Would you go as far as saying reality is independent of the observer ? Relying not on sense data but as things are. The reason I mention this is because different creatures have different perceptions when it comes to vision, hearing, smell…

What is Real and what is not?

And how can you know that for real? — A Realist

In Science, what is Real & Physical & Actual is what is not Ideal or Imaginary or merely Potential. Yet in Philosophy, we don't concern ourselves with real things, but with imaginary ideas about things : i.e. hypotheses & theories & possibilities. Unfortunately, Quantum Science opened a worm-ridden can of rotten peaches, when it realized (pun) that the foundations of Reality are literally & physically Uncertain*1. That's what the Copenhagen interpretation asked sub-atomic scientists to believe, or else "just shut-up and calculate"*2.

That nonlocal-neither-here-nor-there state of affairs directly contradicted a basic principle of Classical Physics, which was based on eliminating ambiguity. Ironically, it's that inherent duality that makes Quantum Theory so interesting for open-minded philosophers, and so annoying for pragmatic scientists and cocksure materialists*3. Ironically, we can never know for sure what's-what on the squishy foundation of reality that we take for granted. That's a quantum fact jack! :smile:


*1. Uncertainty Principle :
The term “uncertainty principle” suggests some grand philosophical idea, like “you can never be sure of anything”, or “there are some things you can never be sure of” and sometimes people use it as if this is what is meant. . . . While the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) does not mean “there are some things you can never be sure of”, it does imply “you can never be sure of everything.”
https://theconversation.com/explainer-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle-7512
Note --- If you know one side of a quantum duality, you cannot know the other. Like a coin-flip, that knowledge is mutually exclusive.

*2. Quantum Ambiguity :
The uncertainty of position and momentum is another duality in the behavior of quantum particles, commonly known as entropy in quantum terms, which is known in design as the term ambiguity.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3527927.3535217
Note --- The Copenhagen compromise asked physicists to accept as a fundamental fact of reality, that the substance of the material world is both particular (quantized) and continuous (holistic). It's that inherent ambiguity of Nature that I call the BothAnd Principle. Pragmatic Chemists & Atom Smashers can ignore that "vagueness", But Theoretical Physicists and Philosophers must take the essential Uncertainty of Reality into account. The statistical status of entangled particles is Potential (many possibilities) instead of Actual.

*3. The Philosophy of 'Ambiguity' :
Ambiguity is tantamount to uncertainty and vagueness, making many interpretations plausible. This has been explored through various philosophical paintbrushes: logical, analytical, existentialist, postmodernist and contemporary.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-are-examples-of-ambiguity-in-philosophy.html
The philosophical "paintbrush" of Scientism -- a murky mixture of Materialism and anti-Idealism -- is based on faith in the rock-solid reality of the world. Hence, it must ignore or deny the ambiguous aspects of Quantum science, which says that rock underfoot is 99% empty space, and the remaining 1% is both wispy particles and wavey energy.

It depends on whether the reality being sought is the objective reality of physical objects or the subjective reality "experienced" within the mind of an organic being.

What other beings could there be apart from organic beings ? We as organic beings can closely probe into the micro/macro structure of most objects and have tools that can see into all sorts of spectrums be it visual or sound etc…why would one vision of reality be preferred to another ? Am I correct in thinking that there’s not a clear line dividing subjective to objective reality of objects if we have tools that allow us to do so ?

Such a sensible fellow. — Ciceronianus

Indeed he was. But many of our fellows here are content to continue in confusion. The most deserving of pity are those who think exactly what they perceive is real, and those who think something is real if they think it so.

Austin is on the cover of Philosophy Now...

In conflict with Kit Fine. What fun.

Am I correct in thinking that there’s not a clear line dividing subjective to objective reality of objects if we have tools that allow us to do so ?

I suppose, since we do not possess technology to observe and record emotional responses.

What is real?
Depends.
A> What do you mean by "real"?
B> Do you want an Analytical answer, or a Synthetic solution, or a Technological test, or a Copenhagen compromise?

Austin & ‘Reality’ philosophy magazine article :
“Austin's view is that if they use the word 'real', it has the meaning it's found with, and not some special philosophical sense. So, we must pay careful attention to the usage of words if we are to avoid saying things that are confused or silly.”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality

T.L. Austin has decreed that “a philosopher doesn't get to decide the meaning of a word”. Instead, he insists that we must deal with words as they are found in the wild, so to speak -- uncontaminated by philosophical sophistry. Since when does he have that authority? I suppose it was when the Linguistic Turn*1 began to transform Philosophy into a passive observer of the world as it seems to be, instead of an active participant in interpreting the world of “appearances”, that Kant said was a mask over the unknowable ideal “ding an sich”.

