BothAndBlog Forum

What is real?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/841299


What is Real and what is not?

And how can you know that for real? — A Realist

In Science, what is Real & Physical & Actual is what is not Ideal or Imaginary or merely Potential. Yet in Philosophy, we don't concern ourselves with real things, but with imaginary ideas about things : i.e. hypotheses & theories & possibilities. Unfortunately, Quantum Science opened a worm-ridden can of rotten peaches, when it realized (pun) that the foundations of Reality are literally & physically Uncertain*1. That's what the Copenhagen interpretation asked sub-atomic scientists to believe, or else "just shut-up and calculate"*2.

That nonlocal-neither-here-nor-there state of affairs directly contradicted a basic principle of Classical Physics, which was based on eliminating ambiguity. Ironically, it's that inherent duality that makes Quantum Theory so interesting for open-minded philosophers, and so annoying for pragmatic scientists and cocksure materialists*3. Ironically, we can never know for sure what's-what on the squishy foundation of reality that we take for granted. That's a quantum fact jack!


*1. Uncertainty Principle :
The term “uncertainty principle” suggests some grand philosophical idea, like “you can never be sure of anything”, or “there are some things you can never be sure of” and sometimes people use it as if this is what is meant. . . . While the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) does not mean “there are some things you can never be sure of”, it does imply “you can never be sure of everything.”
https://theconversation.com/explainer-h ... ciple-7512
Note --- If you know one side of a quantum duality, you cannot know the other. Like a coin-flip, that knowledge is mutually exclusive.

*2. Quantum Ambiguity :
The uncertainty of position and momentum is another duality in the behavior of quantum particles, commonly known as entropy in quantum terms, which is known in design as the term ambiguity.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3527927.3535217
Note --- The Copenhagen compromise asked physicists to accept as a fundamental fact of reality, that the substance of the material world is both particular (quantized) and continuous (holistic). It's that inherent ambiguity of Nature that I call the BothAnd Principle. Pragmatic Chemists & Atom Smashers can ignore that "vagueness", But Theoretical Physicists and Philosophers must take the essential Uncertainty of Reality into account. The statistical status of entangled particles is Potential (many possibilities) instead of Actual.

*3. The Philosophy of 'Ambiguity' :
Ambiguity is tantamount to uncertainty and vagueness, making many interpretations plausible. This has been explored through various philosophical paintbrushes: logical, analytical, existentialist, postmodernist and contemporary.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/ ... sophy.html
The philosophical "paintbrush" of Scientism -- a murky mixture of Materialism and anti-Idealism -- is based on faith in the rock-solid reality of the world. Hence, it must ignore or deny the ambiguous aspects of Quantum science, which says that rock underfoot is 99% empty space, and the remaining 1% is both wispy particles and wavey energy.

↪A Realist
What is real?
Depends.
A> What do you mean by "real"?
B> Do you want an Analytical answer, or a Synthetic solution, or a Technological test, or a Copenhagen compromise?

Austin & ‘Reality’ philosophy magazine article :
“Austin's view is that if they use the word 'real', it has the meaning it's found with, and not some special philosophical sense. So, we must pay careful attention to the usage of words if we are to avoid saying things that are confused or silly.”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality

T.L. Austin has decreed that “a philosopher doesn't get to decide the meaning of a word”. Instead, he insists that we must deal with words as they are found in the wild, so to speak -- uncontaminated by philosophical sophistry. Since when does he have that authority? I suppose it was when the Linguistic Turn*1 began to transform Philosophy into a passive observer of the world as it seems to be, instead of an active participant in interpreting the world of “appearances”, that Kant said was a mask over the unknowable ideal “ding an sich”.

Austin seems to be a proponent of Analytical Philosophy, which was intended to emulate reductive Empirical science, by substituting metaphysical Words for physical Things under the microscope. Are Linguistic analysts fooling themselves that they are doing empirical Science ; when in fact it's just another application of philosophical reasoning, not to Reality but to our Ideas about reality (i.e. words)? What is language but conventionalized Metaphysics?*2A Is the study of language really analyzing reality? Or is it the layering of opinions upon opinions, ideas about ideas, not about reality itself?*2B

So, which authority can we rely on to tell us what philosophers can and cannot do? Austin seems to have a low opinion of his fellow philosophers, comparing them to deceptive magicians, who through sleight-of-word “gives the appearance of solidity to pure wind”.(Orwell on political propaganda). Is that all philosophy is : fake news & disinformation? Since Austin was himself a professional philosopher, how can you trust anything he says?

