Based on physics, what insights do you make about reality?

Post Reply New Topic

I think this is probably a good note to end the conversation on then.

From what I've read above you're doubling down, point per point, and perfectly comfortable with either the objections raised or their perceived lack of validity. With that being the case I have no illusions that the conversation, if continued, would turn back uphill.

Which is why I don't believe that consciousness is anything more then the result of electrical and chemical interactions between and within neurons. Maybe I'm a philosophical zombie with no internal experiences but who still acts like everyone else and insists that I'm conscious, who knows. I certainly can't because I happen to know that self awareness is associated with part of the brain and in the case of things like dreams and can be turned off.


What, and let you have the last word here? Feel free to not reply (which it looks like you won't) but that way I would let your responses to me go unchallenged. I would really rather not do that especially when I have counter arguments ready.


Why would it have to be during that time? Let's say that we suddenly switch bodies with each other but at the same time also switch memories and personalities. We would not even know because for all you know you would have always been me, you would believe what I believe and care about the people I care about. In fact by all empirical standards you would be me.

Experiments show that memories and personalities are part of the brain and physical events like being hit on the head really hard can mess with them. My brother once had a concussion that made him forget the last 2 days of his life and there are many instances of brain trauma causing a personality change.


For all intents and purposes I don't care what the accepted definition of materialism is because your definition is not the definition I used when deciding if I could be considered a materialist. If you want a different term for it that's fine, I'll just call it empirical materialism. My tentative belief is that matter and energy are the only things that can be measured, a position that can be falsified by measuring anything that is not matter or energy. One alternative position is Christianity for example that makes many claims of allegedly measurable things beyond matter and energy

Also, the reason I brought up definitions is to communicate things more clearly. We have spent a lot of time arguing about what materialism is and what it means for something to be real, this ensures that you can't continue this argument from semantics thing you keep pulling. You have asked many times even in this post what it means for matter to be real and I have told you by clarifying the definition of "real" in this context. I really don't know what other type of response you could be expecting.


Maybe your definition of "materialist" is a metaphysical position but under that definition I am not a materialist. My position on metaphysics is that metaphysics is BS.


So we agree that my definition of "real" is the same as your definition as "part of our physical world" which means that I am perfectly justified in calling the physical world "real". Yeah, I know this doesn't prove anything but it's a great way of describing why I consider the physical world "real". I have decided to use empiricism as a basis for believing things and that requires evidence before things can be called real, so for all intents and purposes I consider "real" and "observable" to be synonymous.


I'm saying that math was invented, not discovered. Maybe reality exists only in our minds, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't but either way math is something humans invented and it's only accepted as much as it is because it appears to be very consistent with what we observe. We are far from being able to say for certain that the universe is in any way run by math.


This argument really is going in circles a lot... Look who's accusing me of not reading things when I keep claiming that I do not subscribe in the slightest to empiricism as you have been defining it and you keep ignoring it and continuing to beat that strawman.


I would totally consider providing evidence that matter and energy are real in any ways besides being observable if I actually believed that, but again I am not one of those strawman empiricists that you keep attacking.


No, your strawman empiricism is a sloppy and crude mis-application of science's empiricism that neither of us are using. "My" empiricism is no different from scientific empiricism. What I am saying is that I don't believe in things like your particular brand of metaphysics because I can't observe it but I do believe in matter and energy because I can observe it. What's so anti-science about that exactly?


First of all when I was clear about what I meant by matter and energy being "real" you just dismissed it as definition BS. I already said that my criteria for considering something "real" is for it to be observable, since matter is observable I consider it real.


There is the strawman again. I'm going to name him Jim.

I believe that the physical universe exists in the sense that I can observe it, that's it. I'm a materialist in the sense that I do not actively believe in anything beyond matter and energy which isn't the same as claiming that there is for sure nothing beyond matter and energy.


Man, Jim the strawman is getting wrecked today.


I am going to call a special pleading fallacy here. You remind me of my mom when she told me that it's a fallacy to apply science to religion where it doesn't belong. As far as I'm concerned I don't ever have any excuse in believing in something that cannot be measured, I don't see the fallacy in that.


You mean the one that answered your question that you kept asking about what I think it means for matter and energy to be "real"? So I guess you did read that.


Or maybe you didn't read it. I'm confused. I already answered that question by giving my definition of "real" in that context and 2 sentences after acknowledging that you proceed to deny that I said it.


Wow, at this rate Jim will be reduced to a pile of straw soon.

The materialism I propose is that matter and energy are measurable and nothing else is measurable therefore there is no reason to assume that anything beyond matter and energy exists.


Speculate all you want, my problem is when you say that you are 100% sure about your version of metaphysics. Philosophy is great as long as you don't start arbitrarily deciding that some speculative part of it is real without any evidence at all.


Then what's all this talk of it being inevitable? Are you taking all that back now?


Actually I am not claiming to be any kind of expert. I am open to changing my mind at any time in this discussion if sufficient evidence is present and I don't claim to be 100% certain about anything unlike you. I don't debate because I think I know everything, I debate because it's a great way of becoming more right.


As I mentioned I am not debating because I am 100% sure about being right as you claim, I am debating as a way of pitting ideas against each other giving me the opportunity to change my beliefs when presented with superior options. I debate with the knowledge that I may walk away with a different opinion, it's a fight between ideas and not people. I never at any point said that I am 100% sure of what I'm talking about.


Sure, the simulated universe would have no effect on it's real counterpart but the simulated universe would have sentient beings who are just as self aware and confident that they are not in a simulation as their real counterparts. They would claim that it's impossible for our programmer to destroy their planet right before he actually does it, and for all you know you and I could be the simulated versions and not the real ones.


I am open to the universe being a simulation in the same sense that I am open to there being a God, it's called being open minded. What would be unscientific is claiming something without evidence. Yes, if the universe were proven to be a simulation then it would make me rethink my while point of view on religion. I'm not dogmatically fixed to a single point of view because that would be stupid.

And yes, I do believe that transistors can simulate a universe. You are the one who claims that the universe is based on if-then statements (at least to an extent) and computers do nothing but apply if-then statements to data.


You seriously need to define some terms here because I am still trying to figure out what you are even talking about.


Indeed, Jim the strawman's version of materialism is quite unverifiable. My version of materialism on the other hand is indeed verifiable as my only claim is that matter and energy are observable.


No, I don't claim to know that I know better. I have even said many times that you could be right for all I know, and yet here you are claiming that I am the one not reading my opponent's posts. All I'm claiming is that I disagree with you and by debating with you I am pitting our views against each other until one emerges superior.


And with that final blow Jim the strawman has been defeated. Meanwhile the version of materialism I am advocating remains untouched. A version of materialism that unlike strawman materialism is empirically verifiable because it only claims that matter, energy and spacetime are measurable while nothing else is.


Noted.

