> John Carpenter's Dark Star - 1974 from phenomenology to cartesian skepticism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73PsFKtIck
bonus relevance for AI hubbub
reality: “the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.”
That definition allows him to make the argument that he makes; as the definition separates our ideas from the thing that reality is.
It’s a definition with problems…
You'll perceive your hand in two different places - when it obviously isn't, because what you're perceiving is not reality, but the hack that allowed your ancestors to survive it.
Unless the reality has very particular properties (some kind of regularity / redundancy), every model of it is a simplification, so it has discrepancies. Even if the reality is regular and compressible perfectly into a model, it's rather hard to come up with such a model, and to prove it's the right one.
This is a very simple and even tautological conclusion, that a lot of smart people I know seem to have a hard time accepting. I think that this is because people assume that science assumes materialism, which it doesn't, of course. Science requires no metaphysical commitment.
https://iep.utm.edu/met-scie/ or
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/48844/axioms-...
You can’t really do science without having certain metaphysical beliefs about the uniform nature of causality across time and space, for example.
Nothing can exist without causality as we know it, i.e. a thing happens which is the cause of another thing that happens.
That does not mean the order of events is as perceived, or that there is even an order of events. The order of events is the way observers perceive the events, and is independent of the cause and effect.
For example, everything that happens in the universe may already have happened, at the instance the universe was born. But we, as members of the universe, perceive it as happening one thing at a time, like watching a movie already created.
David Hume spoke a lot about this: https://iep.utm.edu/hume-causation/
Not only is this not true of all conceivable worlds, it's not even true for the most commonly accepted explanation of physics. In the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the value that will be observed in an experiment has no cause - it is random in some range. For example, if we detect an electron passing through the left slit of a double slit apparatus, there is no cause for why it passed through the left slit and not the right one (in the CI of QM).
Of course, this is ultimately a model and can be wrong. But my point is that we can definitely conceive of models of the world in which causality is not a strict requirement - and not just fantasy ones, but very concrete models with workable predictions.
You can do science without holding any beliefs just like birds can fly without a theory of aviation. Metaphysics just provide interpretations of scientific results beyond what's observable.
In fact outside of physics we don't really posit uniformity in any science, because what you study changes all the time anyway, in fact the scientific method itself changes. Science itself is a dynamic, evolving process. Certainly looking back 500 years science was pretty different, and it probably will be in another 500.
In which case your metaphysical assumptions will simply be implicit rather than explicit. For example, in doing science, you'll be "explaining" things, which assumes a certain position of the nature of explanation and causality. You'll be choosing a theory out of a number of competing ones, a choice which will rely on some assumptions (e.g. simpler is better?). You'll be trying to uncover "laws of nature", which would assume their existence in the first place, etc.
Are our perceptions and experiences of reality not also a part of reality? If not, then what are they a part of?
> This is a very simple and even tautological conclusion...
This itself is an experience of reality, an objectively incorrect one if you ask me.
> I think that this is because people assume that science assumes materialism, which it doesn't, of course.
Science, having no volition, does not assume anything. Scientists on the other hand, whom I've spoken to hundreds of, very often do assume materialism. I personally believe that humans are unable to not assume most things, and as evidence I would present the content of all internet forums.
The simple answer is NO, because there is no "compatible ear" that interprets those "sound"-waves, as sound.
The reality is, it always creates waves but not sound.
“Do you think that 'sound' should be defined to require both acoustic vibrations (pressure waves in air) and also auditory experiences (someone to listen to the sound), or should 'sound' be defined as meaning only acoustic vibrations, or only auditory experience?”
From: Disputing Definitions — https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...
No it's not because now you just define what sound is for humans. Pressure waves in the right frequency is interpreted as sound for humans. Same with colors, for most humans red is red.
Frequencies are the reality, but sound/color is just a interpretation.
Have you ever had an argument with a bee if that flower is red? Or a blue-wale how Mozart sounds for him? Are waves on a body of water an abstraction?
But your obviously a troll so i stop here.
So, yes, waves are an abstraction, how can you not see it? When you look at the sea you don't see waves, you see colors moving around and then when you try to describe what you see, you define the concept of "waves" and come to the conclusion that these are waves you are looking at. But that happens entirely inside your mind. Waves is a concept like frequency.
>>Red light has relatively long waves, around 700 nm long
Those 700 nm or ~428274 gigahertz is the frequency of red (as a human eye normally sees color) light waves.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/visible-ligh...
>>Frequency is a measure of how often a given event repeats itself. In physics, it is commonly used to describe waves.
https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/frequency-...
>>Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency
You can scroll down and you will find "Light" and "Sound"
This is "our" visible spectrum, to the left increased frequency to the right increased wavelength:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency#/media/File:EM_spect...
>the concept of "waves" and come to the conclusion that these are waves you are looking at.
It's not a concept but:
>>a wave is a disturbance or variation which travels through a medium.
https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/waves-intro/waves-int...
And stop with you wannabe philosophical BS, it sounds just uneducated even borderline clownish.
You really don't know how science works do you? Bye roger, i am out.