Analysis of human languages is indeed a valid approach to philosophical knowledge. But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. Moreover, conventional Meanings are second or third hand truths that have passed through millions of minds. By contrast, Empirical science aimed to study raw reality directly. But that 17th century aspiration was brought down to Earth by the damper of 20th century Quantum Uncertainty. Which revealed that Reality was not as cut-&-dried as previously assumed. It re-opened reality to interpretation from a variety of perspectives*4.

On TPF, quite a few posters seem to assume that Reductive Analytic Philosophy is the only legitimate form of thinking about ideas*5*6*7. Any other approach is dismissed as "irrational". But Quantum Physics pioneers were forced by the uncertainty & relativity of the foundations of Reality, to turn to Eastern philosophies for a more Holistic Systems approach. Ironically, the Copenhagen compromise re-introduced systematic (holistic) philosophical methods to fill the gaps where reductive Empirical methods no longer worked*8.

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? *9. Traditional philosophical answers were mostly meta-physical, since physical science was primitive in ancient times. 17th century Classical scientific answers were expressed in deterministic & mechanical imagery, which agreed with common-sense for most people in the Industrial Age. Then 20th century science discovered that the foundations of physics are uncertain (statistical) & non-mechanical (fields). Nevertheless, many 21st century philosophers seem to prefer the familiar "appearances" of Classical models, to the weird, but workable, mysteries of Quantum theories of Reality. Now, in the Information Age, Which world-model would you bet on, to accurately describe Reality?


*1. The Linguistic Turn :
Traditionally, the linguistic turn is taken to also mean the birth of analytic philosophy. One of the results of the linguistic turn was an increasing focus on logic and philosophy of language, and the cleavage between ideal language philosophy and ordinary language philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

*2A. Real is Being, and Language is Seeming :
Why didn't Austin's argument deter them? One reason might be that many postwar metaphysicians use the words 'there is" rather than the word 'real' . . . . Here the question becomes : there seem to be tables, but are there any?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality
*2B. “The ontology of a natural language is thus best characterized as the ontology competent speakers implicitly accept by way of using the language.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natu ... -ontology/

*3. According to one critique, “The linguistic turn aims to discover the truth through the analysis of language” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn
Note --- To me that aim misses the hard target of objective Truth, and instead hits only various soft subjective opinions about Truth, as embedded in conventional words. That sounds like sieving muddy water to find-out what's solid reality.
Another critic says “Linguistic criticism certainly undercuts the spiritual world of ideas; but "language," when divorced from the particularities of different linguistic traditions, can also be "reified" and made into a philosophical fetish.“ https://science.jrank.org/pages/7827/Li ... -Turn.html

*4. Interpretations of quantum mechanics :
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics might correspond to experienced reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpret ... _mechanics

*5. Aristotle and Understanding Reality :
In his view, colours and shapes are real, as real as trees, desks, people, and other objects that are members of a totality that can be called “reality” or “the universe.” However, reality is not exhausted by material objects that can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, for Aristotle thought that there are also immaterial objects, objects that cannot be known by perception but only by a special cognitive capacity that he called “intellect.”
https://brill.com/display/book/97890045 ... anguage=en

*6. “Synonyms for ANALYTIC: reasonable, logical, valid, coherent, rational, sensible, good, sound; Antonyms of ANALYTIC: irrational, weak, unreasonable” https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/analytic

*7. Analytic vs Synthetic Philosophy :
So analytic philosophy is concerned with analysis – analysis of thought, language, logic, knowledge, mind, etc; whereas continental philosophy is concerned with synthesis – synthesis of modernity with history, individuals with society, and speculation with application.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Ana ... Philosophy

