Physics investigates observable phenomena. It has nothing to say on whether it is true as that pertains
to ontology and ontology is philosophical not scientific. Now it is true that the term reality or physical
reality is used to refer to observable phenomena but that is simply a placeholder for what it describes
Is 1+1=2 an Absolute Truth, and why?
By ‘absolute’ can be meant the sense of absolutely real, besides the catalogue of all that is, or was,and ever could be. Absolute reality consisting of the thing behind the thing. The hall of mirrors phenomena, not only smaller and smaller reducible perceptions are
where, smaller images reduce toward an infinitely small vanished images, but toward the mathematical notion of absolutely identical images. Here, the
conceptual guarantee of the being of the vanished
image becomes itself, the guarantee of its own identity, which cannot be seen. It becomes an overwhelming probability. God exists similarly in this
conceptual certainty , as in the fusing of the
illusive routes between phenomenally reductive logical systems and formally assimilated logic. The former, after X number of repetitions, become certain, vis, that every image which reduces, after a
number of reps, keeps reducing, establishing the imperceptible unlimit=the concept=infinity. Math becomes, then, a formally adopted logical mode of
apprehending reality. There never is a limit, since the
limit can only be apprehended within illusive perceptual fields. It is incredibly difficult to visualize such an unlimit, because, all common sense
phenomenal fields have pre set boundaries on a
limited assimilation of prior fields. It has been built up on common sense, such as, the idea that the earth is flat.
The circularity, has evolved into the calculus of non distinctionon, phenomenologically non appearent.
At this stage of appearance, where the unlimit is again re-set as the limit, is, where illusion becomes
the limiting conceptual device, to set aside further
potential regress. The illusion is the real above the
regress into infinity, infinity becoming infinitisemally probable, into absolute certainty. However absolute certainty never reaches absolute identity, it can’t,
because Infinity-1 numerically cannot ever reach
absolute zero. The quantitative sign 1 it’s self approaches a phenomenally signified spatial,infinitely small absolute, but it can never reach a non spatial
extension. it can’t disappear.
Appearance is illusive, therefore, but so is non appearance real, absolutely. Illusion and reality, are
merely conceptual entities/devices, upon which hang
being and nothingness, absolute certainty and relative contingency.
This is a Zen idea, of attachment and dis attachment. Trixie put it well, by describing it in terms of the phenomenologically verified focus.
Art realizes this by optical mechanics of focusing on either the object of re-presentation, or, the background within which such representation takes
Precedence. Focus on one diminishes the effect of the
other. Attachment becomes not an internal dynamic of one on the other, but a shift of one to the other.
We can be ‘attached’ in one system while totally dis attached in another. They are not contradictory systems, but, simulations of each on each, creating
the effects.
The idea of the two spheres in Leibnitz, is represented in this way of conceiving this
relationship.
Hence, ‘God’ is illusive within in It’s own absolute identity, as much as our ideas of him are real.
I don’t think you can say, if there is no ultimate reality, then draw a conclusion. To draw any conclusion after one has stated that would be strange. Even the term illusory is meaningless if there is not ultimate reality, since the idea has a dichomomy between real and illusory, includes the existence of experiencers,who would presumably be real and so on. I think one can question if there is one, but one cannot use it as part of some kind of deduction.
Though once you put Zen ideas into language like this you are just adding to the mess Zen is trying to eliminate. It may not be a mess, but I don’t think it makes sense to use deduction, analyze in these abstract ways if one is putting forward Zenish ideas.
In my experience physics is physicalist and physicists in the main are physicalists. You can really do science without an ontology. The models have ontological aspects. They may be considered, as least in the ideal. as tentative, but they are generally assumed and used.
Even the phrase observable phenomena has all sorts of ontology in it. Observers, observations, and the whole experimental methodology that has implicit ideas about reality, perception and observers.
It would be great if scientists really did think of those terms as placeholders, but then, physical reality and any use of any word with physic at root is problematic given the incredible ontological baggage involved in the term. You can see this by comparing what things that once were considered the set of the physical were like and what the term now includes. There could be other more neutral terms. like any term would implicitly have some baggage, but better ones could be found. Verifiablism, for example. IOW build it out of the process and not the qualities of the ‘observed.’ Not perfect, but better. And veyr strange that physicalism is held to. As far as I can tell it is not considered a placeholder by most scientists, even most physicists. But if this is true they should have a contest to come up with a better set of terms.
Hasn’t that been proved before…With the evil genius story? Ultimate reality is the totality that Wu will ever experience.
One plus one equals two is an absolute truth as it is an equation and so is deductively
true for everything on the right hand side is equal to everything on the left hand side
Deductive truth is something that is definitely true where as inductive truth is something
that is probably true and so then all deductive statements are examples of absolute truth
Mathematics is an axiomatically deductive system of logic while science is an inductive discipline so this
is why mathematics is a superior discipline to science. Mathematics is also entirely abstract and so it does
not require human observation to validate it. Human observation is a necessary component of the scientific
method but it is fallible whereas deductive logic is not and so that is why mathematics is superior to science
This is why I think mathematics was discovered not invented. The symbols may be human constructs but the discipline
itself is so perfect it could not possibly be of human origin. Debate has raged for millennia as to whether mathematics
was discovered or invented even though it cannot be proven or disproven either way and probably never will be either
And there is a book on my reading list called Is God A Mathematician which wonders why it is such a perfect discipline
Moreno: why does illusion mean nothing apart from not being an ultimate reality? Why can not be consensual realities and nominal ones? Some realities are illusive to some people, while quite real to others.
It would be illusive to an escapist to declare one day, coming home from a job he hates, to declare to his wife and kids, that 'this life-style is no longer livable, so let’s all move to Swahili, live the natural life in. Nuts, live on 5 dollars a day, learn the language, mingle with natives, " etc.
His neighbor would accuse him of living in an illusive world, an escapist, a non-realist. But, what if he was from Swahili in the first place, and then his ‘illusion’ would make more sense. The point is, there is a variable grey area between illusion and reality, depending. There is no need of an absolute, unless by the precept of perfectionists and purists.
It implies there is one. I am not sure what the term would mean without it. Some kind of phenomenalism might not imply it, but once you use the word illusion you have accepted a binary set up with the non-illusory.
Even this formulation includes the idea of ultimate reality, but it has it as something that has complicaed facets and complicated experiencers. You are arguing from a base ‘this is the way the world is’. It has a kind of nuance not found in simple realisms, sure, but it is still a kind of realism, or?
This is silly. Mathematics is a language used to describe the world. It is an encoding. English is an encoding.
I can describe something best with pictures and movies (the closest to ultimate reality.) Truth is us, whatever we directly experience, so movies are the closest to replicating that experience.
Next we use words, because movies take more energy and data than words, words help us understand things and clone them in our minds. Words are a holistic form of communication.
Math is a code for machines, it is poor at representing Truth, poor for the imagination, but it is good for manifesting copies of things into external reality, like for example, math is good for building computer simulations or machines.
Math is like a very lossy compression, but unlike JPEG it is stable and does not degrade after each resave. Words are like medium lossy compression, but like JPEG degrade like the Telephone game after each retranslation. Movies are hardest to make, but the lowest compression and most accurate at communicating ultimate reality and concepts.
Asking who made math is like asking who invented poop. People made symbols for math, and its just a natural compression technique for encoding information, someone was bound to make it up sooner, if not a human, a robot would have made up the encoding techniques. It’s like asking who invented the eyeball, it would have evolved on its own soon enough.