Reality and perception. Split from: Does the time exist?

[Holmes]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Sure you can. If the stopwatch we are using says the duration of something is 3.00 seconds, there is no disagreement that the stopwatch says 3.00 seconds. We don't ask people how long they think the duration was. We remove perception from the problem.

An observation is an act of perception, we perceive the face of the stopwatch.

One cannot say the duration of the interval was 3.0 seconds without taking additional steps, for example is my clock keeping good time? the only way to establish that is to compare my perception with someone else's before the start of the observations.

The point I'm driving at, perhaps not very well, is that we can never talk about science as being decoupled from personal experiences, we cannot claim that one person's experiences are "not real" and another persons are.

If Newton were told "the time measured by this person moving at this speed relative to me, will measure ten seconds, whereas I measured fifteen seconds between the same events" he would (I suspect) react by saying that the moving persons time measurement was not real, the ten seconds was not "real" time.

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My claim has evidence to back it up. The perception doesn't match natural observation and measurement. Your claim that this perception is real has only subjective confirmation.

You can only "back it up" by recourse to someone else's perception.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing against science here, all I'm arguing is that science cannot reveal reality to us, we construct reality based on our perceptions, our perceptions are conclusions we draw from our senses.

The claim "science is about reality" for example, that's not a scientific claim, I think these epistemological limitations need to be kept in mind at all times.

That's really all I've been doing, making claims about "reality" is outside the remit of science.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, Holmes said:

The point I'm driving at, perhaps not very well, is that we can never talk about science as being decoupled from personal experiences,

I'm not sure who "we" is referring to, because I am arguing that we strive to do just that.

We don't rely on someone to tell us the color of the light, because we can't trust their perception. We using e.g. a diffraction grating, to improve precision and remove personal bias.

To quote Obi-Wan: Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them.

Quote

we cannot claim that one person's experiences are "not real" and another persons are.

Yes, we can do that, too. If someone is e.g. dreaming or hallucinating, I can claim that their experiences are not real.

33 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing against science here, all I'm arguing is that science cannot reveal reality to us, we construct reality based on our perceptions, our perceptions are conclusions we draw from our senses.

I agree, science can't reveal reality to us. I don't think anyone was arguing in favor of that proposition.

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, Holmes said:

That's really all I've been doing, making claims about "reality" is outside the remit of science.

Indeed, and in the vast majority of posts you’re thread hijacking. 

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, Holmes said:

You can only "back it up" by recourse to someone else's perception.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing against science here, all I'm arguing is that science cannot reveal reality to us, we construct reality based on our perceptions, our perceptions are conclusions we draw from our senses.

The claim "science is about reality" for example, that's not a scientific claim, I think these epistemological limitations need to be kept in mind at all times.

That's really all I've been doing, making claims about "reality" is outside the remit of science.

Perhaps that's the problem. "Reality" is a horribly subjective choice of words for what you're describing. Science makes observations about the natural world. What we see in nature. You can decide for yourself if that involves "reality".

[studiot]

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps that's the problem. "Reality" is a horribly subjective choice of words for what you're describing. Science makes observations about the natural world. What we see in nature. You can decide for yourself if that involves "reality".

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I agree, science can't reveal reality to us. I don't think anyone was arguing in favor of that proposition.

 

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

all I'm arguing is that science cannot reveal reality

 

So we are all agreed and 'reality' was not part of the OP so we should move on and leave it behind.

 

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

One cannot say the duration of the interval was 3.0 seconds without taking additional steps, for example is my clock keeping good time? the only way to establish that is to compare my perception with someone else's before the start of the observations.

This claim however presents a problem.

I seem to remember you quoted Eddington's little book somewhere, perhaps in a previous thread.

How do you reconcile that reference with the pages 24 to 26 of the same book and the story of the cigar ?

[Holmes]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

So we are all agreed and 'reality' was not part of the OP so we should move on and leave it behind.

Yet curiously the OP ends with "Like i said, the theory is still unproved; But I believed it was fun trying to examine this fascinating painting of reality".

Quote

This claim however presents a problem.

I seem to remember you quoted Eddington's little book somewhere, perhaps in a previous thread.

How do you reconcile that reference with the pages 24 to 26 of the same book and the story of the cigar ?

Let me dig out the volume and get back to you...

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Indeed, and in the vast majority of posts you’re thread hijacking. 

When logic and erudition fail you the insults are never far behind, unable to argue your case using logic and science and reason you all too rapidly resort to your base instincts and emotions.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Holmes

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, Holmes said:

An observation is an act of perception, we perceive the face of the stopwatch.

One cannot say the duration of the interval was 3.0 seconds without taking additional steps, for example is my clock keeping good time? the only way to establish that is to compare my perception with someone else's before the start of the observations.

The point I'm driving at, perhaps not very well, is that we can never talk about science as being decoupled from personal experiences, we cannot claim that one person's experiences are "not real" and another persons are.

If Newton were told "the time measured by this person moving at this speed relative to me, will measure ten seconds, whereas I measured fifteen seconds between the same events" he would (I suspect) react by saying that the moving persons time measurement was not real, the ten seconds was not "real" time.

You can only "back it up" by recourse to someone else's perception.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing against science here, all I'm arguing is that science cannot reveal reality to us, we construct reality based on our perceptions, our perceptions are conclusions we draw from our senses.

The claim "science is about reality" for example, that's not a scientific claim, I think these epistemological limitations need to be kept in mind at all times.

That's really all I've been doing, making claims about "reality" is outside the remit of science.

Who claims "science is about reality", and what was the context in which this was said?

[Intoscience]

How does reality fit into the model of what science is about? Or does it? Are there different kinds of reality, perception being one?

Is science an attempt to explain, quantify and verify what might be regarded as fundamental reality? 

I'm very interested in the philosophical and scientific stance on reality and perception.

Thanks

[beecee]

46 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Is science an attempt to explain, quantify and verify what might be regarded as fundamental reality? 

 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

I agree, science can't reveal reality to us. I don't think anyone was arguing in favor of that proposition.

My thoughts are that while science creates models on the results of experiments and  observational data, and is certainly not primarily about truth and reality, and may change according to new data, it could also happen to reveal such truth or reality in a specific or limited sense. If that happens, all well and good. Of course the only way to test if a model is absolutely true, would be to test the model under all scenarios.eg: The theory of evolution.

Are my  thoughts in error?

Edited July 7, 2021 by beecee

[Intoscience]

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

My thoughts are that while science creates models on the results of experiments and  observational data, and is certainly not primarily about truth and reality, and may change according to new data, it could also happen to reveal such truth or reality in a specific or limited sense. If that happens, all well and good. Of course the only way to test if a model is absolutely true, would be to test the model under all scenarios.eg: The theory of evolution.

Are my  thoughts in error?

I'm not qualified to judge on whether your thoughts are in error, I think what you say makes sense. 

Would science or philosophy consider that one of the defining aspects of reality would be absolute truth?

Science operates by taking measurements, from observations and collating that data into a mathematical model that predicts outcomes and verifiable by further independent tests. Or you may form a mathematical model and then make observations and carry out independent tests to verify those models. 

So in my mind science aims to build a frame work of understanding that describes the universe we are part of. We have discovered what we believe to be underlining laws that govern how the universe operates and from these laws and our observations and theories, we can build models and thus attempt to gain an understanding of the "reality" of the universe.

Could it be though that measurements used are only ever very accurate approximations? In quantum mechanics where probability is king, seems to highlight this some what? 

I'm not a scientist or mathematician so could be completely talking out of my backside. I attend these forums to not only discuss ideas but also to be educated. So my questions are not rhetorical. I'm following this thread to discuss ideas and learn. 

Thanks     

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So in my mind science aims to build a frame work of understanding that describes the universe we are part of. We have discovered what we believe to be underlining laws that govern how the universe operates and from these laws and our observations and theories, we can build models and thus attempt to gain an understanding of the "reality" of the universe.

I would replace "reality" with "behavior"

We can see how something behaves, but how do we test to see if that is reality?

First step, as always, is defining what we mean. Is it reality vs illusion? Or reality as in "objectively exists"?

We know that certain components of the models we build in physics do not objectively exist, because we made them up as a convenience. We know right then and there that physics is not a search for reality.

 

 

As a test of something objectively existing, I ask this: is a hole real? Or is it a convenience? (edit: and does this matter? If we're searching for reality we have to know. If we aren't this doesn't matter so much)

 

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not a scientist or mathematician so could be completely talking out of my backside. I attend these forums to not only discuss ideas but also to be educated.

Join the club!! 😊

[Intoscience]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

I would replace "reality" with "behavior"

We can see how something behaves, but how do we test to see if that is reality?

First step, as always, is defining what we mean. Is it reality vs illusion? Or reality as in "objectively exists"?

We know that certain components of the models we build in physics do not objectively exist, because we made them up as a convenience. We know right then and there that physics is not a search for reality.

 

 

As a test of something objectively existing, I ask this: is a hole real? Or is it a convenience?