*8. Copenhagen Metaphysics :
As the theory of the atom, quantum mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory in the history of science. It enables physicists, chemists, and technicians to calculate and predict the outcome of a vast number of experiments and to create new and advanced technology based on the insight into the behavior of atomic objects. But it is also a theory that challenges our imagination. It seems to violate some fundamental principles of classical physics, principles that eventually have become a part of western common sense since the rise of the modern worldview in the Renaissance. The aim of any metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics is to account for these violations.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

*9. What is metaphysics in relation to language? :
Is language a subset of metaphysics, or is metaphysics a subset of language, and if not what is language or metaphysics in relation to the other, and why is it difficult to represent those two in a sort of Venn diagram?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... o-language

It seems the word real has many meanings depending on which subset of philosophy you wish to answer it from. The empirical or the speculative metaphysical are equally correct and the issue only arises in under certain dualities for example is light a wave or a particle? The duality of light challenges the notion of reality by having the observer involved whereas in actuality light is both a wave and and a particle by behaving as such. — simplyG

Yes. That was the point of my introductory remarks in the post. Since each "subset" is based on different axioms & assumptions, we need to specify which world-model of Reality we are arguing from. Failure to do that leads to fruitless talking-past-each-other on such general topics as Reality. Unfortunately, the tinted lenses of our partial worldviews are often taken to reveal the world as it really is. So, we are surprised when others don't see it as we do.

My personal worldview is intended to unify the Dualism of fundamental physics into a philosophical Monism. It does so by "involving" the observer in the observation. As quantum physicist John A. Wheeler concluded, "this is a participatory universe" and that "everything is information" --- including the observing mind.


Participatory Universe :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-part ... y-universe

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? — Gnomon
You seem to be confusing evidence with ways of modeling things. Your question doesn't make much sense to me. — wonderer1

OK. What kind of philosophical world model, based on what kind of scientific evidence, are you willing to accept as Real? Is that less confusing --- or more?

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-part ... y-universe

T.L. Austin — Gnomon
Hmm. — Banno

Thanks. I suspect that ↪180 Proof will applaud your succinct appraisal of my Synthetic assessment of Austin's Linguistic analysis of Philosophy's verbal non-sense about what's real & what's not.

J. L. Austin, you mean. Not to be confused with John Austin, the esteemed (by me) legal positivist. — Ciceronianus

Thanks for the correction. I had never heard of Austin, before reading the Philosophy Now article. And my comments are based on the article, not from personal familiarity.

It strikes me that if we're going to accuse philosophers of conceit, that accusation is more properly brought against those who disregard the meaning of a word, creating their own meaning for self-serving purposes. — Ciceronianus

Unfortunately, such a bureaucratic conceit would stifle the most creative philosophers. For example, I tried to read Whitehead's Process and Reality --- in which he conceived of a new school of Process Philosophy --- but found its novel technical terminology hard to follow. That's one reason I provide an extensive glossary & footnotes in my thesis and blog*1.

I'm a free-wheeling amateur, not a stodgy academic philosopher, so -- on an open forum -- I don't feel bound to accept the "authorized or received" meanings of outdated terminology. That unconventional "conceit" (i.e. freedom) drives ↪180 Proof up the wall. But he can't have me de-tenured (did I just make-up another word?), so I ignore his smirky*2 smarguments. Since you seem to be more sincere, I'll take your comments under advisement.

PS___ I know nothing about the Linguistic Turn in modern philosophy, other than "what I read in the papers". But I would assume that one focus would be on discovering mis-use, or unauthorized use, of old conventional*3 terminology. Yet again, such pedantry*4 would tend to suppress creativity of conceits (concepts)*5 in philosophy. I have no formal training in philosophical ideology, which leaves me naive, but also unprejudiced with prevailing dogma.

*1. Why Coin Tech Terms? :
In the Enformationism thesis, and in the BothAnd Blog, I have coined a lot of new words (neologisms) as short-cuts to complex or unfamiliar concepts. The practice of using words that can't be found in a dictionary makes reading more of a challenge, and may seem pretentious. But, such coining is common for scientific and philosophical writings that explore uncharted territory off the current maps. One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases. Well-known words usually have collected a lot of baggage over the years. And some-times, the meaning of common words has evolved into a sense far from the original context & connotation. But the primary purpose for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html

*2. Smirky : characterized by or having a smirk, especially so as to seem irritatingly smug or conceited. (his favorite smilicon )

*3. Conventional : marked by attention to or adhering strictly to prescribed forms.