Austin seems to be a proponent of Analytical Philosophy, which was intended to emulate reductive Empirical science, by substituting metaphysical Words for physical Things under the microscope. Are Linguistic analysts fooling themselves that they are doing empirical Science ; when in fact it's just another application of philosophical reasoning, not to Reality but to our Ideas about reality (i.e. words)? What is language but conventionalized Metaphysics?*2A Is the study of language really analyzing reality? Or is it the layering of opinions upon opinions, ideas about ideas, not about reality itself?*2B

So, which authority can we rely on to tell us what philosophers can and cannot do? Austin seems to have a low opinion of his fellow philosophers, comparing them to deceptive magicians, who through sleight-of-word “gives the appearance of solidity to pure wind”.(Orwell on political propaganda). Is that all philosophy is : fake news & disinformation? Since Austin was himself a professional philosopher, how can you trust anything he says?

Analysis of human languages is indeed a valid approach to philosophical knowledge. But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. Moreover, conventional Meanings are second or third hand truths that have passed through millions of minds. By contrast, Empirical science aimed to study raw reality directly. But that 17th century aspiration was brought down to Earth by the damper of 20th century Quantum Uncertainty. Which revealed that Reality was not as cut-&-dried as previously assumed. It re-opened reality to interpretation from a variety of perspectives*4.

On TPF, quite a few posters seem to assume that Reductive Analytic Philosophy is the only legitimate form of thinking about ideas*5*6*7. Any other approach is dismissed as "irrational". But Quantum Physics pioneers were forced by the uncertainty & relativity of the foundations of Reality, to turn to Eastern philosophies for a more Holistic Systems approach. Ironically, the Copenhagen compromise re-introduced systematic (holistic) philosophical methods to fill the gaps where reductive Empirical methods no longer worked*8.

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? *9. Traditional philosophical answers were mostly meta-physical, since physical science was primitive in ancient times. 17th century Classical scientific answers were expressed in deterministic & mechanical imagery, which agreed with common-sense for most people in the Industrial Age. Then 20th century science discovered that the foundations of physics are uncertain (statistical) & non-mechanical (fields). Nevertheless, many 21st century philosophers seem to prefer the familiar "appearances" of Classical models, to the weird, but workable, mysteries of Quantum theories of Reality. Now, in the Information Age, Which world-model would you bet on, to accurately describe Reality? :smile:


*1. The Linguistic Turn :
Traditionally, the linguistic turn is taken to also mean the birth of analytic philosophy. One of the results of the linguistic turn was an increasing focus on logic and philosophy of language, and the cleavage between ideal language philosophy and ordinary language philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn

*2A. Real is Being, and Language is Seeming :
Why didn't Austin's argument deter them? One reason might be that many postwar metaphysicians use the words 'there is" rather than the word 'real' . . . . Here the question becomes : there seem to be tables, but are there any?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/157/Austin_and_Reality
*2B. “The ontology of a natural language is thus best characterized as the ontology competent speakers implicitly accept by way of using the language.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-language-ontology/

*3. According to one critique, “The linguistic turn aims to discover the truth through the analysis of language” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_turn
Note --- To me that aim misses the hard target of objective Truth, and instead hits only various soft subjective opinions about Truth, as embedded in conventional words. That sounds like sieving muddy water to find-out what's solid reality.
Another critic says “Linguistic criticism certainly undercuts the spiritual world of ideas; but "language," when divorced from the particularities of different linguistic traditions, can also be "reified" and made into a philosophical fetish.“ https://science.jrank.org/pages/7827/Linguistic-Turn.html

*4. Interpretations of quantum mechanics :
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics might correspond to experienced reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

*5. Aristotle and Understanding Reality :
In his view, colours and shapes are real, as real as trees, desks, people, and other objects that are members of a totality that can be called “reality” or “the universe.” However, reality is not exhausted by material objects that can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, for Aristotle thought that there are also immaterial objects, objects that cannot be known by perception but only by a special cognitive capacity that he called “intellect.”
https://brill.com/display/book/9789004506077/BP000011.xml?language=en

*6. “Synonyms for ANALYTIC: reasonable, logical, valid, coherent, rational, sensible, good, sound; Antonyms of ANALYTIC: irrational, weak, unreasonable” https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/analytic

*7. Analytic vs Synthetic Philosophy :
So analytic philosophy is concerned with analysis – analysis of thought, language, logic, knowledge, mind, etc; whereas continental philosophy is concerned with synthesis – synthesis of modernity with history, individuals with society, and speculation with application.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Analytic_versus_Continental_Philosophy