I lied.
.
Mikeman’s most recent post better clarifies what he means, and what he’s confused about, and so I’m replying to it.
.
Thank you, mikeman, for better clarifying what you meant.
.
I’m replying to it for the benefit of anyone visiting this thread, in order to clarify for them the misunderstandings that mikeman has been posting.
.
So I’m posting this reply, though it’s distasteful to talk to someone who has proved unable to abide by this forum’s guidelines for conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my inline reply, I reply to most of the things that mikeman said, and so my inline reply is quite long (The inline reply brings the length to 22 pages, with 12-point type).
.
And so, for more brevity and conciseness, before the inline reply, I’m including relatively concise answers, collected together, to some of mikeman’s charges.
.
Those answers follow directly below:
.
Now mikeman has clarified what he means when he says that he’s a Materialist and an Empiricist. He’s given his own re-definitions of Materialism and Empiricism. It’s the same definition for both terms. Here it is:
.
Materialism is the belief that only what’s observable is observable.
.
Empiricism is the belief that only what’s observable is observable.
.
Yes, mikeman says, in his definitions of “Empiricism” and “Materialism”, that only what’s observable is real.
.
…but he defines “real” as “observable”. Hence my wording of his definitions.
.
I want to assure mikeman that, by his re-definitions, everyone is a Materialist and an Empiricist.
.
Of course mikeman’s personal re-definitions of Materialism and Empiricism aren’t saying anything.
.
But, to be fair, mikeman does say something with some substantive meaning: He says that he isn’t interested in metaphysics.
.
That’s perfectly alright. Lots of people aren’t interested in metaphysics.
.
…but most of them don’t post to a discussion-thread about metaphysics, at a forum dedicated to politics, philosophy and religion.
.
Given that mikeman is now saying that all he really means is that he isn’t interested in metaphysics, then he surely wouldn’t mind if we disregard what he’s said about it. But I’ll still comment, directly below, on some of his charges (…before I get to the inline reply).
.
…because my answers can be said more compactly in these preliminary comments, and in approximate order of relevance.
.
So let’s look at some of mikeman’s criticisms and charges:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic 1:
.
I asked mikeman in what way he thinks this physical universe is more than the hypothetical logical system that I described.
.
His answer was that he’d already explained that only what’s observable is observable, and that’s all he’s interested in. Abstract logical facts about hypotheticals aren’t “observable”, and so mikeman says that they aren’t real (observable). And that’s his answer to my question.
.
No, that doesn’t answer my question.
.
We all agree that this universe and its things are observable. Its observability to its inhabitants says nothing about whether or not it’s more than the hypothetical logical system that I described. So, is it more than that? If so, when in what way? …and how do you know that, Mr. Empiricist?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic 2:
.
It’s about unfalsifiability.
.
I’ll discuss this in three aspects:
.
1. Support:
.
I’d said that, as for “predictive power”, Skepticism and MUH predict this physical universe from fundamental principles.
.
You answered that it’s unfalsifiable.
.
Metaphysicses aren’t empirically, experimentally verifiable or falsifiable, or distinguishable from eachother. You mustn’t confuse metaphysics with physics.
.
So yes, Skepticism and MUH are experimentally unverifiable and unfalsifiable. When someone arbitrarily makes up a theory or proposition that is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, and doesn’t have other support, then we dismiss it.
.
But here’s the thing: That doesn’t apply to something that has other support—in this instance, support independent of physical measurement and experiment. My metaphysics is supported as follows:
.
The logical facts about hypotheticals, on which it based are inevitable and certain. (…but without any reality, existence, factualness or meaning outside of their own inter-referring context).
.
There are complex inter-referring systems of such inter-referring logical if-thens, about hypotheticals. …infinitely many of them. …each of them having no reality, existence, meaning or factualness outside its own inter-referring context.
.
I’ve already discussed how physical laws, and physical quantity-values among which they state relations, are parts of the “if “ premises of various if-then statements.
.
Therefore, inevitably, among those infinitely-many logical systems relating hypotheticals, there is one whose events and relations match those of our physical universe. That’s all I’m saying. It’s a modest and uncontroversial statement.
.
So that’s why I say that you’re sloppily and crudely mis-applying physics’s “unverifiable and unfalsifiable” criticism. It doesn’t apply to something that has independent support. …as a consequence of inevitable logical facts.
.
2. Not a Theory:
.
The “unfalsifiability” criticism is for theories.
.
Skepticism isn’t a theory. It’s an inevitability, a logical certainty.
.
(Remember that Septicism doesn’t claim that Materialism’s “Stuff” doesn’t objectively exist—only that, if it did objectively exist, it would be superfluous and meaningless. …and an in-principle unfalsifiable proposition.)
.
3. Falsifiable in Principle:
.
The “unfalsifiability” criticism of a claim means that that claim is in principle unfalsifiable, because it doesn’t have support. (Support could, in principle, be falsified.)
.
There are theories that are, in principle, unfalsifiable. …such as elaborately-contrived flat-earth and hollow-earth theories that come up with an added explanation for each contradiction by experimental evidence.
.
…or Mateialism, the objective existence of whose “Stuff “, in principle, can’t be disproved. …or a claim that this physical universe objectively exists in some context larger than itself.
.
Skepticism is falsifiable in principle. …You falsify Skepticism if you falsify its logical argument that supports it.
.
The “unfalsifiability” criticism of a claim doesn’t just mean that you’re unable to falsify it.
.
Now, feel free to falsify the logical support that I’ve stated for Skepticism.
.
(…and remember that it would be silly to say that logic isn’t valid or reliable, when I remind you that logic is used to interpret and relate the experimental evidence that you tout so much.)
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic 3:
.
Mikeman says that I’m wrong, because I’m sure of something that a reasonable person wouldn’t be sure of.
.
And what would that be?;
.
Logical facts about hypotheticals? Maybe mikeman believes that logic isn’t valid, but few would agree with him. See above.
.
The “reality” of the logical system that I describe? I’ve repeatedly answered that I don’t claim that any of it has objective existence, reality, meaning or factualness…by which I mean existence, reality, meaning or factualness other than within its own local inter-referring context.
.
So I’m only speaking of abstract logical facts, whose validity isn’t in doubt. And I’m not claiming that any of it is real outside of its own hypothetical inter-referring context.
.
So then, what, in particular, is it that I’m “sure of “ that one can’t validly be sure of?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright, now let’s look, inline, at some of the things that mikeman said in his most recent post. This is the long part. In these inline replies, I’ll sometimes refer to answers in the three topics discussed above:
.
You said:
.

.
“Consciousness” is an unfortunate word, when used in that way. It implies a “thing”, a metaphysical “substance”, or entity, separate from the body.
.
I don’t believe in that “Consciousness”.
.
Philosophy of mind seems to want to artificially separate the animal (including the human animal) into separate and different body and “Mind” or “Consciousness”.
.
I consider that to be Spiritualist over-complication.
.
There’s just the animal.
.
I’ve called my philosophy-of-mind position “Animalness”, but it’s probably the same as what’s officially called philosophy-of-mind Physicalism (POMP).
.
(…not to be confused with metaphysical Physicalism, which is just Materialism, with explicit emphasis that nonmaterial things like fields are included. That’s why I avoid the word “Physicalism”, because of its two different meanings.)
.
I prefer to use “consciousness” only with its usual everyday practical meaning: The state of being awake, instead of asleep, comatose or dead. In fact, better to just use the adjective.
.
Your statement quoted above could just be an expression of philosophy-of-mind Physicalism, or it could express the more extreme Eliminative Physicalism, which denies that there’s such a thing as 1st-person experience.
.
I suggest that that latter position takes philosophy-of-mind Physicalism to a ridiculous and meaningless excess.
.
I suggest that the individual and hir (his/her) experience is primary, fundamental. That could be called a sort of empiricism. …arguably the extreme, full and genuine empiricism. (…but needn’t be taken to the extreme of trying to somehow rule out logical facts, and the discussion of metaphysical explanation—which of course has nothing to do with measuring instruments).
.
That’s where I differ from others who subscribe to POMP. (In fact maybe, my position doesn’t even come under the definition of POMP. I’d have to look it up to find out.)
.
A metaphysics with that emphasis or basis is called an Anti-Realism. I prefer to call it Non-Realism.
.
You said:


.
There isn’t, and can’t be, such a thing as a philosophical zombie.
.
Natural selection has designed purposefully-responsive devices called animals.
.
In terms of the designed-in purposes of that animal, that purposefully-responsive device: Its 1st-person experience, the surroundings and events in terms of those purposes, is what would be expected.
.
A purposefully responsive device that’s designed to achieve the purposes and goals of an animal can’t also be designed to not have 1st-person experience, because 1st person experience is, for the animal, its surroundings and events with respect to those purposes.
.
The notion of the philosophical zombie dramatizes and exposes the ridiculous Spiritualism of the usual philosophers-of-mind.
.
You said:
.

.
Because, time before that (as right now, for example) is part of this life. There’s a life-possibiity-story that matches your life now, and unsurprisingly it’s this life-experience possibility-story (not some other, next one).
.
And, after the stage that I referred to in your quote of me above, the hereditary and acquired subconscious feelings, inclinations, and general-identity, including subconscious awareness of and feelings about life, time or events, are gone.
.
You said:
.

.
Of course. I subscribe to philosophy-of-mind Physicalism. (or at least part of it). (…but not Eliminative Physicalism)
.
You said:
.

.
No one denies that. If that’s Materialism, then we’re all Materialists.
.
…and you’re right to say that your position isn’t a metaphysics. In fact, of course it doesn’t contradict any metaphysicses, including Skepticism.
.
You said:


.
Fine. Matter is observable. No argument with that.
.
Of course that doesn’t in any way contradict or refute Skepticism or MUH. I was asking for a meaning that contradicts Skepticism. I don’t deny that only physical things are measureable. It’s a truism.
.
What I’m asking is: If this physical world is more than the hypothetical logical system that I describe, then what else is it? If it has existence other than in its own context, then in what other context does it have existence,
.
I addressed that matter in my comments before this inline reply.
.
Your answer, of course, will be that Skepticism, and metaphysics in general, is meaningless (to you) because, unlike physics, metaphysics has nothing to do with instrumental measurement, and doesn’t predict the behavior of physical systems. No one would challenge or criticize your feeling that everything but physics is meaningless to you.
.
As for your “unfalsifiability” criticism, see above in my preliminary comments.
.
Your statement that only what’s observable is observable doesn’t answer my question above.
.
But yes, now we do have an answer of sorts from you:
.
You just aren’t interested in metaphysics. Well, that’s an improvement, because it’s a substantive answer, and a substantive undeniable fact.
.
Suggestion: Study physics instead of posting to a discussion-thread about metaphysics, which you aren’t interested in and don’t consider a valid topic.
.
So, can we say that now we’ve found an understanding and common ground, and that therefore this discussion is completed?
.
Yes? I hope so.
.
But if you were interested in metaphysics (but you aren’t), I’d emphasize again that Skepticism predicts this physical world from fundamental principles.
.
And, you see, that undermines your criticism about Skepticism as unfalsifiable. Sketpicism isn’t just some theory that was contrived to be unfalsifiable. It’s a metaphysics that follows inevitably from fundamental principles. …and the argument supporting that is, in principle, falsifiable.
.
But yes, most other metaphysicses, including Materialism (in its accepted definition, not your re-definition), are unfalsifiable, unverifiable, and unsupported.
.
If someone says that Materialism is supported because observations indicate that we live in a physical world, I reply that every metaphysics, and every person, agrees with that. Metaphysical Materialism (by its accepted definition) says more than that, and what it says is unfalsifiable, unverifiable, and unsupported.
.
I commend you for not being a Materialist.
.
There’s nothing wrong with being undecided, uncommitted, not taking a position. No one will criticize you for that.
.
…But you’re criticizable if you say you’re sure that all logical facts are questionable, or that I’ve claimed that the logical systems that I describe are real, meaningful, factual or existent other than in their own context.
.
You’ve emphasized that you don’t subscribe to the metaphysics of Materialism (or any other metaphysics), and therefore that you have nothing to say in a discussion about the relative validity of various metaphysics. So what is there for you to talk about at this metaphysics topic-thread?
.
Just wanted to get that clarified out in the open.
.
You’re in the wrong topic-thread, in the wrong forum.
.
Metaphysics isn’t physics, and isn’t offered as physics. Metaphysics has nothing to do with the prediction of the behavior of physical systems. As I’ve said, all or nearly all proposed metaphysicses are experimentally indistinguishable…Most of them wouldn’t be proposed if they contradicted physical experiments.
.
Unlike physics, metaphysicses seek to explain why, and in what sense, there is this physical world, and, unlike physics, metaphysics doesn’t seek to determine this universe’s physical laws or predict details of its events or interactions among this physical universe’s parts.
.
Now we get that you aren’t interested in metaphysics, and that’s fine.
.
Physics doesn’t ask the following, but some people ask it:
.
“Why is there something instead of nothing?”
.
…a metaphysical question, not a physics question, discussed because some people are interested in what can be said about what there is, and why. You don’t have to be interested in that, or post to this metaphysics thread.
.
Since you don’t like metaphysics, then just study physics, &/or engineering.
.
But the time that you spend, here, criticizing what isn’t physics, because it isn’t physics, would be better spent actually studying physics. …and maybe engineering, if that’s your taste.
.
And since science is what you’re interested, and have something to say about, then why aren’t you posting to the Science forum (directly above this Politics, Philosophy and Religon forum, in the forums list)?
.
You said:

.
So you’re posting to this philosophy & religion forum, to this metaphysics discussion-thread, to share with us that you aren’t interested in metaphysics.
.
You said:
.