*4. Pedantry : excessive concern with minor details and rules

*5. What is a conceit in Latin? :
From the Latin term for “concept,” a poetic conceit is an often unconventional, logically complex, or surprising metaphor whose delights are more intellectual than sensual.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/ ... ms/conceit


But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. — Gnomon
You don't think we're part of nature? Or you think we're not real? — Ciceronianus

To the contrary, I was distinguishing between Nature and Culture, not Nature and Reality. Nature got along for eons without Culture or Language, until artificial "human nature" -- in the last few ticks of Time -- began dominating natural Nature. Do you think humans are nothing-but Nature? In what sense is Culture or Language Real? Certainly not in the sense of this thread's topic, implying that Real is the opposite of Ideal, which is the exclusive purview of human thought, language & philosophy.

So potential energy is not real? — Banno

Yes. Although my post contrasted Potential with Actual, and Real with Ideal, not Potential Energy with Reality, as you mis-construed it. For example, a AAA battery has a potential voltage of 1.5V, but until it's plugged into a complete circuit, that potential is not realized. Any potential thing or action is not yet real (i.e. not materialized), until actualized*1 in a system. Do you disagree with my list of opposites in this context? If so, in what sense is Potential real?*2.

Our worldviews seem to be different in some ways that lead us to mis-communicate. But worldviews are ideas (opinions) about Reality, not Reality itself. Worldviews are beliefs about Reality, not necessarily the Truth. So, I'm not trying to convert you to my belief system, but merely trying to share ideas that may be controversial.

*1. Potentiality and actuality
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist; but, the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential ... _actuality
Note --- Do you equate "does not exist" with "not real"? If so, what was wrong with my equation of "potential" with "not yet real"?

*2. Real : actually existing as a {physical} thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- I added the bracket to indicate the common-sense definition of "real". But the philosophical definition is more subtle. As indicated in *1 above : "potential does exist", even though it has no physical form.


But of course, you did not mean that. It would be crass for someone to suggest that we ought dismantle the apparatus of physics because it does not meet your exhortation. — Banno

Are you accusing me of "dismantling the apparatus of physics"? Or merely of being "crass" enough to mention an alternative (non-mechanical) mechanism? Could you be more specific? Which "apparatus" am I tearing down? Newtonian Mechanics?*3 Actually, it was the pioneers of Quantum Theory who crassly deconstructed Newton's machine with "spooky action at a distance".

Do you think Physics is concerned with ontological Reality?*4 Classical Physics typically took the material substance of Reality for granted. But Quantum Physics undermined that confidence with the Uncertainty Principle and wave/particle duality. Apparently, you mis-interpret my references to Quantum Physics as anti-scientific*5. Some posters seem to think any philosophy prior to the 19th century is anti-science. Even 20th century Quantum Theory is considered part science (technology), and part anti-science (mysticsm). So my emphasis on Quantum philosophy seems to them as undermining the ground of reality.

What "exhortation" are you referring to?*6 Are you accusing me of propagandizing anti-science? If so, show me the quote. Are you equating non-Classical Quantum Physics with Anti-science? QP didn't replace Physics with Metaphysics, but it did re-introduce philosophical reasoning into scientific methods, that had been absent for several centuries*7.

*3. Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics? :
In the Newtonian mechanics, particles and waves are two different entities, while in quantum mechanics these two are two sides of the same coin. Quantum mechanics associate wave function with every object. However, it must be noted that these quantum effects are diminished in the real world.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/ ... anics.html
Note --- In this quote, "real world" seems refer to the common-sense macro level that our 5 senses report. If so, is the quantum foundation of our world "unreal"?

*4. "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." is a quote by German Physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) that can be used in discussing the validity of measurements.
https://www.causeweb.org/cause/resources/library/r2533
Note --- By "nature" Heisenberg was referring to what Kant called "ding an sich" as opposed to "appearances". In the context of this thread, one could equate "Nature" with "Real", and "Super-nature" with un-real, yes? Personally, I am not aware of anything supernatural in this world. But some people equate "Ideal" with "supernatural". Do you?

