The "One Reality" Illusion

[Speakpigeon]

You've only shown there is more than one perspective, not that there is more than one reality.

He showed why there may be more than one reality, or multiple versions of the universe, if you prefer.
EB

 

[DBT]

If there are multiple versions of the Universe or even an Infinite Multiverse, this is still one reality (existence) extended to far greater proportions and complexity. Instead of one 'self' making a choice, there are multiple versions of you making all possible selections...reality being an infinite Multiverse.

 

[PyramidHead]

Strictly speaking, we only know that our perceptions enable us to navigate the world in a way that benefits our genes more than the available alternatives, not that they are accurate. A perception of reality that is less accurate than others, but is better at making copies of the genes that created it, will always beat more accurate models that aren't as good from a fitness standpoint. It's true that accuracy and genetic fitness often go hand in hand, as having a completely inaccurate view of reality probably wouldn't help anybody propagate their genes, but in the end we probably have a coherently inaccurate world-model that is almost nothing like what it represents, but is good enough to keep us from obvious dangers and point us toward mates.

How come you would have an accurate idea of genetics and evolution?
EB

We don't inherit ideas from our parents.

EDIT: At least not genetically.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How come you would have an accurate idea of genetics and evolution?
EB

We don't inherit ideas from our parents.

EDIT: At least not genetically.

You missed my point.

Let me try again.

If our perception of reality is not accurate, how come you would have an accurate idea of genetics and evolution?
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Evolution causes more or less accurate ideas of evolution to exist, depending on whether or not the ideas are favored by the environment or not.

Apparently the environment sometimes favors observation of the environment, observation which leads to ideas like "evolution" and "if you keep flies from laying eggs on meat, then meat won't develop maggots".

 

[The Helmetmaker]

Well, I tend to disbelieve in multiple universes; however, if there are, then consider the difference between "all possible universes" and "all universes." All universes would contain not just all possible universes but also all impossible universes. All possible universes could (and I think, would) be a finite number, whereas all universes would be infinitely infinite, (cf Cantor). So, if we were able to, would our perspective allow us to switch (so to speak) between a possible universe and an impossible one? And would that reveal any illusion?

 

[PyramidHead]

We don't inherit ideas from our parents.

EDIT: At least not genetically.

You missed my point.

Let me try again.

If our perception of reality is not accurate, how come you would have an accurate idea of genetics and evolution?
EB

Genetics, evolution, lamps, and frisbees are all conceptual models that predict sensory information. i.e. stuff we can interact with tangibly, either by direct or indirect means. If the predictions they make are corroborated by our sensory information, we keep the models until more predictive ones come around. That's one level. The next level is whether our sensory information is corroborated by some state of affairs out there in reality. The model of evolution predicts certain sensory information under certain circumstances, and when we go to verify it, those very data appear under just the circumstances we expect; but whether the sense data themselves are complete representations of objects out there in reality is another story.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Only 'walking into fires' and 'off cliffs' are representations themselves. Who knows what there is in reality that's represented as fires and cliffs. Still, I guess I would agree it feels good not to seem to be walking into fires and off cliffs.
EB

No, those aren't representations. Those are things which physically exist in the external world. Our perceptions of them are representations, but the things themselves are real.

It's the ability of our perceptions to be able to have these accurate representations which allows us to not die on a regular as opposed to die quite quickly.

But how could you possibly know these are real things if "our perceptions only give us a representation of reality"?

All you can do is hope our representations are good enough for whatever purpose they might be there for.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You've only shown there is more than one perspective, not that there is more than one reality.

And for practical purposes the thread ended on post #3.

There are as many subjective models of reality as there are sentient beings, but there is only one reality that these models are contingent on.

That's definitely what I tend to believe myself but to tell the truth I don't actually know that.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Evolution causes more or less accurate ideas of evolution to exist, depending on whether or not the ideas are favored by the environment or not.

Apparently the environment sometimes favors observation of the environment, observation which leads to ideas like "evolution" and "if you keep flies from laying eggs on meat, then meat won't develop maggots".

Sure, if reality includes something like evolution then, yes, we should expect our ideas to tend overall to be useful but the point is we don't actually know that reality includes something like evolution, we only believe it. And, the fact that we believe it, could be explained by all sorts of theories, not just by assuming the truth of the theory that reality includes something like evolution.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, I tend to disbelieve in multiple universes; however, if there are, then consider the difference between "all possible universes" and "all universes." All universes would contain not just all possible universes but also all impossible universes. All possible universes could (and I think, would) be a finite number, whereas all universes would be infinitely infinite, (cf Cantor). So, if we were able to, would our perspective allow us to switch (so to speak) between a possible universe and an impossible one? And would that reveal any illusion?

I take it that by saying "All universes would contain not just all possible universes but also all impossible universes" you mean "contain" is the abstract, mathematical sense of being the member of a set or some such.