 

So it basically boils down to the old age debate on the definition of reality? Would you say that there are categories for the definition of reality - objective, perceptive, constructive...?

In my mind reality is, all that exists at a fundamental level that governs the universe independent of observation, perception and measurement. Is this even possible? 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So it basically boils down to the old age debate on the definition of reality? Would you say that there are categories for the definition of reality - objective, perceptive, constructive...?

Yes, if one is going to say that science is trying to establish what reality is, you'd best define the term. I'm not, so that's best left to others.

 

[Intoscience]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Yes, if one is going to say that science is trying to establish what reality is, you'd best define the term. I'm not, so that's best left to others.

 

Ok thanks,

So what is the main objective of science? Is it to gain an understanding of the behaviour of how things operate? Rather than the fundamental "reality" that may under pin this?

It's a very interesting subject!

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So what is the main objective of science?

To model the behavior of the universe in ways that minimize human bias; to move forward with the recognition that all models are only at best provisional, and with a willingness to reject them when evidence demonstrates that they're flawed and unrepresentative in some way.

Science is about building maps, and our task is to recall that all maps can always be made better and also that the map is not the territory. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by iNow

[studiot]

On 7/7/2021 at 9:55 AM, Intoscience said:

I'm very interested in the philosophical and scientific stance on reality and perception.

 

22 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So what is the main objective of science? Is it to gain an understanding of the behaviour of how things operate? Rather than the fundamental "reality" that may under pin this?

 

20 hours ago, iNow said:

To model the behavior of the universe in ways that minimize human bias; to move forward with the recognition that all models are only at best provisional, and with a willingness to reject them when evidence demonstrates that they're flawed and unrepresentative in some way.

Science is about building maps, and our task is to recall that all maps can always be made better and also that the map is not the territory. 

 

There is a lot more to both Science and perception that this.

 

22 hours ago, Intoscience said:

It's a very interesting subject!

It really is. +1 for this and for demonstrating proper respectful discussion.

But I think it deserves its own thread away from heated discussion and potential heckling.

Edited July 8, 2021 by studiot

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, studiot said:

There is a lot more to both Science and perception that this.

But those are primarily details of how you go about building and testing your models.

[studiot]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

But those are primarily details of how you go about building and testing your models.

'But' suggests you disagree with some part of my thoughts.

The rest suggests you think there is little else but models involved in Science and perception but 'models'.

I think there is far more to both (as I said) so I am starting another thread to discuss this.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

'But' suggests you disagree with some part of my thoughts.

The rest suggests you think there is little else but models involved in Science and perception but 'models'.

I think there is far more to both (as I said) so I am starting another thread to discuss this.

iNow's quote and my reply were about science, not perception. And, as I said, there *is* more but it's mostly the details of how you go about building and testing your models.

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

iNow's quote

 

22 hours ago, iNow said:

To model the behavior of the universe

 

I understand that you and perhaps iNow limit your definition of Science to analysis and only to analysis of what is.

I happen to hold a wider definition.

One of the biggest efforts in Science ATM is the study of what is not.

[swansont]

Just now, studiot said:

 

 

I understand that you and perhaps iNow limit your definition of Science to analysis and only to analysis of what is.

I happen to hold a wider definition.

One of the biggest efforts in Science ATM is the study of what is not.

Do you have some examples of these efforts?

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Do you have some examples of these efforts?

Of course.

Our Earth has an mean temperature of around 15^oC (NASA), though the actual value does not matter.

There does not exist an Earth with an average temperature of say 18^oC.

Yet Climate Science is studying such a hypothetical Earth.

IOW is is studying that which is not.

 

Sometimes the model we have from analysis such as a simple formula for kinetic energy or momentum can be used to model that which is not for instance the kinetic energy of a 750kg car travelling at 1,000mph.

As an aside most questions at the end of chapters in Science textbooks model that which is not.

[swansont]

Climate science is constructing models in order to see the behavior of nature under those conditions.

 

I was taking your objection to men that there were things that did not include models and testing, not the scope of the models. Yes, science makes predictions of things that could happen under some conditions. I consider that to be part of modeling the universe. We even model behaviors that we have not yet observed, to see if we've missed something.

[studiot]

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

I was taking your objection to men that there were things that did not include models and testing, not the scope of the models. Yes, science makes predictions of things that could happen under some conditions. I consider that to be part of modeling the universe. We even model behaviors that we have not yet observed, to see if we've missed something.

You asked for some I gave you some.

I did not say there were not plenty more.

Engineering Science is largely about the synthesis of that which does not (yet) exist.