Subjectivism Versus Objectivism.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Irrealism was initially motivated by the debate between phenomenalism and physicalism in epistemology.[2] Rather than viewing either as prior to the other, Goodman described them both as alternative “world-versions”, both useful in some circumstances, but neither capable of capturing the other in an entirely satisfactory way, a point he emphasizes with examples from psychology.[3] He goes on to extend this epistemic pluralism to all areas of knowledge, from equivalent formal systems in mathematics (sometimes it is useful to think of points as primitives, sometimes it is more useful to consider lines the primitive) to alternative schools of art (for some paintings thinking in terms of representational accuracy is the most useful way of considering them, for others it is not). However, in line with his consideration of phenomenalism and physicalism, Goodman goes beyond saying merely that these are “world-versions” of the world, instead he describes worlds as “made by making such versions”.[4]

Metaphysically, Goodman’s irrealism is distinct from anti-realism though the two concepts are frequently confused. “We are not speaking in terms of multiple possible alternatives to a single actual world but of multiple actual worlds.”[5] He makes no assertions regarding “the way the world is” and that there is no primary world version i.e. “no true version compatible with all true versions.” As Goodman says, “Not only motion, … but even reality is relative.”[6] It follows that Goodman accepts many forms of realism and anti-realism without being troubled by the resulting contradictions.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrealism_(philosophy

[Stephen_C_Pedersen]

substitive

The extremes between these polarities can be seen, in my “mind” by two areas, science’s crux and cognitive neuroscience, both in different ways. Let’s look at science’s crux as I think of it as. Take Newton’s absolute theory of gravitation. Is it “real”? Does it actually describe the world as it really is? Okay, a long came another theory by Einstein with his mathematical equations on general and special relativity. Are either of these two men have the absolute correct explanation of the gravity? I believe a skeptic viewpoint has to be put towards physics these days first. So let’s try this. Physics in Newtonian mathematics is absolute meaning that its based not on probablism, but hip and thigh match with mathematical precision the fabric of gravitational pull. Todays physics is probablism and a chasm exists between Einstein’s General and Relative theories. Does a theory that tries to explain everything really be based on probablism? I just want to pose that question.

The crux of science, I believe, is that it ultimately reduced things to physics, by and large, and physics is based on man made equations. So what are these equations all about? I believe these equations are mental substitutes. That is, we see the world more closely as it is, and we try to make order to it with these equations.

Therefore, the line between objective and subjective and be cut between closely here with mathematics trying to explain the outside world but failing to do so with accuracy because the world is a dapple one filled with irregularities.

In cognitive neuroscience we see the mind and brain can interact with each other. With antipsychotics, with poking the brain in certain areas by electrical shocks, which are getting more accurate as time goes on, by fmri’s watching the brain unfold as we watch as our stream of consciousness explodes. It’s awesome.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@Stephen C Pedersen

substitive

The extremes between these polarities can be seen, in my “mind” by two areas, science’s crux and cognitive neuroscience, both in different ways. Let’s look at science’s crux as I think of it as. Take Newton’s absolute theory of gravitation. Is it “real”? Does it actually describe the world as it really is? Okay, a long came another theory by Einstein with his mathematical equations on general and special relativity. Are either of these two men have the absolute correct explanation of the gravity? I believe a skeptic viewpoint has to be put towards physics these days first. So let’s try this. Physics in Newtonian mathematics is absolute meaning that its based not on probablism, but hip and thigh match with mathematical precision the fabric of gravitational pull. Todays physics is probablism and a chasm exists between Einstein’s General and Relative theories. Does a theory that tries to explain everything really be based on probablism? I just want to pose that question.

The crux of science, I believe, is that it ultimately reduced things to physics, by and large, and physics is based on man made equations. So what are these equations all about? I believe these equations are mental substitutes. That is, we see the world more closely as it is, and we try to make order to it with these equations.

Therefore, the line between objective and subjective and be cut between closely here with mathematics trying to explain the outside world but failing to do so with accuracy because the world is a dapple one filled with irregularities.

In cognitive neuroscience we see the mind and brain can interact with each other. With antipsychotics, with poking the brain in certain areas by electrical shocks, which are getting more accurate as time goes on, by fmri’s watching the brain unfold as we watch as our stream of consciousness explodes. It’s awesome.

I like it how you describe the dependency to use mathematics and equations to understand the universe as mental substitutes. Very nice.

Yes, indeed the world is filled with irregularities. The universe also for that matter.

The objectivist thinker I’ve noticed is an uniformic conformity type thinker who will not stop in trying categorize all of existence into a nice little bow and neat package. Unfortunately for objectivists the universe and planet doesn’t work this way.

This isn’t to say that objectivism isn’t useful in the physical sciences studying subjects like gravity for which it is.

It’s not like one can approach the subject of gravity purely out of subjectivism.