I mean, you couldn't cogently mean that impossible universes would really exist as part of some physical super-container you'd call "all universes"?!
EB

 

[The Helmetmaker]

Sets, yes.

 

[The Helmetmaker]

Well, I tend to disbelieve in multiple universes; however, if there are, then consider the difference between "all possible universes" and "all universes." All universes would contain not just all possible universes but also all impossible universes. All possible universes could (and I think, would) be a finite number, whereas all universes would be infinitely infinite, (cf Cantor). So, if we were able to, would our perspective allow us to switch (so to speak) between a possible universe and an impossible one? And would that reveal any illusion?

I take it that by saying "All universes would contain not just all possible universes but also all impossible universes" you mean "contain" is the abstract, mathematical sense of being the member of a set or some such.

I mean, you couldn't cogently mean that impossible universes would really exist as part of some physical super-container you'd call "all universes"?!
EB

Impossible universes would be mathematical constructs as much as possible universes are, just with contradictions that invalidate their actual existence, even though we could put the math on paper, like eleven dimensions or optical illusions.

 

[Kharakov]

Evolution causes more or less accurate ideas of evolution to exist, depending on whether or not the ideas are favored by the environment or not.

Apparently the environment sometimes favors observation of the environment, observation which leads to ideas like "evolution" and "if you keep flies from laying eggs on meat, then meat won't develop maggots".

Sure, if reality includes something like evolution then, yes, we should expect our ideas to tend overall to be useful but the point is we don't actually know that reality includes something like evolution, we only believe it. And, the fact that we believe it, could be explained by all sorts of theories, not just by assuming the truth of the theory that reality includes something like evolution.
EB

Except we see it all around us all the time. The current "human dominated" environment favors various species that we like... on our farms. Doesn't mean it isn't evolution, even if there is a powerful being or set of beings that has specific preferences that shape the environment- the being's preferences would guide natural selection.

 

[DBT]

All things real must necessarily fall into the category of 'one reality' purely on basis of existing as opposed to non existing.

 

[PyramidHead]

All things real must necessarily fall into the category of 'one reality' purely on basis of existing as opposed to non existing.

You'd think so, but I've met theists who refuse to even acknowledge the concept of a singular reality, even as a topic of discussion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All things real must necessarily fall into the category of 'one reality' purely on basis of existing as opposed to non existing.

You'd think so, but I've met theists who refuse to even acknowledge the concept of a singular reality, even as a topic of discussion.

I agree that as ordinarily used, the notion of reality is obviously singular. Yet, people may want to redefine the concepts they use to suit their descriptive or representational needs.

I can sympathise in this instance with a plural concept of realities. For example, whenever these alternative realities are though of as not interacting with each other at all. You'd say, if so we can ignore all the other "realities" to leave only ours to consider and get back to a singular concept. Yes, but people may have their own reasons. Just as an example, some people will want to give a moral value to the assumption that there are alrernative realities even if we couldn't interact with them at all ever. "Moral value" may well reduce to the position that alternative realities have to exist just because we don't know of any good reason to believe they don't or couldn't.

In other word, the actual reality of that may look more like an abstract concept of what there is, rather than the sort of interconnected whole in terms of which we probably usually think the concept of reality.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

We can imagine tons of disconnected, never interacting spacetimes. However, generally, I think people would be satisfied with talking about the spacetime we can interact with as if it is the only one that directly impacts us.

What would be interesting is a node based system of interacting smooth spacetimes, that can only interact with spacetimes positioned directly adjacent to themselves (on the graph). We might end up with whole sections of reality being cut off from certain spacetimes, as certain spacetimes become non-existent, or lose the ability to jump nodes in certain directions, cutting off other spacetimes from certain sections permanently.

Whatever though. Just woo until we find a way to jump nodes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We can imagine tons of disconnected, never interacting spacetimes. However, generally, I think people would be satisfied with talking about the spacetime we can interact with as if it is the only one that directly impacts us.

O-key. I won't talk about that ever again. Promise.

What would be interesting is a node based system of interacting smooth spacetimes, that can only interact with spacetimes positioned directly adjacent to themselves (on the graph).

That's very interesting indeed!

We might end up with whole sections of reality being cut off from certain spacetimes, as certain spacetimes become non-existent, or lose the ability to jump nodes in certain directions, cutting off other spacetimes from certain sections permanently.

And so now what we have are tons of disconnected, never interacting space-times.

And there I was thinking that people would be satisfied talking about the space-times that directly impacted us.

Whatever though. Just woo until we find a way to jump nodes.

Ah, just "woo"... Sure.

Still, it seems we can have this moral ambivalence that, maybe, just maybe, we might find a way to connect to those never interacting space-times.

I will assume that we're not interested talking about that. And we can always read banned Sci-Fi books to stay current in all those non-interesting subjects to avoid when family is visiting.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

First there was a dome, then an aether, then empty space, then not quite empty space, then expanding matter creating space, then quantum space, Wha?

I'm still looking for the photon bender that allowed the photon around the sun.