*5. Quantum mechanics is the most successful quantitative theory ever produced. Not a single one of the untold thousands of experiments done to test it has ever found the basic principles to be in error, and the agreement can sometimes go to ten significant figures (as in some predictions of quantum electrodynamics).
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teach ... ture21.pdf
Note --- The math of QM is unquestioned. But the meaning continues to spark philosophical debate.

*6. Exhortation : an address or communication emphatically urging someone to do something.
___ Oxford Dictionary
Note --- In this case, to do what?

*7. Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory :
Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world. This gives rise to the collection of philosophical issues known as “the interpretation of quantum mechanics”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

Well, I find it to be a matter of skill in considering things, to be able to look at things from different perspectives, so I'm apt to apply the sort of modeling that seems most usefully accurate for what I am considering, whether that be particles, or fields, or whatever. It doesn't make much sense to call a model "Real" though. It makes more sense to me to consider the degree to which a model is accurate, and not confuse the model for that which is being modeled — wonderer1

Sounds good to me. But how do you determine the accuracy of fit for a world model? Since many of the controversies on this forum revolve around the physical foundations of the world (e.g. matter particles vs mathematical fields) , I tend to rely on Quantum Physics as the most appropriate resource.

But some posters seem to prefer the 17th century Classical model of physics*1, probably because it is more fitting to Common Sense. Yet, quantum physics has revealed that common sense is the view of superficial Appearances (per Kant)*2 rather than Ultimate Reality.

Besides, since my skillfully-selected Quantum Model varies, in certain aspects, from the Common Sense model, my interpretations are sometimes dismissed as "Woo", they are literally labelled as "non-sense", because quantum physics explores reality beyond the scope of un-aided human senses. So, the choice of model itself may be unacceptable for some posters. What can you do when your "most accurate" model is rejected by your interlocutors, and they don't acknowledge your analytical "skill"?


*1. Classical physics :
Classical physics is a group of physics theories that predate modern, more complete, or more widely applicable theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Classical_physics

*2. Kant's Appearances :
Kantian appearances are not the objects of ordinary sense perception, for Kant holds that appearances in themselves (things in themselves, in the empirical sense) lack sensory qualities like color, taste, texture, etc.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant ... -idealism/

Aristotle is probably not the best source, regarding the nature of batteries. Also the subject was potential energy. Voltage is not energy. — wonderer1

You missed the point. I didn't refer to Aristotle as an authority on storage batteries, but as the guy who originally defined the terms "Potential" & "Actual"*1. Of course, Voltage is a measure of Energy, not energy per se. And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. A battery contains no Actual Energy, only Potential Energy*2. That's why you can touch both poles and not get shocked. Aristotle's definition, in terms of existence, is pertinent to the OP topic of Reality.


*1. Actuality and Potentiality in Aristotle's Philosophy :
Aristotle described potentiality and actuality as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist.
https://www.iasexpress.net/modules/1-7- ... hilosophy/

*2. Voltage is a measurement of potential electric energy between two points.
https://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Voltage

So in order to defend your scientistic realism, you deny the existence of certain things posited by science. That seems odd. . . . And again, your style is almost unreadable — Banno

That does seem odd. Please show me where I denied "the existence of certain things posited by science". Just a short list of instances would be more helpful than a blind blanket denouncement.

Your reference to "scientistic" is also odd, since my views are often radically different from those of the philosophy of Scientism.

Your vague non-specific replies are readable, but simplistic and indeterminate. I'm not sure what you are responding to. I don't know your background, but an education in analytical Linguistic Philosophy might make discussions of holistic Quantum Philosophy "unreadable". More specificity on your part would make communication, not necessarily more readable, but perhaps more meaningful.

PS___ Speaking of "unreadable", have you ever tried to read Hegel, Heidegger. or Wittgenstein? If you are not interested in the subject matter -- or have a short attention span -- you may not be motivated to read densely worded discourses.

PPS___Most responses on this forum are brief summaries of personal opinions. With no attempt to justify the amateur reasoning with links to opinions of experts on the topic. Most of my posts are condensed summaries of arguments that are more extensively detailed elsewhere, with links. It seems that we are not arguing true or false facts here, but agreeable or disagreeable opinions & worldviews.