Timeline for I have seven steps to conclude a dualist reality. Which of these steps are considered controversial/wrong?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 6, 2023 at 17:59 | comment | added | Ryder Rude | Yes, the "objective reality" portions of my argument do require leaps of faith, as I have noted. I took those leaps to escape Solipsism. If you reject those leaps, then the argument only defines the union of the two aspects of your subjective reality as "all that exists". This is Solipsistic. But then again, Solipsism can't be escaped using logic alone. But if we take some leap and postulate some objective reality, then I would guess that both of these aspects would be projections of that reality. I think we're looking at something like neutral monism. I will try to think about this more | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 16:56 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @RyderRude "Your assumption that 'all that exists' is a mathematical reality is unjustified" - I thought that was what you were saying. "I'm defining 'all [we know] that exists' to be the 'union of these two'" - that's fine, but both are in the mind, which wouldn't be "2 fundamental aspects of reality", as mentioned in your question, and then you wouldn't have concluded a dualist reality (also, your question mentions a lot about "objective" reality and existence external to an individual, which would be misleading phrasing if referring merely to our understanding of our perception of reality). | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 13:09 | comment | added | Ryder Rude | ...The inference that this mathematical structure describes an objective world out there is based on some leaps of faith which also involve admitting that other people have perceptions too. But still I have no reason to assume that this mathematical structure is a subset of a larger mathematical reality. I'm sticking to what I know about what exists. We can of course further speculate that both these aspects of reality are projections of a unified substance like in monism, which is "all that exists" | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 13:01 | comment | added | Ryder Rude | I'm sorry. Any ambiguity was not intended from my end....Your assumption that "all that exists" is a mathematical reality is unjustified. We should stick to what we know. What we know is that : 1. We have subjective experiences 2. We have a mathematical structure that is born out of a information non-preserving map from qualia to language. I'm defining "all that exists" to be the "union of these two". I don't know if there's anything else that exists. Of course, this union could be a subset of "all that exists", but I have no reason of assuming that "all that exists" is mathematics..... | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 12:11 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @RyderRude It seems like you're equivocating. You have a "mathematical structure" on one side which is believed to be objective reality, and you have the mathematical structure that is our understanding of the universe on the other, with our perception in the middle, connecting the two. The structure of our understanding is a subset of our perception, and you seem to be saying that the structure of objective reality is a subset of our perception, which doesn't follow (if anything, I'd say our perception is a subset of reality). | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 10:03 | comment | added | Ryder Rude | What I have concluded are two aspects of reality. Of course, both of them combined encompass everything we know. But the mathematical aspect that we have inferred (or concluded using reasonable leaps) does not encompass everything we know about our existence. | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 9:49 | comment | added | Ryder Rude | Thanks for the criticism. 1 I didn't say that steps 4 and 5 were "logical reasoning". The leap is explicitly mentioned in step 4. 2 The mathematical structure of objective reality encompasses less than what we know to exist because the mathematical structures corresponding to qualia are a dilution from what we know about qualia, as I showed in step 3. This is why the universe's ontology cannot be purely mathematical. | |
| Apr 6, 2023 at 9:05 | history | answered | NotThatGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |