The point is, it is true and Science is existing with the production of useful theories.
Science dictates what is true of the physical within its own specific Framework and System.
So what is reality is always conditioned upon some specific Framework and System. Humans will never be able to figure out what reality really is-by-itself. Whatever is reality is-by-ourselves always.
Btw, Kant is not from the East and there are many Greeks who held similar views.
To facilitate survival It is necessary to have certainty and constancy in reality but one must be aware of its limitations, i.e. there is no such thing as absolute permanence and absolute constant in things.
Whilst the concepts of certainty, permanence and constant has survival values, they are only effective to certain levels and perspective of survival. When habituated via instincts, they can be a liability at different levels of survival, especially in the perspective of progress and the higher levels of the well beings of humans.
This is why those who reflect deeply understand the truth beyond the said instincts and are aware there is no such permanence and absolute permanence in such things like a permanent soul that survive physical death or an absolute being called God.
In clinging to a permanent soul, one will definitely bring on personal sufferings and believing in a God may bring forth terrible evils and violence to humanity. That is why the Middle-Way is critical.
Which in itself has nothing at all to do with what actually IS true or not. The fact that a normal small child cannot be certain of whether a full grown lion can really kill him, doesn’t make it actually a relative possibility and question. The lion has the potential, regardless of what the child believes.
You, as a similar child, have asserted that “no one can …”. But is that actually true? From your personal perspective, it appears to be true. But as the child and the lion, is it really true? … no.
I agree it is always safer to assume ALL lions are potential killers.
But assumptions are not truths.
In any case your example, a bad one, is a straw man.
I asserted “no one can be certain what reality really is by-itself” which refer to this subject:
Note: I deleted the false and irrelevant [that exists] [“the noumenal world may exist”]
You assert that it is true. It’s easy to find examples that contradict that assertion.
You moved the goalposts. Your statement was that “reality is always changing subject to the beholder”. Now you making a claim about the definition of truth within science.
It’s a good thing that those views did not come to dominate European thinking.
You don’t have to step into the same river to make universal statements about the behavior of water. Deriving knowledge which is independent of a specific time and place, is what makes it useful and powerful.
I don’t know why you bring this up … neither James not I were taking about soul or God. The permanence is within the structure of the universe.
I agree that there is never 100% certainty but for me that’s in itself not terrible. And some maps are practically not going to fail you in your lifetime, at least not judging from past experiences. Like how gravity will affect things and so on. And there are many others which are not perfect but offer great advantages, like knowing about the potential danger of the mentioned lions in the wild.
I agree that the map is not the territory but where are you going with this?
Seems to me like you are thinking about finding the ‘true’ reality in some other way, through the subject, through the observer.
So I take it you want to find a way to make the map the territory?
What does that mean? How could I imagine the consequences of this achievement?
Would it be like, whenever I think about something in reality, it would only be possible to see how it really is. I could not deceive myself about reality?
Or would it be like, whatever I think about what reality is, reality is. ?
From Quantum Physics, Sciences has establish no one can be 100% certain what reality is. Despite Einstein stating such scientific theory is ‘spooky’ Quantum Physics is still in existence [i.e. agreed with consensus by Physicists].
If you are questioning ‘useful theories’ I don’t deny scientific theories are a double-sided blades which can cut both ways.
The specific Framework and System is a “beholder” albeit a collective beholder. The specific Framework and System of artists, spirituality as a collective beholder, would not agree with Science.
You did not understand the main point here.
The main philosophical point here is ‘reality is always in flux’ and nothing is constant nor absolute.
The ‘permanence’ you and James are talking about are merely ‘foreplay’ or beating around the bush.
The ultimate reason why all these talks of permanence is leading to the instincts to yearn for a permanent soul that survive after death, a God or the Absolute related to this subject.
Instead of beating around the bush and not being aware why one is compelled to do so, I am leading to the way of understanding the root causes that exist within oneself. That should be the path of natural spirituality.
The map is not the territory but the map is definitely very useful, i.e. better than no maps. The greater the precision of the map the greater its representation of ‘ITS’ reality.
True absolute reality is an impossibility.
As mentioned above, the most we can do is to refine the precision of the map which require testing and verification with actual observations.
But the principle is regardless of how accurate the map is, the map is not reality as its reality is expected to be.
In a way ‘whatever I think about what reality is, reality is.’
But that is an individual’s subjective view.
In order to reinforce the truth of ‘whatever I think about what reality is, reality is’ there is a need to seek test, verification and justifications on consensus on a collective basis.
This is what Science is doing subject to the conditions of its Framework and System.
Whatever the scientific theory, it cannot be absolute but true relative and conditioned upon it Framework and System.
In this case, Scientific theories are maps to its Scientifically defined territory.
Thus Scientific theories/‘maps’ are not Scientifically-defined-territories.
From the above we have thus;
Mathematic theories/‘maps’ are not Mathematically-defined-territories.
Philosophical theories/‘maps’ are not Philosophical-defined-territories.
Note we have a wide range of philosophical theories.
Theological theories/‘maps’ are not Theological-defined-territories.
So my point above,
“no one can be certain what reality really is by itself”
One can only be certain what reality is by its maps and own-defined-territories.
Meaning no one [system] can claim mine is the ultimate Absolute Truth.
This is often claimed by believers of a religion, i.e. this is The Truth because my God said so in this Book revealed by God.
This is also the claimed by many posters here who claim what they present is the absolute truth, i.e. there is an existing absolute constant, as if they are a God.
^ Like for example, in a very simplified way to describe it:
To have a collective vote on reality, on what reality is, and then to convince those who see it in a different way through social techniques.
Note Science is doing that where their views of reality can be verified, tested and repeated within the Scientific Framework and System by any one who want to do it. Science is not claiming their truths are absolute but merely conditioned and qualified to its Framework and System [i.e. Scientific Method, peer review, assumptions, rules, etc.].
In contrast, the Abrahamic religions are convincing their reality is the right based on fears and threat of perdition. This really works and thus many Abrahamic believers denounced the theory of evolution and cling on to creationism.
Various groups are battling within the existing battlefields of ideologies, where one is trying to convince others their views of reality are the correct ones while those of others are wrong.
I believe the wise stance is to accept whatever net-positive so-claimed truths but as conditioned upon their respective ‘maps’ and ‘defined territories’. No truths should be claimed as absolute or as the only unconditional truth.
Religion, because it speaks of human value and meaning in this universe, differs from science in that religious claims are seen as certainties. For the purpose of instilling in its adherents a sense of purposeful stability, religion cannot admit that it’s claims are falsifiable.
I come to the conclusion that absolute certainty is very important for you, Prismatic567.
As for the rest, I’m just thinking about 2+2=5, if we all say so.
And it will be said by everybody because that’s how ‘we’ shall define the ‘we’.
Easy.
You asserted something but you have not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why we should believe it : “reality is always changing subject to the beholder”
The predictions of Quantum Physics are more accurate than those of other areas of physics. How is that possible if QP does not correspond to reality?
They have different concerns. A musician wants to play the flute well. A scientist wants to know how the flute produces sound.
You don’t appreciate that flowing water contains permanent and impermanent elements. You focus entirely on the flux of the flow.
You’re afraid that if you admit that there are permanent objects and forces, then you will be required to accept the permanence of soul and/or God. Therefore, you deny all permanence and all absolutes.
But if you look at the New Testament, Jesus says several things about the afterlife and some of them are contradictory. It’s not at all clear or certain what happens in the afterlife.
(Which is one reason why there are so many Christian sects.)
And everything that I say is true within my own framework and system. Is there anyone who cannot say that?
It is a meaningless assertion merely giving the opportunity to throw in the word “Scientific”…
The EXACT same thing happens within science. You merely don’t get to hear it.
I don’t believe you know what you just said.
So you think that a map has its own reality??
How many realities do you image there to be? How many can be real at the same time?
Then how can you ever say that any proposed reality is false?
And try to realize that every time you say “impossible”, you are saying, “absolutely not possible”.
That certainly explains why you think that you are always right.
How can anyone ever be wrong if reality itself is merely whatever they think it is? The only thing that Science can ever do is prove that a proposal is necessarily wrong. But if whatever someone thinks is necessarily true merely because they think it, what point is there in having Science?
It seems that all of those Muslims and Christians are necessarily right because reality depends merely on whatever their mind thinks. Or does that principle only apply to you?