Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

The Idea of the World
A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality

Bernardo Kastrup (2019)
Dutch computer scientist
https://www.amazon.com

   Post 88. June 19, 2019

  Reality is a Theory

   Learning to Deal with Ambiguity

 In his astute defense of a modern scientifically respectable version of Platonic Idealism, The Idea of the World, Bernardo Kastrup quotes a presumably atheist materialist cosmologist’s admission that objective reality1 — as we know it — is only a model created in the human mind, hence an idea :

“Let us remember that our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions. I know that my pain exists, my “green” exists, and my “sweet” exists. I do not need any proof of their existence, because these events are a part of me; everything else is a theory.”   [ My bold ]
___ Andrei Linde, theoretical physicist (cosmological inflation)

Kastrup seems to have implicitly interpreted this remark as a veiled acceptance of the logical implications of the ancient Greek philosophical worldview of Idealism. That is, our know-ledge of reality is limited to the shadows on Plato’s cave. Our physical perceptions are responding to ephemeral shadows, rather than the eternal Forms that cast the shade. Which is really-real depends on your personal evaluation.

The perennial Real vs Ideal quandary results from the dual nature of mankind. We are constrained within the physical limits of our natural bodies (subjective), but via self-reflection, we can also imagine (theorize) what Nature is like from the outside (objective). As a result, the visionary human mind can conceive fictional “realities” that may or may not be shared with other minds1. Moreover, a minor subset of people (e.g. schizo-phrenia, dementias, hallucinations, magic, miracles, expect-ations) have realistic perceptions of beings, voices, images, & events that cannot be perceived by others from only their normal (conventional) perspective. Thus, our innate suscept-ibility to unconventional subjective beliefs is the reason why skeptics — and courts of law — require objective evidence before they accept personal testimony as true.

 “We interpret the contents of perception as coming from a world outside mind because this seems to explain the fact that we all share the same world beyond the boundary of our skin, as well as the fact that laws that govern this world do not depend on our personal volition.”
___Bernardo Kastrup, The Idea Of The World

Kastrup's mission was to undermine the materialistic axioms of modern science — not with sophistry2 & hand-waving, but with scientific facts — and to re-integrate pragmatic science with idealistic philosophy. That goal is compatible with my own Enformationism worldview and the BothAnd principle. But scientists and atheists typically object to one particular aspect of such a merging of empirical and theoretical methodologies3 : it opens the door to all kinds of spooky speculations, including the existence of supernatural gods and demons. I happen to agree with Kastrup's general position, that in order to know the truth about the world outside ourselves, we must deal with both objective and subjective perspectives on reality. We can’t afford to ignore half of the available knowledge of reality. Un-fortunately, in order to bridge the gap between the two world systems3, we must be able to deal with ambiguity4.

Post 88 continued . . . click Next

Opposite sides of same coin

1. Conventional Reality :
   Most human cultures have held dual notions of what is real. The most common (conventional, scientific) view is that what we know with our physical senses is real. A minority view (philosophical, religious) is that ultimate or “true” reality exists hidden from our sensory functions.
   Unfortunately for the com-mon sense view of physical science, our extended tech-nological senses have revealed aspects of reality (quantum fields) that are more like the ancient super-natural notions.
   So, the BothAnd principle holds that the world in which we exist is both physical (conventional reality) and meta-physical (Ideality). Hence,it’s wise to shift be-tween those opposing per-spectives as needed, depend-ing on the context and the purpose.

2. Sophistry :
  Plato criticized some of his fellow philosophers in the Greek world for their com-petitive spirit – using rhetor-ical tricks to win debates – rather than for their devotion to truth. Hence the epithet “Sophist” (wise) now implies a hypocrite.

3. Two World Systems :
   Empirical Evidence versus Theoretical Doctrines; phys-ical senses vs meta-physical sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems

4. Dealing with Ambiguity
Over the years, I’ve ham-mered on the importance of becoming comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity, in questioning all of your most cherished beliefs and dreams, on practicing skepticism, and doubting everything, most importantly yourself.
https://markmanson.net/trust

1. You Are Biased and Selfish Without Realizing It
2. You Don’t Have A Clue about What Makes You Happy (or Miserable)
3. You Are Easily Manipulat-ed Into Making Bad Decisions
4. You Generally Only Use Logic and Reason To Support Your Preexisting Beliefs
5. Your Emotions Change Your Perceptions Way More Than You Realize
6. Your Memory Sucks
7. ‘You’ Aren’t Who You think You Are
8. Your Physical Experience of the World Isn’t Even That Real

Plato’s Cave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave