I apologize from many imprecisions that you will find both in the grammatic and in the ideas.

Close your eyes and then reopen them. So: how does the universe, the experience, emerge?

Then, we can try to answer it from different branches of science: social sciences, biology, chemistry and physics.

I will expose very shortly some of those views.

From social sciences: psychology, philosophy.

There has been an emphasis on the mind as something separated from the world. On this respect, we construct knowledge with our minds about some external world which is independent from us -although some rare thinkers might argue with this. So we humans create models of reality, and those are shown -I don't have any example right now- as contingencies, constructs rather than laws we find on that universe. Then on educational constructivism the emphasis is made on the construction of the models. They base their ideas not in physics, chemistry but in history of human societies and behaviour of individuals.

The 'problem' here is that, if there is no truth -no 'real' model- then any culture with different worldviews would be right. And that's strange: can somebody believe that a river is produced by the tears of a queen? Is it an explanatory statement acceptable if doesn't follow a causal relation?

From biology and chemistry

Two chilean scientifics wrote a book called The Tree of Knowledge, where they explain all phenomenaes related to knowledge, mind, communication, etc. from a deterministic point of view, based on the physical laws that we assume acting on reality (everything is determined from its structure, so do we). This does follow a causal relation. What they show is how those ideas from physics can explain living beings, natural selection, and so on.

The investigations made by these people are similar to constructivists' but the chileans' theory is much more complete: it explains human behaviour from ideas regarding physics and chemistry. Importantly, those scientifics are ciberneticians, so their explanations are not exactly what we may call reductionists.

The big question here is: Being that our body structure participates in the making of the world, then, what is the world? Are we left with a relativism?


The ideas exposed by physicists are quite diverse. We all know the classical physicist point of view, then it comes the quantum mechanical (QM) point of view, but it is not so important in regarding to our reality, cause QM reduces to classical mechanics in large bodies.

The problem is that classical mechanics postulates, or supposes, an objective reality i.e a reality independent from the observer and saying independent I mean that we do not take into account our inner structure. Biologists show that we need to.


Which is the actual idea philosophers have about how reality emerge?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Conifold, Eliran, Frank Hubeny, christo183, virmaior Jan 9 at 3:02

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.