.
You can define “real” as you want to.
.
I agree that only observable things are observable.
.
So we don’t have any disagreement! Ok?
.
Can you agree to not keep on looking for ways to disagree on a topic (metaphysics) that you aren’t even interested in?
.
I don’t say that this physical universe isn’t real. I just don’t assert that it’s real in any context other than its own.
.
(…but if you think it is, then be specific about how.)
.
You said:.


.
So that means that you’re saying that only what’s measurable is measurable. You won’t get any argument about that.
.
So logical facts aren’t real.
.
Fine. I don’t argue with your personal definition of “real”, because your personal definitions are none of my business.
.
Anyway, I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t claim that the complex system of inter-referring if-thens, about hypotheticsls, that matches the events and relations in this physical world is “real”, existent or factual in any context other than its own local inter-referring context
.

You presented your feelings about that as (presumably) some kind of criticism of Skepticism. But I’m not finding, in what you’re saying, a basis for criticism. I’m not finding anything in it that everyone doesn’t agree on.
.
Some of us are over-eager to want or need to criticize, complete with namecalling, before we consider whether we really have a criticism or know what we’re talking about.
.
It’s a common trait among typical Internet-abusers.
.
I must admit that it’s quite alien to me.

.
You said:
.

.
Say it how you want. I didn’t say that the hypothetical system that I propose is real, meaningful or factual other than in its own context.
.
And I said that I regard individual experience as primary and fundamental.
.
Again, I don’t find the disagreement.
.
You said:
.

.
…except for empirical evidence?
.
Mathematics evidently well describes the events in the physical world.
.
Max Tegmark is a physicist, as were Michael Faraday and Frank Tippler.
.
Would you be willing to admit to yourself that they might know more than you do about physics and mathematics?
.
Maybe you should write to Max Tegmark, to explain to him the error of his ways.
.
You said:
.

.
Yes, matter and energy aren’t observable in any way other than being observable.
.
But that wasn’t my question. I asked:
.
When I say that there’s nothing more to this physical universe other than a complex hypothetical system of inter-referring logical facts, then what is your empirical evidence that this universe is, in some way, more than that. …and in what way is it more than that?
.
(…but, if you don’t make that claim, then disregard the question.)
.
Because it’s observable?
.
No, observability doesn’t contradict Skepticism or MUH.
.
I answered about this in one of the three topics that I discussed before this inline reply. I refer you to that.
.
You say that Skepticism is un-falisifiable? There’s no experiment that could prove it false? (…and prove that some other experimentally-unfalsifable metaphysics is true?) No, because its support is logical. But logical support is valid support. …and like all support, could, in principle, be falsified if it were false.
.
So falsifyit.
.
So the simpler explanation is more likely? You mean the one that doesn’t need or make any assumptions or posit any brute facts, and is based only on inevitable logical facts, and predicts this physical world from fundamental principles?
.
You said:
.

.
Which metaphysics can you observe?
.
So you don’t believe in any metaphysics, and you aren’t interested in metaphysics. That’s fine. And it would even be alright if you didn’t keep posting to this metaphysics discussion-thread.
.
Right. No metaphysics is experimentally-observable. No one would deny that.
.
Metaphysics is about explanations for the overall physical world that is observed. We get that you aren’t interested in that discussion—but seem to insist on discussing it
.
You said:
.

.
Nothing. In fact, we all believe in matter and energy. …and we all agree that only what’s observed is observed.
.
Of course that has nothing whatsoever to do with metaphysics, the discussion of explanation for this observable physical world. …an underlying reality. …an underlying what-is.
.
You said:
.

.
Since matter is observable, you consider it observable. No disagreement there.

.
We all believe that the physical universe exists in that sense.
.
You said:
.

.
No one will criticize you for your personal beliefs. …if you can limit your assertions to statement of your personal beliefs.
.
You said:
.
[/size=125]
.
You don’t believe that anything is real (experimentally observable) other than matter and energy.
.
We all agree that nothing is experimentally observable other than matter and energy. Then we’re all Materialists by your definition.
.
I have no argument with your personal definition of reality and existence as experimental measurability. Your personal definitions are purely your business.
.
You said:
.

.
Quite. You don’t believe that anything not observable and measurable is real (observable)
.
You’re right: Nothing that isn’t observable and measurable is observable and measurable.
.
There’s no fallacy in that.
.
You said:
.

.
Of course…when you define “existence” as “measurability”.
.
Nothing that isn’t measureable is measurable. No argument there.
.
This physical universe, full of things that are measurable by its inhabitants, has its set of events and relations that are matched by, and indistinguishable from, one of the infinitely-many systems of inter-referring logical facts about hypotheticals.
.
…and there’s no reason to believe that this physical universe is more than that.
.
You said:
.

.
If you want to say that Skepticism is speculative, then you need to say specifically in what way, in which part, it’s speculative, and why you think so.
.
You said:
.
[/size=125]
.
I answered that in my comments before this inline reply.
.
You said:
.
[/size=125]
.
As I said above, you’d need to share with us specifically in what way you think Skepticism is speculative, and in which part, and why you think so.
.
I’ve repeatedly told you that I don’t claim that any of it is existent, real, meaningful, or factual in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
.
If you think that this physical universe is real, existent, meaningful or factual in some other context, then you should feel free to share with us what context that would be.
.
You said:
.
[/size=125]
.
The inevitability of a system of inter-referring logical if-then facts (in the sense that there inevitably are those facts), about hypotheticals doesn’t make it real, existent, meaningful or factual in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
.
You said:
.

.
Oh really.
.
On 9 September, 12:11 a.m. :
.
You said:
.

.
On 12 September, 12:34 a.m. :
.
You said:
.

.
On 17 September, 8:44 p.m. :
.
You said:

.

.
Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to be very sure--arrogantly, namecallingly, sure—of something.
.
Either you’re very sure that there are no logical facts that one can validly be sure about
.
(…except for some of them )
.
…or you’re very sure that I’ve been saying that I’m sure that the hypothetical logical system that I refer to is real outside of its own inter-referring context.
.
(…though I haven’t made that claim.)
.
But don’t feel bad. Your behavior is nothing other than that of the usual ordinary aggressively-arrogant Internet abuser.
.
I recommend that you read these forums’ conduct-guidelines. .,.in particular, the part about posting about the topic, instead of posting about our personal evaluation of those with whom we disagree.
.
Here’s a free tip:
.
When you’re sure that you’re right (see above before you claim that you aren’t sure that you’re right), you’re cheating yourself out of the opportunity to find out.
.
You said:
.,

.
Yes, but as I just said above, his simulated universe, whose physical laws suddenly change or are contravened, is inconsistent, self-contradictory, and thereby an impossibility-world instead of a possibility-world. It’s a self-contradictory nonsense-world.
.
It’s a world that’s about as valid as a statement like “This statement is a lie.”
.
Unlike a possibility-world, it doesn’t have a valid logical basis of inter-referring mutually-consistent facts.
.
You said:
.

.
What kind of measuring-instrument should be used to obtain empirical experimental evidence that your simulated universe whose physical laws are abruptly changed or contravened is self-contradictory, nonsensical Impossibility-world?
.
You said:
.

.
Then don’t dogmatically miss the distinction between a consistent possibility-world, vs an inconsistent, self-contradictory impossibility-world. …a nonsense-world.
.
…which is what a simulated world would be if its events included a change in, or contravention of, its physical laws.
.
Yes, someone somewhere could conceivably simulate our possibility-world, for their own entertainment. The only effect would be that they could observe it. If the programmer changes or contravenes its physical laws, then, from that point, they’re simulating a different world, not ours.
.
As for the presumed beings living in that programmer’s simulation, both before and after he changes or contravenes its laws, that simulated world whose physical laws are changed or contravened is an inconsistent, self-contradictory nonsensical impossibility-world.
.
You said:
.

.
Of course they can. They can simulate an already-existing possibility-world.
.
Or they can simulate a nonsensical self-contradictory impossibility-world.
.
But what they can’t do is create a possibility-world that wasn’t already there.
.
You said:
.

.
Exactly. The computer does nothing. Now you’re getting it.
.
As you said, the computer only displays to its audience the results of an if-then system that was already there.
.
Do you really think the computer’s re-enactment, demonstration, of that possibility-world or possibility-story—making the possibility-story visible to an audience watching the simulation output-- makes something that wasn’t already there?
.
And if the programmer erroneously or intentionally changes or contravenes the simulated universe’s physical laws, then that simulation is portraying an inconsistent, self-contradictory nonsensical impossibility-world.
.
You’re attributing magical powers to those transistors if you believe that their switching somehow makes a world. They can describe, display and portray a world to a viewing audience.
.
That’s all.
.
I can write a novel that says, “It rained that Tuesday. It didn’t rain that Tuesday.”
.
Someone, somewhere, with a supercomputer could write and run a simulation of a world in which it didn’t rain on a certain day, and in which, on the next day, everything was drenched and flooded by heavy rainfall on the previous day.
.
Unlike the possibility-worlds that I discuss, that self-contradictory simulation wouldn’t have validity even in its own context.
.
Your programmer would merely be portraying nonsense.
.
Likewise if, in his simulation, a universe self-destructed in contravention of its physical laws, or if its physical laws were changed at some point so as to make it self-destruct.
.
Consistency, freedom from self-contradiction, is an essential requirement for a possibility-world.
.
You said:
.

.
Then, to that end, you seriously need to specify which word(s) you don’t know the meaning of.
.
But I’ll define a few words for you, and give an example of what a phrase refers to:
.
“Inter-referring” means referring to eachother.
.
By “hypotheticals”, I mean hypothetical facts that are parts of the “if “ premise of an if-then fact.
.
A hypothetical may or may not be true. An if-then fact’s “then” conclusion is true if the “if “ premise is true.
.
But the truth of the if-then fact doesn’t depend on its “if “ premise being true.
.
Here follows an example of “…needn’t have any existence, reality or factualness outside of its own local inter-referring context”: There are infinitely many possibility-worlds other than our own. Would you say that they’re real, existent or factual for us? Of course not.
.
But the context of this possibility-world is the context of, the setting for, your life.
.
You say this universe is real because you observe it. Real in its own context, the context for our lives, yes.
.
Real in any other context or way?
.
If “Yes”, then how or in what other context?
.
You said:
.

.
See above.
.
Michael829

Yes, instead of [*/size=125], I should have said [*/size]. (without the asterisk)

Wouldn't be feasible to go through that long post and change all the tags.

Test:

Michael829

You say that according to my definition everyone is a materialist but I disagree, maybe you are a materialist by my definition but the majority of the world's population believes in an omnipotent being in the sky beyond matter and energy who can interact with the world and preform (allegedly measurable) miracles. This is not even limited to theism, there are also new agers who believe in the supernatural without a deity. I consider you to be in the same category because you are making claims about stuff you could not possibly know.

I'll admit that I'm still trying to understand exactly what you are claiming but you do make a lot of unmeasurable claims like reality being centered around an individual's experience and reality being based on logic (if only within it's own context). When you say it makes predictions could you be more specific about what kind of predictions? Like, is it something measurable like the strength of a fundamental force or something overly general like reality existing? What experiments could I do to test your hypothesis?

I do not claim that it's not completely reasonable to assume math is valid, the probability of it being valid is somewhere in the ballpark of 99.99999999999999999999999999999% but there actually is a legitimate hypothesis in math that the way it has correlated with reality so closely has just been a coincidence because it's just a construct of our minds.. Sure, it's unlikely in my opinion but it can't be ruled out. It's called mathematical factionalism, how about you go tell all the mathematicians who take it seriously the error in their ways. When I say that I only believe what I observe that includes math which as I have already explained is based on observation and as such I tentatively believe it.

As for the simulated universe thing, we do not disagree that a computer simulation cannot make a universe come into existence outside the simulation but my claim is that the simulation it's self could be considered a universe in it's own right. The beings in the simulation could in theory be sentient and weather the simulation is of something that could exist in reality does not magically make any beings there not sentient. I don't get what's so hard to understand here.

Also, contrary to your assertion just because I kind metaphysics BS doesn't mean I find it boring and uninteresting, those things are not the same thing and in fact I would argue they are pretty darn near opposite. My belief is that we should not get ahead of our senses and believe what we can't observe, metaphysics is by your definition unobservable and the moment it becomes observable it becomes regular physics, and according to empiricism believing in anything that is unmeasurable is never justified (not even if you make a special pleading fallacy). Metaphysics is like a bunch of people looking at a locked box wondering what's inside it and proposing a bunch of speculative claims but with no way to know who (if anyone) is right. It's pointless and we can't know anyway. We all have our own criteria for considering something true, so what is yours? Is it something proven to work well like empiricism or something else like faith or intuition?

(The above box-quote is only for the purpose of identifying whom this is a reply to. My reply, with its quotes, begins directly below.)

You said:
.

.
No. You said that you’re a Materialist (by your definition) because you believe that only matter and energy can be measured.
.
Sorry, but everyone believes that. Every Fundamentalist, of every Fundamentalist persuasion, believes that.
.
Or do you have several mutually-contradictory definitions of Materialism?
.
And guess what? You’re the kind of Materialist that you call a Strawman Materialist.
.
You said that you consider “real” and “observable” to be synonymous. You said that something is real if and only if it is observable.
.
You also said that only matter and energy are observable.
.
That means that you’re saying that only matter and energy are real.
.
And that means that you’re saying that matter and energy make up all of reality.
.
That perfectly fits the “Strawman” definition of a Materialist. (…the accepted definition.)
.
You’re a Strawman Materialist.
.
If you’re that kind of Materialist (and you are, based on what you said), then I assure you that you definitely aren’t an Empiricist.
.
…because there’s no empirical evidence for the objectively, fundamentally existent matter and energy that you believe all of reality consists of. Yes matter and energy are observable, and are all that’s observable, and no one denies that. No, that doesn’t mean that matter and energy, or this physical universe, are so fundamental that they can be called reality itself. That’s an unsupported metaphysical belief.
.
You said that metaphysics is B.S., but you believe in a metaphysics, a metaphysics that has no empirical support, or any other kind of support.
.
Another thing: You talk about religion all the time. Why are you always talking about religion? This is a metaphysics discussion-thread.
.
You said:
.

.
I’ve already answered that charge.
.
What exactly is it that you think that I’m sure of, that one can’t validly be sure of?
.
Repeating from my most recent reply:
.

.
Which is it? What am I sure of that one can’t validly be sure of?
.
Oops!! You forgot to say.
.
So, you need to be specific if you want to say that I’m sure of something that one can’t validly be sure of.
.
You said:

.
Our experience is what we actually directly observe, Mr. Empiricist.
.
Anyway, Skepticism and MUH describe exactly the same possibility-world. The only difference is one of emphasis. Emphasis on the system-wide point-of-view (MUH), or on the individual experience point-of-view (Skepticism).
.
This possibility-world could be described from either point-of-view.
.
(Well, there’s also the difference that I call Skepticism an inevitability and a certainty, rather than a hypothesis.)
.
In a previous post here, I posted a numbered list of reasons why the individual-experience point-of-view makes more senses to me.
.
You continued:
.

.
Incorrect. I didn’t say that.
.
I said that this physical universe is based on logic. …is a logical possibility-world, a complex logical system of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals.
.
That description is a metaphysics.
.
But I never said that Reality is based on metaphysics or logic, or that metaphysics or logic describes all of reality.
.
(…though your Materialist metaphysics claims to.)
.
Metaphysics is a verbal-discussion topic, as is physics. (Of course physics is also of material practical use, when it advises engineering.)
.
Metaphysics is the next verbal descriptive level above physics.
.
I’ve never claimed that those topics describe all of Reality.
.
You said:
.

.
I was quite specific.
.
As I said, Skepticism predicts this physical universe from fundamental principles.
.
You said:
.

.
I specifically, clearly and unmistakably said that metaphysics doesn’t predict events within this physical world, or the relations among its parts.
.
You’re still all confused about the difference between physics and metaphysics.
.
And no, it isn’t about “Reality existing” either.
.
It’s about what I said it’s about.
.
You said:
.

.
This objection that mathematics might not describe physics is a pointless and substance-less quibble, for at least two reasons:
.
1. Empirical evidence thoroughly shows mathematics describing physics. That relation is at least as well-supported by empirical evidence as is any physics theory or law.
.
While we’re at it, maybe the theory of evolution is wrong too?
.
2. Logical consistency is a requirement for a life-experience possibility-story. This logical system that is our physical universe takes a mathematical form, but most basically it is and must be logically consistent.
.
Logical consistency among our personal experiential observations, and among the physical world’s logical system of “if-thens” is fundamental to a possibility-story.
.
You said:
.

.
Undeniabley it encodecodes and describes a (maybe self-contradictory) universe, and displays it for its viewing-audience. But, as for those transistor-switchings [u]being[/i] a universe. …You’re missing the distinction between encoding, describing and displaying, vs being.
.
This physical universe’s events and relations are indistinguishable from those of a complex logical possibility-story.
.
But your transistor-switchings are as superfluous as Materialism’s objectively-existent “Stuff “. There’s no need or explanatory-value for them.
.
(But, you could say that, in the infinity of possibility-worlds, there’s one in which someone with a super-computer is simulating a universe and a planet, and it just happens to be our universe and our planet. But so what?)
.
You said:
.

.
Yes, undeniable the simulation could include sentient beings, and could be self-contradictory and therefore non-valid. But, as for the transistor-switchings being a world (or our world in particular), see above.
.
You said:
.

.
You find metaphysics to be BS, but you believe in a metaphysics. …the metaphysics that you call Straw-Man Materialism. An unfalsifiable, unverifiable and unsupported metaphysics.
.
You said:
.

.
Yes, as I said, metaphysics is about explanations for our observable physical universe, and discussion of what is. And, believe it not, there are things that can validly be said about what is. …other than, and more general than, physics’ discussion of the workings of this physical world and the interaction of its parts.
.
But you’re getting ahead of your senses, and believing what you can’t observe, when you say that only what’s measurable is real…meaning that matter and energy constitute all of Reality.
.
Yes you’re a True-Believer Materialist. No, you aren’t an Empiricist.
.
You said:
.

.
The Straw-Man Materialism that you so faithfully believe in, amounts to believing in something that is unmeasurable.
.
Yes, this physical universe’s things are measurable. We all believe in that. But your Straw-Man Materialism that you believe in makes claims with no empirical support (or any other kind of support). See above. (…and I refer you to my previous post too.)
.
You said:
.

