SkyBoat wrote:@Lydiot,
It's very late to launch into a comprehensive examination of what KL-666 has been arguing for. But what I can say briefly is that his construct for what forms both the basis of truth and reality are based on a quite different set of epistomological assumptions than is usually held by the man on the the street. In his frame of reference truth is never an absolute, rather like dividing a number by an ever increasing fraction of 1.0. You get closer and closer to the number but never actually arrive at the full number itself. Reality, on the other hand, for Vincent, is always a moving target limited both by the senses, which by definition are insufficiently reliable to be trusted to give one a clear picture of what is being measured, divided by the Uncertainty Principle, which dictates you can measure the speed or direction of an object but not both at the same time (if I remember right this late at night), the result of which is a reality that, for lack of a better term I call a "floating point."
See, that's actually not entirely what I'm getting from
the use of terminology by him and others, when discussing the "realness of reality". What you describe above seems to me to be a 'benefit-of-the-doubt' analysis of what was said, based on your understanding of the world. As such I don't disagree. Of course there are limits to our perception, to our intellect and to the tools we use. Scientists frequently point out that theirs is an exercise in figuring out probabilities of events.
Now, the difference is seen in the third sentence above starting with "In his frame of reference truth is never an absolute", and then juxtaposed to what follows "rather like dividing a number by an ever increasing fraction of 1.0. You get closer and closer to the number but never actually arrive at the full number itself.", and made more clear in the next sentence "Reality" "is always a moving target limited both by the senses"
If you look at those two sets you should see a difference that almost passes by unnoticed, but has huge implications. The latter statements indicate, to me, that which scientists have been saying for years and years, that there is at any given point in time a limitation on our ability to correctly perceive and describe reality, and thus on knowing the absolute truth. BUT, the former actually says something completely different; namely that it is the truth itself that is never an absolute. Those are two extremely different points being made.
If we place the two on a scale we end up with some bizarre conclusions in some cases. In the extreme science will tell us that a lot of things (anything?) are possible, but not necessarily likely. On the other hand the postulating that there never is an absolute truth allows for saying that a tree is never really a tree, because we just don't know the truth about that statement, and we never can. It is the extrapolation of the principle that we can never know the "realness of reality" that puts us (them) in that position. There's a huge difference between postulating that we can never know the truth about whether or not there is a tree and whether or not there actually is a tree.
So then for all practical purposes one absolutely has to disconnect that view of it all from science, simply because the two appear to be at odds with each other, from a practical standpoint. After all, what use is it to always voice the caveat that "we don't and never will be able to know" in science? It can be used against any theory, and be equally "valid" in all cases. But it doesn't bring us forward in science, not one bit. So best then to disconnect it from science and claim that the discussion applies to a different realm. But there's a problem with that...
What do we really know about 'us'? We know we have five senses. We know we have consciousness. The two tells us there's a world outside of our consciousness, that which we presumably call "reality". Now if you subtract "reality" from that, what are you left with in terms of attaining knowledge? You're left with nothing. And what are you left with in terms of an ability to affect anything other than those two (sensation / consciousness)? You're left with nothing. So in other words, to borrow from a parallel discussion in another forum, if you compare a "brain in a vat" to a real human, and if you postulate that our reality isn't real, and we're just brains in a vat, so what? We, as brains in a vat, with no surrounding reality, cannot change that which does not exist (reality outside the vat), and thus our exercise is of no use. At that point one should even question whether or not the brain in the vat is real... after all, a brain in a vat is
a reality; distinctly different from that which the brain in the vat perceives, but
a reality no less, and as such reality still exists, and it is still the problem is still only with our perception....
Even if you came up with a brilliant argument for why the "realness of reality" is zero, it actually doesn't prove anything, because not without irony you are part of that non-existing reality
from my perspective, meaning any and all things said that disproves reality has to be taken with more than a grain of salt. It's actually not unlike the good'ol "The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false". You aren't me, you are outside of me, you tell me that which is outside of me isn't real. You aren't real. What you said isn't real. Therefore the outside might exist. In which case you might exist after all, and might be right after all....
SkyBoat wrote:p.s. Dunning-Kruger? Low-blow. Out-of-bounds. Does nothing to contribute to the conversation. Bad form, IMHO.
Bad form? This is his
interjection into the conversation I had with others:
" you are in for a quick win by distorting the discussion. "
"let me inform you, you are not smart."
" Really sickening this. "
" making yourself look silly."
What about that, and this is a serious question, "contributes to the conversation"? I see nothing above that does. The question that might occur to some is why you'd choose to get down on my comment after having actually responded to his objection - in detail - when he himself resorted to only the above?
The fundamental problem with some groups is that it is allowed to not answer what people say directly, but rather just make new statements. Requesting an answer to what was actually asked is called "tit-for-tat" or "nit-picking" etc. But if we wanted to just voice our opinions we should use blogs, not a forum format.
So again - follow the discussion:
1. We posted videos.
2. He diminished them.
3. I asked at what point the reality depicted in them ceases to be practically true.
4. He answered talking about the "realness of reality".
5. THEN he complains that I am trying to connect that with science, when science is what gave us those videos in the first place.
I think the other question apart from the semi-rhetorical one above is: What difference does it make? I asked a serious question, got the "real reality" answer, and then an angry post denying the two were connected. What do you propose at that point?
