There are rumors going round. I hear whispers of such things as a Big Bang beginning to our universe and a Cambrian explotion of complex life. I hear about something very mysterious…String Theory and Quantum Physics…and necessary multiple dimensions for explaining the ‘how’ of the material universe.
Rumors of Einstein’s insight into the univserse has reached my ears.
If these rumors can be confirmed, then…what? What are the implications of such things being true?
I have also heard rumors of God calling Abraham and making a covenant with him…and of a man named Jesus taking Peter and the gang fishing, way back when…
Rumors that are incredible, are difficult to believe. When confronted with a rumor a person has three options to consider: is the rumor true? is it false? is it embellished, being part true and part false?
A person does not search for the truth in these rumors just for the knowledge…they search for the truth because they are interested in how the consequeces and implications of this truth may impact them, personally.
I think it’s about the most interesting question anyone can ask. Quid est veritas? Can we know truth, and if so, what kind of truth can we know?
The answer seems to be that we can know only that which is most probably true about the world but not that which is absolutely true.
So how do we know what is most probably true? We know by our experience in the world. And obviously I don’t just mean our individual experience. If that were the case then our “knowledge” of the world would be severely limited bordering on the useless.
So by “our experience in the world,” I refer to the collective experience of our species.
And the collective experience of the human race is, ultimately, a virtual reality simulation of (some type of) reality that may not necessarily be a facsimile of the “external world”. We simply possess brains that yield “this” particular type of virtual reality.
P.S. Katejohnson, don’t be discouraged. Keep posting. You’re asking the right questions; never mind certain intolerant individuals who are too quick to write off the statements of anyone who doesn’t start off sounding like David Hume himself as: “mundane babble”. As they say, “there’s one in every bunch”.
I think that from here on out I will just post all my stuff in mundane babble…I think Socrates would have done the same, come to think about it! I will just follow in his foot steps. It’s all mundane babble…right?
And you know this how, Jay? Do you have any reason beyond mere possibility to believe that this is true?
To know what you’ve proposed, rather than to just throw it out there as trivial possibility, one would have to know that some other “reality,” beyond the reality that we believe to be reality, exists.
What you say is much like someone’s saying “Everything is a dream.”
Well, OK then, everything is a dream – so what? If it is the case that everything is a dream, then it is this dream that we refer to as “reality.”
By the same token, what you call a “virtual reality simulation” is what many of us call “reality.”
Now, if there is any sort of discernible difference in what you call “virtual reality simulation” and in what many of us call “reality” then you will be on to something. Otherwise, for no apparent reason, you are simply adding two extra words to describe the very same phenomenon that some of us describe with only one word.
If I were a two dimensional creature who had stumbled onto the mathematics of a three dimensional world, would this suggestion of a reality outside of my own two dimensional reality be substantial enough for speculating upon?
Mathematics suggests ‘more than presently meets the eye.’ Is this not substantial enough to take into account as I pursue the true and full nature of ‘reality?’
The only way to judge the validity or reliability of a source is no different than judging the dependability and loyalty and intelligence of a friend.
The source must be judged, first.
Does it make sense, in relation to personal experiences with reality?
Does the source exhibit reliability from its past performances and opinions?
Can the source’s insights be used to predict future occurrences?
Of course it would be “substantial” enough to “speculate” on because literally anything can be grounds for speculation; but it would not be substantial enough to support a belief that reality is really three-dimensional on a level discernible by two-dimensional humans.
No, actually it’s not, because mathematics has little to do with the world. I agree with Einstein: “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
Einstein also believed reality to consist in a static, eternal universe which had no beginning. When the math that he discovered seemed to falsify this belief, he was more prone to reject the math than to reject his own beliefs.
Therefore, I tend to disagree with Einstein on this matter.
Mathematics is like logic in the respect that its results are true or false based on the axioms and rules one chooses to begin with regardless of the correspondence those axioms have to reality. The axioms are independent of reality.
For example, the argument “All green men are Martian; George Bush is a green man; Therefore, George Bush is a Martian” is a perfectly valid argument although the conclusion of the argument is false.
Neither mathematics nor logic contribute anything to our knowledge about the world but both are indispensable in determining whether our beliefs about the world are valid and in our ability to express those beliefs.
Excellent post! I see mathematics as a sort of rumorous language which seems to whisper suggestions of things into my ears…whether to believe those rumors or not is another question entirely.