.
Alright, you’ve been vaguely hinting about a “special pleading fallacy” for some time now. So, specifically what is my special pleading fallacy?
.
You said:
.

.
I asked you what, in particular, is speculative about Skepticism.
.
Oops!! You forgot to say.
.
You said:
.

.
I’ve admitted that there’s no way to determine whether or not Materialism’s objectively-existent “Stuff “ superfluously exists. I admit that that “Stuff “ is an unfalsifiable proposition.
.
But the logical facts that constitute a complex possibility-world aren’t in doubt. Abstract logical facts, together in an inter-referring system, are an inevitability, though I don’t claim that they have existence, reality, meaning or factual-ness outside their own inter-referring context.
.
That last clause of that paragraph makes my statement a modest and uncontroversial one.
.
You said:
.

.
See above.
.
You said:

.
You aren’t an Empiricist. See above.
.
And metaphysics isn’t about experimental measurements, but a metaphysics still needs some kind of support.
.
You said:
.

.
No. It isn’t faith or intuition either.
.
So, by what criteria do I claim that Skepticism is true?
.
By the inevitability of the abstract logical facts on which its’s based.
.
…and thereby the inevitability of a complex inter-referring system of such facts.
.
…in fact, an infinity of such systems.
.
…and thereby the inevitability that one of those infinitely-many complex logical systems has events and relations that match those of our physical universe.
.
…making it experimentally indistinguishable from our universe.
.
…and giving us no reason to believe that our physical universe is more than such a complex logical system.
.
I admit that it’s difficult for people to regard our lives as hypothetical experience-stories set in a hypothetical logical possibility-world.
.
But there’s no reason to believe otherwise. …or to believe the added unparsimonious, empirically-unsupported entities that such a belief would entail.
.
Michael829

You have just made an argument from semantics and you are trying to use it to tell me what I believe. By the definitions I defined for the context of my argument "real" means observable therefore meaning that "reality" refers to just observable reality, that should have been a very simple conclusion to come to and for someone who talks about logic so much you certainly could do a better job at using it. In this context I will refer to things that are not observable as being "beyond reality". I make absolutely no claims at all about what is beyond reality, I have no idea and neither does anyone else. The reason I didn't bother defining terms for describing what's beyond reality earlier is because as an empiricist I would have no use for such a term except for in saying that I make no claims about it. No, not even that it doesn't exist as you keep trying to tell me I believe.

I am going to ignore the parts of your reply that make claims about me believing strawman materialism. I'm pretty sure that I understand what I believe better then you do and when describing what I believe I can use whatever definitions I want to express it as long as I'm clear about what they are. I don't care what the consensus is because that would be an argument from popularity fallacy to use that to determine what I believe.


You are the one who said that every religion has it's own version of metaphysics. I brought it up because you made the claim that nobody believes in anything beyond matter and energy that are observable, so I responded by describing a set of belief systems that believe in things beyond matter and energy that are observable which the majority of humans subscribe to.

I used to be a Christian and back then I believed that many things existed beyond matter and energy like a God and spirits who could interact with the world and appear to people if they wanted to. I believed that anecdotal evidence was sufficient to conclude that this stuff was real. Me from just over a year ago would have disagreed with the statement "matter and energy are the only things that can be observed" which disproves your claim that nobody would disagree with that statement. I consider myself a materialist as opposed to a spiritualist.


You're right, I did forget to say. I will be more specific:

Of those two possibilities the one that most closely resembles my argument is that "you’re very sure that there are no logical facts that one can validly be sure about". We can never be 100% sure about anything we deduce logically without being 100% sure of the premise, and since we can never be 100% sure about anything we can never be completely certain about anything deduced with logic. I don't understand where you got the "except for some of them" from because we have no completely certain starting points for this type of thing. Sure, you can be certain that in a hypothetical world where X is true then Y is also true but you can only be certain that it's true within that hypothetical world and not in reality.


I believe that there is nothing fundamental about an individual's experience because I can observe countless other individuals existing within the same world who are all presumably experiencing things, to assume that my personal experiences are any more valid then anyone else's would be insane. That is why I have come to the (tentative, as always) conclusion that reality creates consciousness and not the other way around, because there seems to be a bunch of conscious beings in a single reality.


So you are saying that metaphysics describes what's beyond reality but not that far beyond reality? My objections still stand, you can never know anything beyond reality weather it be a little bit or a lot.


What predictions does it make though? That is not very specific at all. Does it predict that the universe must be exactly like it is with it's exact force charges and particle types? From what I have gathered it predicts that everything should exist including our universe which means that absolutely nothing that could ever be observed could ever disprove it. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Then metaphysics is unscientific BS. Thanks for proving my point.


Yeah, maybe the theory of evolution is wrong. What part of "nothing is 100% certain under empiricism" don't you understand? Granted, I don't consider math or evolution being wrong to be likely but we can never rule it out completely. Empirical evidence does indeed show that math can predict a lot about reality, but as you said it's as well supported as any physics theory which means that it's impossible to prove beyond all doubt.


But how do you know? Have you seen every possibility world or are you just making this up? Who's to say you won't wake up tomorrow on Mars? How can you know for sure that nothing logically impossible has ever happened in all of space and time? Reality is under no obligation to make sense to us. This is exactly the kind of false confidence in things you cannot know that I am talking about, granted in this case they are reasonable assumptions but you have taken them to the extreme.


It means that there are clones of you and I on a simulated planet at the mercy of a programmer who are having this exact conversation, and the version of you will be just as insistent that he's not in a simulation even though he is. How do you know you are not that version of you that would watch in horror as the programmer teleported Mars such that it crashed into Earth? Saying that it's impossible outside the simulation doesn't change that it just happened within the simulation and the simulated you is experiencing it.


So what if the simulation is "not valid" by your arbitrary standards? Does that suddenly make the beings in the simulation not sentient?


Your special pleading fallacy is your claim that science should not be applied to metaphysics, basically that you can determine things to be true without evidence when you say so. That is your special pleading fallacy.


What isn't speculative about it? You assume that there are infinite universes without evidence, that's a pretty big assumption.


So you have determined a way of saying that something is logically inevitable in the real world without relying in potentially wrong observations and axioms? Well then, you better write up your scientific paper ASAP and claim your Nobel prize because that is something mathematicians and scientists have tried to do since those fields have existed and have deemed that impossible.


Well what other type of support could there possibly be besides observation? Even logic is limited by that.


...And those logical facts are based on axioms known only because they are observed in reality which makes your entire argument circular.

The observable universe is based on logic that is based on observable aspects of the universe.

A+ for effort though. I would suggest studying up on logical fallacies.

To me at least, it's really not that complicated as far as "Based on Physics, What Insights Do you
Make About Reality?" Actions Speak Louder than Words and Words Lead to Actions
And the Universe is a Dance that Leads to a Song.
I could Leave it at that and call myself a Poet
and Create my own Reality and Name
it Heaven up on top of a Mountain;
but on the other Hand, I Will to come down with an iPhone 6s and some
Words of Poetry and Show you what Heaven looks like in realtime now and all the
Benefits therein. But it's true, more People are interested in talking about this in terms
of Science and Religion, overall, than Just Doing Heaven now and enjoying Bliss and Nirvana
and what makes life 'count' most; namely Love, the Actual Force and the Experience of that Pure Force Now.
In other words, if you don't Dance you Don't Live; Look at the Quadrillion or So Stars that light the Universe up.
Are they sitting Still and Singing a Song or are they moving and where do we come from for we are born now from
Crucible Fire of Star Death where Gaseous dust eventually resurrects and becomes Sentient us plus standing tall and Creating our Realities with words that only house the essence that is real in Moving, Connecting, And Creating with
Emotions Regulating and Senses Integrating in all the Quadrillion or so Connections in all the Cells and all the
Neuro-Chemicals and Neuro-Hormones that light up as metaphor as those connections in all our Cells
and in remembering how life feels now beyond all words that house the
Reality of whatever Dark Abyss through Shades of Grey though
Beyond Rainbow Colors of Emotions and Senses we experience now;
in other words, a Reality that Science currently has neither tool or method
to analyze completely now. Anyway, after this thing that some folks call "Autistic
Burn-out"; where fight and flight stress burns one out after 33 years or so of Working
with the challenge thereof; I decided to screw the Science and become the light of the bulb instead.
It Worked, as empirically measurable, I am twice as Strong at age 57 than I was at 28 in actual empirical
terms of Leg Pressing 1020 Pounds, 33 times now. I've written 5 Million Words of Poetry in 50 Months
in what I Informally Name as Six Bibles and Three New Testaments in what some folks in religion metaphor
as a "John 14:12" effort too. Here's the thing; if you discount Real Magic in Life; if you discount even the
Placebo Effect in creating your Reality now you will never see the kind of change that is possible with that.
And yes that's clearly a metaphor from Abrahamic Religions too. Things is; Actions do speak Louder than
words. I can prove those things as I Documented them all through the Last 50 Months too. And true too;
the Boy With Autism who most everyone Made Fun of who couldn't Speak until Four or Walk Straight in his
Local Metro Area has been named a legend by 'these same audience members', who video tape and
observe 8000 Miles of Public Dance in Four years as documented by Nike GPS Sports Watch Measure
too, along the way. But you see, it's what you value in life that counts;
I wanted to connect to people and now I have over one thousand
Smiling and Beautiful Young Women Faces in the act of Dance now
in Photo way. It's true; it's one thing to Sing the Song
but it's another thing to Dance Life and make it real.
But nah, If I couldn't prove what Happened every
Day of all of this you'd probably Scoff. Thing is,
i Do prove it too
in empirical
way that cannot be refuted.
Not many 'folks' like 'this' have
come down from 'this' Mountain; but
after going to a Real Hell on Earth and that's
another Story; this Place now is a Piece of Cake and all of life is Icing now.
People have said they've done 'it' before but no one has ever recorded it real time now.

Anyway; Prove
me wrong if you can;
other than that I Bring A 'real money' of Life.

Have a nice Day, my Older Monologue friends on the Wrong Planet;
Just Breezing through, Marking Milestones in Heaven not forgetting the Darker Places i've been.

It's what Folks who live on top of Mountains do; just for the Love of Life and all others now; no matter what;

'Jonathan Livingston Seagull' and all that Jazz come to fruition in reality now; at least for me it works and i prove it now.

(The above box-quote is just for the purpose of identifying whom this reply is to. The full quote, and my reply will be shown below, as part of my overall reply.)

Length this reply: 20 pages, in 12-point type.

You said:
.

.
No, I’m just telling you what you said.
.
You said that “real” is synonymous with “observable”.
.
Sorry, but that makes you a Straw-Man Materialist.
.
You said:
.

.
Exactly. And you’ve also said that only matter and energy are observable.
.
Therefore, you’re saying that only matter and energy are real.
.
I repeat:
.
Sorry, but that makes you a Straw-Man Materialist.
.
You’re saying that you believe in the metaphysics that you call Straw-Man Materialism.
.
…except when you contradict yourself by denying it
.
You said:
.

.
Oh, ok, so reality isn’t all of reality
.
You said:
.

.
Ah yes, all those unreal things
.
“…beyond reality” is nonsense. Gibberish.
.
You said:
.

.
I have no idea what you mean by “beyond reality”. You don’t know either, do you.
.
Yes, I admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about, or what “beyond Reality” is supposed to mean.
.
You said:
.

.
Ok.
.
When you deny Strawman Materialism, you seem to be saying nothing other than that you believe that anything that isn’t experimentally-observable is unknowable. Does that correctly state your alternative switch-position?
.
Well then the question is “How do you know that?”
.
How do you know that anything that isn’t experimentally-observable is unknowable. Do you realize that that your claim to know that without proof is a violation of your supposed Empiricism?
.
…aside from the fact that it’s a ridiculous claim:
.
Here are few examples of facts that are inevitable without experimental measurement:
.
Some logical syllogisms; mathematical theorems; and if-then statements whose conclusions are the values of certain physical-quantity, and whose premises include hypothetical physical laws and hypothetical values for certain other physical quantities.
.
Complex inter-referring systems of such facts are inevitable as well.
.
Among the infinity of such complex systems is one whose events and relations match those of our physical world. As I said, there’s no reason to believe that our physical world is more than that.
.
By the way, the belief that our own possibility-world is somehow more real or existent than the infinity of other possibility-worlds is pre-Copernican.
.
You said:
.

.
You got that right!
.
…because I must admit that I have no idea what you mean.
.
But that’s ok. Your beliefs are your business, and none of my business.
.
We can set aside the unprovable matter of whether you know what you mean.
.
Let’s leave the subject of what you believe. As I said, it’s none of my business.
.
You said:
.

.
Yes. Clear
.
…and consistent. Not self-contradictory.
.
“…therefore meaning that “reality” refers to just observable reality” ?
.
You said:
.

.
You’re repeating the same confusion that I’ve just finished answering, in my previous post.
.
You’re confusing an if-then fact with its premise.
.
I didn’t claim that any premises are true. And of course if an if-then fact’s “if “ premise is false, then its “then” conclusion can’t be said to be true. But the falsity of an if-then fact’s premise and conclusion doesn’t falsify the if-then fact itself.
.
e.g. :
.
If all Slithytoves are brilig, and if all Jaberwockys are Slithytoves, then all Jaberwockys are brilig.
.
That logical statement is true, even if none of the Slithytoves are brilig.
.
That logical statement is true, even if none of the Jaberwockys are Slithytoves.
.
That logical statement is true even if there are no Slithytoves and no Jaberwockys.
.
We’re talking about if.
.
I often refer to possibility-worlds as worlds of “if “. …as opposed to worlds of “is”.
.
You said:
.

.
See above. You’ve admitted that some logical facts are inevitably true, and then you contradict yourself by saying that nothing can be said for sure except for experimental observations.
.
I gave, directly above, a simple example, a very familiar form of undeniably true logical fact:
.
Some logical facts are certain.
.
You’re confusing an if-then fact with its premise and with its conclusion.
.
You know, you’re going to have a lot of trouble with this subject (or any subject) if you let your arrogance, and the Dunning-Kruger effect, convince you that you’re already right.
.
You can ignore that advice, and no doubt you will. And that’s none of my business either.
.
You said:
.

.
And what “reality” would that be?
.
You think that reality consists of this physical world that is observable to us, and whose things we can measure. …the Stawman Materialist belief.
.
I’ve made it sufficiently clear that I’m talking about hypothetical worlds.
.
You say they aren’t “in reality”? They’re real in their own context. They’re real in their own subset of Reality.
.
They aren’t real in other subsets of Reality, outside of their own context, their own subset of Reality.
.
I’ll say it again:
.
I don’t claim that the complex logical systems that I speak of are true, real, existent, meaningful, or factual other than in their own inter-referring context.
.
In particular, I’m saying that each one of the infinitely-many inter-referring logical systems is locally valid and true, quite independent of any global context, independent of any sort of medium in which for it to exist or be real. As I said, it isn’t real, existent, meaningful, true or factual other than in its own local inter-referring context.
.
But, as I was saying above, Reality is usually or always metaphysically taken to mean all that is. So yes, by that super-broad accepted meaning of Reality, it can be said that every self-consistent hypothetical logical system is true (somewhere) in Reality.
.
…in its own subset of Reality. …its own local inter-referring context to which I’ve been referring.
.
…but (other than our own universe) not to us in our own little subset of Reality, our own possibility-world.
.
All of the possibility-worlds other than our own are not real to us, as seen from our possibility-world, from our own personal life-experience possibility-stories.
.
Our own observable-to-us physical universe, which you want to call reality, isn’t Reality. It’s a subset of Reality.
.
(Though I capitalize Reality when I use that word, but often not when I quote your uncapitalized use of it, I don’t mean to imply two different meanings.)
.
As I said, I accept the word “actual” to mean in, of, or referring to our own universe. But when you say that “real” is synonymous with “observable in our universe”, then you’re a Straw-Man Materialist.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical possibility-worlds, there inevitably is one whose events and relations matches those of our physical universe. …i.e. our own universe is just one of those infinitely-many possibility-worlds.
.
There’s no evidence, empirical or otherwise, that our physical universe is more than one such possibility-world.
.
You said:

.
…certainly more directly empirically supported, from your point of view. Remember Empiricism?
.
As I said before, the same possibility-world can be spoken of from an individual experience point-of-view, or from a systemwide point-of-view. I repeat and emphasize that that distinction needn’t be an issue for argument or disagreement.
.
I’ve told why I, personally, prefer the individual-experience point of view. But I repeat that it needn’t be an issue.
.
But, just to explain how it can be said from the individual-experience point-of-view (but not to claim that you’re wrong if you prefer the systemwide point-of-view), I’ll say the following:
.
Obviously, in the possibility-world that is the setting for your life-experience possibility-story, there must be a species of which you’re a member. And there must be other members of that species in that world.
.
And, for any one of those other individuals, and among the infinity of life-experience possibility-stories, there must be one that is about that individual’s experience in this same possibility-world.
.
But don’t worry about other people’s experience as a philosophical matter. For you that’s all inference or second-hand information. Their own personal experience is more real and empirically direct for them than for you.
.
That doesn’t mean that you needn’t be considerate and ethical, because it’s also true that, in this common physical world, you and the other individuals are all individuals with the same existence-status and sentience, and they all have experience just as you do.
.
You said:
.

.
I’ve answered about the “Consciousness” issue. I agree with philosophy-of-mind Physicalism, or at least part of it. I don’t believe in “Consciousness” as something separate and different from the body. I don’t believe in the philosophical dissection of the animal into separate body and “Mind” or “Consciousness”.
.
You said:
.

.
No. I’ve never said anything about “beyond Reality”, or “not that far beyond Reality”.
.
I said that neither physics nor metaphysics describes Reality.
.
You said:
.

.
That’s ok, because I’ve said nothing about “beyond Reality”.
.
You said:
.

.
It predicts an infinity of possibility-worlds, and that, among the infinity of possibility-worlds, there is one whose events and relations match those of this physical world.
.
It predicts our physical universe , from fundamental principles.
.
It predicts this physical world, along with infinitely-many others, as a consequence of fundamental inevitable logical principles.
.
Your Straw-Man Materialism that you (sometimes evidently) believe in posits this physical world as a brute-fact. Skepticism predicts it from fundamental principles.
.
You said:
.

.
No. It doesn’t predict that there is only one universe, with certain characteristics.
.
Yes, it predicts this particular physical world, in all its detail. (…as one of infinitely many possibility-worlds.)
.
You said:
.

.
No. Not “…should exist”. “…do] exist” …each only in its own context.
.
You said:
.

