [2] Can one agree with a rhetorical question?

rhn_mk1 3y ago
"Reading too much" means that the article is not using "reality" in the philosophical sense, and while it's not "wrong" to think about it, it's also orthogonal to the apparent purpose of the article, which is teaching. I'm not saying whether the reality exists or not. I'm saying that you are not able to learn (about) it without wrapping it in concepts. I doubt there's any such thing as naked, concept-less reality. You can always dig deeper, but if you try, you'll either find more concepts, or the naked unknown, but not the naked real. Saying "it exists" is different, but does not free us of concepts. It is accepting that all we have is this concept, and that there's nothing more real than this concept.