.
No experiment could disprove Strawman Materialism or Skepticism or any of various other metaphysicses. Just so we get that straight.
.
There probably are some proposed metaphysicses that are experimentally-falsified. I don’t know of a metaphysics that’s experimentally falsifiable but not experimentally falsified.
.
Of course maybe what you’re (sometimes) saying is that you take no position whatsoever on metaphysics, because you personally regard it as “BS”, due to your empirically-unsupported, and demonstrably-false, belief that only what’s instrumentally-measurable can be reliably true.
.
That’s fine too, and is, as I said, entirely your business.
.
Skepticism is falsifiable in principle. …if you falsify its logical support.
.
Alright, let’s talk about experimental confirmation. And support.
.
Your Strawman-Materialism that you (at least sometimes) say you believe in is an unfalsifiable proposition, in principle unfalsifiable. Lacking any kind of support whatsoever.
.
Though Strawman-Materialism and Skepticism both have no physics experiment that could disprove (or verify) them, Skepticism is has inevitable logical support.
.
Let me illustrate it by an analogy:
.
Say you’re caught with a suitcase full of $100 bills. The police ask you where you got it. You say, “It’s my savings. I’ve been saving it under the floorboards.”
.
The detective says, “Yeah? I think you got it in the bank-robbery that took place a few minutes ago, right up the street, in this little one-street town. Can you confirm your explanation of how you have that suitcase of $100 bills?”
.
You say, “Certainly, officer. My explanation about the savings under the floorboards is confirmed by my possession of this suitcase full of $100 bills.”
.
But the problem, of course, is that the detective’s theory likewise is confirmed by that. Your possession of the suitcase full of $100 bills doesn’t adjudicate between those two theories.
.
Oh wait…There’s one more thing:
.
The amount of money in the suitcase is exactly the same as the amount that was robbed, and the serial numbers on your bills match those that were robbed, and there are photos of you, at the time of the robbery, leaving the bank with the suitcase.
.
So, though both theories are equally (weakly) confirmed by your possession of the suitcase full of $100 bills, the detective’s theory has other support. …and your theory doesn’t.
.
Likewise, your Strawman-Materialism and Skepticism are both consistent with the fact that we’re in this physical world, and consistent with all of our experimental observations in this universe. None of that adjudicates between those two metaphysicses.
.
But Skepticism is supported by inevitable logical facts.
.
Strawman-Materialism has no support. (…other than its non-adjudicative weak confirmation from the fact that we’re in a physical world).
.
You said:
.

.
Metaphysics and science are entirely different topics. Neither needs justification in terms of the other.
.
You’re still all confused about the difference between them.
.
mikeman believes that metaphysics is BS.
.
mikeman (at least sometimes) believes in a metaphysics.
.
mikeman believes in what he believes is BS.
.
You said:
.

.
Answer: The part where you believe it.
.
As I said, you’re crudely and sloppily over-applying, mis-applying, science’s Empiricism.
.
Empiricism is a valuable standard for physics theories.
.
There are inevitable logical facts that don’t need any experimental verification.
.
Your sureness otherwise, without any evidence, and contrary to obvious counterexamples, is an obvious violation of Empiricism.
.
You said:
.

It’s impossible for something self-contradictory to be factual, even in its own context.
.
If one of two mutually-contradictory propositions is true, then the other must be false.
.
An impossibility-story isn’t a possibility-story.
.
You said:
.

.
It isn’t necessary to see every possibility world to say with assurance that a self-contradictory world is an impossibility-world, instead of a possibility-world.
.
You said:
.

.
Do you know what “impossible” means?
.
You said:
.

.
If, for example, what if Mars suddenly changed course, left its orbit, in violation of known physical laws, and headed toward us; or if it didn’t rain Tuesday or Tuesday night, but on Wednesday morning everything was drenched and flooded as if by torrential rains on the previous day or night, would you say that was because our world is inconsistent and self-contradictory?
.
No, that seeming contradiction could just be a result of as-yet unknown physical laws.
.
Until all physical laws are known (They probably can never all be known), seeming contradictions could be due to unknown physical laws.
.
(…reminiscent of one of Arthur Clarke’s laws, stating that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.)
.
Say you drop a stone, and it falls up instead of down. Maybe that’s just due to something about physical laws that isn’t currently known.
.
In fact, didn’t that happen recently in astrophysics? It’s been determined that the rate at which the distant galaxies are receding from eachother is accelerating. Everyone was surprised. Even though space itself is expanding, people who know the subject better than you or I do, still expected gravity to decelerate the galaxies’ recession.
.
Do astrophysicists declare that as evidence that we live in a self-contradictory world? No. There’s more to physical laws than is currently known, and those unknown laws are assumed to somehow (in an as-yet unknown way) explain the accelerating recession.
.
By quantum-mechanics, a particle can appear on the other side of a barrier that the particle doesn’t have enough energy to cross. It happens all the time, and is made-use-of, in tunnel-diodes. If that effect were observed before quantum mechanics was heard of, that could have been called a contravention of physical law, and an impossibility.
.
The result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment was inexplicable, given the physical laws known when the experiment was done. A seeming contravention of physical laws. But it’s consistent with the theory of relativity.
.
The planet Mercury has been experiencing an amount of rotation-of-apsides that can’t be explained by Newton’s laws (of motion and gravity). A contravention of (at least previously) known physical laws. But the general theory of relativity neatly explains that phenomenon.
.
The energy vs frequency curve for black-body radiation contradicts what was predicted by classical physics. …a seeming contravention of physical law. But Max Planck pointed out that it can be explained if the radiation behaves as if energy is quantized.
.
(Later it was shown that the quantization is genuine. The photo-electric effect was a confirmation of that.)
.
Anyway, isn’t there something about a genuine contradiction, an impossibility, that makes it impossible in a meaningful sense? So, isn’t the “unknown physical law” interpretation of an apparent physical-law-contravention the only one that makes sense?
.
Another thing:
.
The suggestion that the individual-experience point of view is primary would make it easier to explain seemingly impossible experiment-reports, because the reports could be errors or hoaxes.
.
…and individual impossible observations could be explained by hallucination, false-memory, etc.
.
…moreso when we speak of events in terms of personal experience instead of system-wide fact, because then we can speak only of personal observations or 2nd-hand reports received by the individual. …both of which could be in error.
.
Regarding the simulation issue:
.
1. You speak of the simulations’s version of a possibility-world, as distinct from the real version.
.
But, when the simulation is displaying a possibility-world, there aren’t two versions of that possibility-world. There’s just that one possibility-world. By displaying it, the simulation isn’t creating anything. It’s still about only one possibility-world. …and it was already there. The simulation didn’t create it. It merely displayed it to its viewing-audience.
.
2. But suppose the programmer makes his simulation do something impossible, meaning that the overall story that he’s simulating isn’t a possibility-story.
.
No problem. Now he’s displaying an impossibility-story. That impossibility story was already there, as an impossibility-story, before your programmer displayed it by his simulation. The simulation didn’t create that impossibility-story. It merely displayed it to its viewing audience.
.
In other words, the answer #1, above, applies to an impossibility-story, just as well as it applies to a possibility-story.
.
As for impossible events, contraventions of physical law, see above where I discussed that at length, in terms of as-yet unknown physical-laws.
.
You said:
.

.
Science describes the physical world. The physical world is science’s legitimate range of applicability.
.
A Science-Worshipper is someone who believes in Science (capitalized, as a religious object of worship) as as something that applies to all of Reality.
.
You are a True-Believer Science-Worshipper.
.
Science-Worship isn’t science. Science-Worship is pseudoscience.
.
…And Science-Worship is a religion.
.
You said:
.

.
What kind of evidence do you want, for inevitable logical facts?
.
Instrumental experimental evidence?
.
You yourself have admitted that there are inevitably-true logical facts.
.
In fact, aside from that, you’ve also been claiming that a world, actual for its inhabitants, could be self-contradictory, and therefore untrue even in its own context.
.
You said:
.

.
Nonsense. I’ve repeatedly said that none of them is real, existent, meaningful or factual outside its own local inter-referring context.
.
So no, I’m not saying that they’re existent for us, with respect to our own subset of Reality.
.
Our own universe is existent for us, because we’re part of it.
.
You said:
.

.
Yes. But I don’t claim to be the inventor or discoverer of inevitable logical facts.
.
Mathematical theorems, which are if-then facts stating certain “then” conclusions to be conditional upon certain “if “ premises, including, but not limited to, a set of axioms, are among the logically-inevitable if-then facts.
.
And those theorems would be just as true even if the axioms in their “if “ premises were false.
.
(Distinguish between an if-then fact and its “then” conclusion.)
.
You said:
.

.
Logical inevitability.
.
You said:
.

.
Oh really.
.
I trust that you’re going to publish that new discovery.
.
Are you still confusing an if-then fact with its hypothetical premise and its conclusion that is conditional upon its premise?
.
You said:
.

.
The validity of if-then facts doesn’t depend on the truth of their premises. Don’t forget that if-then facts contain the word “if “.
.
As I said, I’m talking about worlds of “if “.
.
I’m saying that our physical universe is one of infinitely many hypothetical worlds of “if “.
.
In particular, I’m saying that your life is one of infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories.
.
You said:
.

.
Tell her that I said that she’s right.
.
You said:
.

.
You can believe as you want, and there’s no fallacy in that. I won’t criticize you for your religious beliefs.
.
You can assure your mother that you’re religious. Tell her that your religion is the religion of Science-Worship.
.
Michael829

What I meant to clarify was that you're using "reality" with two different meanings in one sentence.

You said:



I replied:



Of course my answer was unfair. Of course something could happen in a simulation that would be entirely impossible in a physical world.

But,...

1. Even if our world could be shown to be an impossibility-world, the impossibility-stories are already there. The transistor-switchings of someone's computer didn't make them. ...only displayed them for their viewing-audience.

You're attributing powers to transistor-switchings, for which there's no empirical support, and which there's no reason to believe.


2. Of course you're talking about impossible physical events. That would be violations of physical law. Any seeming violation of physical law could be merely the result of as-yet unknown physical laws.

And, when the world is viewed from the point of view of individual experience (the genuinely direct empirical point of view), any supposed impossible event could be explained by hallucination, lunacy, or hoaxed or erroneous reports.

...if something supposedly happened that couldn't be explained by unknown physical laws.

------------------------------------
I just wanted to improve and clarify those two things that I'd said in my main reply to your post.

Michael829

String Theory, so far, is untested and uncorroborated. In short, it is mathematically fancy speculation. At this stage it is not even wrong.

This post is about things that were discussed with mikeman:

I said:

Well, disregard that argument, because neither position in this matter is experimentally-supported.

But here's the thing:

Whether the programmer is simulating a possible story, or whether he's simulating genuinely impossible events, and thereby simulating an impossible story--the fact remains that, either way, it's about one story. not two versions or two separate stories.

If he capriciously makes some change in his simulation (whether possible or impossible), then we can speak separately of the simulation before and after his change, in regards to their possibility or impossibility. And we can also speak of his overall simulation, including both parts--the whole thing, with the programmer's change, somewhere in the middle.

And, whichever part, or the whole, we're talking about, it's some possible or impossible story that was already there before he enacted, presented, displayed it with his simulation. He can keep changing his simulation on the wing, but, even with the totality of all his changes, there's some pre-existing story (possible or impossible) that he's simulating then.

You can do all the performances you want to, of Shakespeare's Hamlet, but it's still the same play. Don't confuse the enactment, presentation, the display, with the play, the script.

What, you say you changed the script, or that the actors departed from Shakespeare's script? Fine, then they acted out a different script. Maybe they didn't write that script down beforehand. Fine. Whatever they did onstage, there's a script for it. Written down or not, whether planned in advance by actors or director or not, there's a script corresponding to what the actors said and did onstage.

And your programmer's simulation doesn't count as a newly-created "version" of a story. For any story, whether he simulates it or not, it's only that one story. And it was there as a possibility-story before the programmer simulated it.

And he can't make a simulation that isn't such a story. That's why I say that his simulation doesn't and can't make a story that wasn't already there.

No programmer with a simulation created out world.

The notion of a simulation creating a world results from a confusion between a story, and a display of a story.

Notice that the question of whether or not we could find ourselves in an impossible world doesn't even enter into the above conclusion. But, just as a matter of fact, I've discussed, in my previous two postings, why I doubt that any world could be established to be an impossible world.

About realities:

When you say that "reality" is just a part of reality, using "reality" with two meanings, you're admitting that your "reality", by which you mean what's measurable in this universe, isn't necessarily really all of reality.

So, for that "reality" that isn't all of reality, why don't you give it a different name, so as to not use the same word with two meanings?

Howabout defining what's observable in this world as "local reality", or "actuality". When I say "actual", I'll mean "in, of, or referring to this physical universe".

For two different meanings, it would be better to use two different words.

Anyway, we don't really have any disagreement. We're just talking about different things. I'm talking about metaphysics. You don't "believe in" it, as a matter of personal belief. That's your right, and I have no argument with, or criticism of, your personal beliefs.

In fact, you aren't really discussing metaphysics. You're discussing your disbelief in it, and your adherence to what can be measured. That doesn't contradict metaphysics. It just disregards metaphysics, and that's your right.

No argument, see?

Study what can be measured. Study physics and engineering.

Michael829

Some Comments About Quantum Mechanics:

.
Topics in this post:
.
1. Quantum mechanics and an objectively-existent physical world
.
2. Interpretation of quantum mechanics
.
3. Why is there quantum mechanics?
.
1. Quantum mechanics and an objectively-existent physical world:
.
A university physicist who is a recognized specialist in quantum mechanics said, in a book, that quantum mechanics lays to rest the notion of an objectively-existent physical world.
.
That’s one reason (but not the only reason) why you can kiss off Materialism.
.
(It’s also an exception to my saying that physics says nothing about metaphysics.)
.
I don’t remember the book’s title, or (for certain) the author’s name, but it seems to me that the author’s name was Mullen.
.
2. Interpretation of quantum mechanics:
.
One nice bonus that comes with Skepticism and MUH is that there is no longer any difference between the many-worlds interpretation and the probabilistic interpretation.
.
(…unless the many-worlds interpretation specifies a requirement that the many worlds ongoingly physically interact.)
.
3. Why is there quantum mechanics?
.
It’s the reason why there are stable atoms, and atoms of consistent kinds (elements). Without that, of course there’d be no life (at least of the kind that we have here).
.
The quantization of energy is why that is.
.
One way to get integer-quantization is via standing-waves. …in the same manner by which a trumpet can play (resonate at) any of various harmonically-related notes, via standing-waves.
.
These standing-waves are called “matter-waves”, and the quantity that is oscillating is, of course, called “wave-function”. Of course naming it doesn’t mean that anything is known about it. The nature or explanation of those matter waves, or wave-function, in terms of something more fundamental is unknown.
.
It might very well be that there’s a physical explanation for the matter-waves, in terms of more fundamental physics that has yet to be discovered. …but which might be unavailable to physicists, for one reason or another, such as prohibitively high energies needed to investigate it.
.
Not all matter consists of standing waves. An unconfined moving particle or object consists of a “wave group”, an interaction of several waves, moving at different speeds, if I remember correctly, resulting in a wave-function high that moves at its own subluminal speed.
.
Incidentally, though matter can only move at speeds lower than the speed of light, matter-waves always move at speeds greater than the speed of light.
.
For all anyone knows about it, matter-waves might be part of a world with more than three spatial dimensions, explaining why the physical basis and explanation for matter-waves isn’t visible or apparent.
.
Well, string-theory predicts a physical space with more than three spatial dimensions.
.
Obviously, the possibility-world that is the setting for your life-experience possibility-story must be a world that produces you and your physical surroundings. …hence the requirement for stable atoms of consistent kinds (elements).
.
Michael829

@Michael829

It takes too long to compose these responses but ignoring all the fallacious arguments in your last couple posts, I'm glad you seemed to drop your insistence that I believe in strawman materialism because that was just getting old.

Anyway, our biggest disagreement seems to be if metaphysics should be taken seriously. I for one consider it absurd that I should be expected to set aside empiricism and believe in something beyond observable reality just because you say so. Metaphysics is great as a form of speculation but that's all it is, speculation. It describes things that cannot be measured or known and anyone who considers any metaphysics concept more then just blind speculation is fooling themselves.

For there to be no disagreement between us either I would have to admit that your brand of metaphysics is somehow inevitable using logic (and logic is an invention of humans anyway so that makes no sense) or you would have to admit that metaphysics is blind speculation about things we can't know. I am fully prepared to debate until that happens because that's the point of a debate, assuming you are up for it.

Even 'Vaulted' Astro-Physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson readily
admits as far as folks who now do indeed have plenty of
expertise in this area of the Human experience; now, yes
that the observable Universe in which a Scientific Method
we currently employ is measurable to some empirical extent
while the Inner Universe of our Humanity fails to be measured
reliably by any Human so-named Scientific Tool, so far; and hehe;
that's still why psychotropic drugs that work for Mental Disorder or on
the other 'hands' don't work any better than the Placebo Power of Belief that some
can and do employ better than others in their every day life ways; yes, Scientists do
admit they have no empirical way to explain how psychotropic drugs work other than
observing behavioral changes that overall culture assesses as 'normal' these days as 'normal'
changes too.

So, in other words, sure; the Universe can be measured by Physics per observable empirically
measured phenomena by the Scientific Method but what we experience as emotions and senses
internally is open source in affect and eventual effect beyond any current tool of Science in method
to empirically measure now. In more Words, for all practical intents and purposes, surely as metaphor
the Inner UniVerse is most all metaphysics as far what we as Humans Feel and Sense in life; goes with the
Metaphor of Hell and Purgatory and Heaven as well; as these are all real metaphors for the experience of living
now that all Humans experience Differently as MultiUniverse Beings of life now. Visiting this place for a few years separated in physical illness from the Human Experience of Deep Feelings and Sensory Perceptions as many folks on the Autism Spectrum experience as opposed to those individuals who feel and sense less as an experience of life now and sure this speaks to even the New DSM5 Diagnosis of the Condition for some who are numb to the overall feeling and sensing environment as opposed to those who are more sensitive to the environment as the weak arm of the Scientific Method does its wear best as metaphor too, to get a handle more on the unlimited MultiUniverse Experiences of Being
Human; if one really thinks that one Multi-Verse of Human in Meta-Physical way of being
is a repeatable experiment that science understands well with a Scientific
Method truly that can be expected somewhat for those
lacking in feeling and sensing more in human
intuition what other folks experience
as feelings and senses now
as this too through
Mirror Neurons
for those who sense and
feel less or more of life is part
of the entire pie of being Human now too.

It's true 'Ripley Believe it or not' folks and 'Horatios' too;
Science is very important in sharing so-named facts about a
reality that we share as understood consensually but Science only understands
a relative speck of what the Inner Human Universe is in meta-physics for lack of a
better term to describe an experience beyond infinity as now within us is no distance
space or time that science can measure, at least, through the methods currently employed.

In even a few more words as far as the physics of reality now; if you are only looking outside
yourself at the stars in the sky chances
are you'll
miss the
star of
you within
that is beyond
any Scientific Measurable
way of the UniVerse beyond
within of Imagination and Creativity
in Moving and Connecting ways that literally
and metaphorically are relatively no limits and expectations now.

It's true, there are more things in Human Potential than one will ever read as a Cover of a Book.

It's true, there are more 'things' in feeling and sensing just a dance and song of life than one will ever read
as a Cover of a Book.

Alas there is Poetry;
And more for those who develop the eyes and ears to see more. Anyway, it takes 'time', for there is a Pyramid
of Maslow's Self Actualization/Transcendence and a Summit of Fowler's Faith in Capstone that is Agape Love for all and truly if
one
doesn't feel
And sense An
experience of A
Metaphor of an Evolving
Soul one likely is not yet
Pages of a Book still existing as a cover now.
But it's also true, according to 'those dudes', it's
normal not to arrive in this place until Middle Age or later.

Good Luck,
after one gets
tired of Science as
'those theories' Go; One often Grows
'Evolves' and actually realizes they are
Human Being Art Over Science and Do Just 'Dance' now.

Yes; literally Art is 60 percent of Smart.
Perhaps, it's just Coincidence; but i Find
it self-evidently now true as Synchronicity too.