*8. Copenhagen Metaphysics :
As the theory of the atom, quantum mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory in the history of science. It enables physicists, chemists, and technicians to calculate and predict the outcome of a vast number of experiments and to create new and advanced technology based on the insight into the behavior of atomic objects. But it is also a theory that challenges our imagination. It seems to violate some fundamental principles of classical physics, principles that eventually have become a part of western common sense since the rise of the modern worldview in the Renaissance. The aim of any metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics is to account for these violations.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

*9. What is metaphysics in relation to language? :
Is language a subset of metaphysics, or is metaphysics a subset of language, and if not what is language or metaphysics in relation to the other, and why is it difficult to represent those two in a sort of Venn diagram?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/93225/what-is-metaphysics-in-relation-to-language

It seems the word real has many meanings depending on which subset of philosophy you wish to answer it from. The empirical or the speculative metaphysical are equally correct and the issue only arises in under certain dualities for example is light a wave or a particle? The duality of light challenges the notion of reality by having the observer involved whereas in actuality light is both a wave and and a particle by behaving as such.

In my opinion, everything that is perceived, whether it is a feeling derived from sensations or a thought created by the mind, is considered reality.

In my opinion, everything that is perceived, whether it is a feeling derived from sensations or a thought created by the mind, is considered reality. — Ali Hosein

Things that cannot be seen are real too. Where I am it’s night that does not mean the sun does not exist.

How do you account for these things which are not currently perceived not being real…?

Reality is different from existence, existence precedes reality, but the existence that causes reality to occur is actual existence, not potential. If something exists and its existence is potential, it has not occurred until it is actual, and there is no talk of its reality. The condition of something being real is the occurrence of that thing that makes an impression on us.

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? — Gnomon

You seem to be confusing evidence with ways of modeling things. Your question doesn't make much sense to me.

Reality is different from existence, existence precedes reality, but the existence that causes reality to occur is actual existence, not potential. If something exists and its existence is potential, it has not occurred until it is actual, and there is no talk of its reality. The condition of something being real is the occurrence of that thing that makes an impression on us. — Ali Hosein

How does existence precede reality instead of say vice versa. Reality precedes existence has an equal claim to being true to what you’re claiming.

Why would you make the claim that existence precedes reality …I’m not quite clear.

:up:

How does existence precede reality instead of say vice versa. Reality precedes existence has an equal claim to being true to what you’re claiming.

Why would you make the claim that existence precedes reality …I’m not quite clear.

- @simplyG
Because the condition of occurrence is existence, if there is nothing, how will it occur?

In that case is there really a difference between reality and existence ? If so what are they ?

In that case is there really a difference between reality and existence ? If so what are they ?

@simplyG

I think yes. The difference between existence and reality is relative and related to the thing in which the existence occurs. Many things may be in the universe that have potential existence and have not occurred in us as beings. And so for us, please note that "for us" are not real, but the fact that they are not real does not mean that they do not exist.
It is also possible that something is real for us but not real for another being. Like our thoughts. A thought created by our mind is not real for other beings and is real only for us because its existence is actual for us and relative to us but for other being is potential to them and thus they do not understand our thoughts and it is not real for them.

But reality exists independently of my thoughts. Thoughts are very different to reality and sometimes they don’t correspond to it as they relate to processes occurring inside minds (which are real)

If you’re saying that thoughts are subjective then I have no qualms with that, but reality now that’s a different ball game. Now I might have different thoughts than you of what reality consists of but to say that reality and existence are different is slightly misleading. For me they’re the same thing because real things which make up reality is also what existence is, consisting of things that exists ie real objects or even concepts such as numbers.

I find your distinction between reality and existence unnecessary on the above ground.

i have two question:
Does a thought exist or not?
Does reality exist independent of your thoughts or your perceptions?

Reality exists even when I stop thinking about it and yes thoughts exist otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion we’re both engaged in thinking.

Thoughts are very different to reality

@simplyG

So can we conclude that because thoughts are different from reality and thoughts exist, then existence is different from reality, because thoughts are different from reality?

What about perceptions? Are reality independent of our perceptions?

T.L. Austin — Gnomon

Hmm.

Illusions are real.
Hallucinations are real.
Fantasies are real.
Copies and forgeries are real.
Appearances are real.

Yep.

It seems the word real has many meanings depending on which subset of philosophy you wish to answer it from. The empirical or the speculative metaphysical are equally correct and the issue only arises in under certain dualities for example is light a wave or a particle? The duality of light challenges the notion of reality by having the observer involved whereas in actuality light is both a wave and and a particle by behaving as such. — simplyG

Yes. That was the point of my introductory remarks in the post. Since each "subset" is based on different axioms & assumptions, we need to specify which world-model of Reality we are arguing from. Failure to do that leads to fruitless talking-past-each-other on such general topics as Reality. Unfortunately, the tinted lenses of our partial worldviews are often taken to reveal the world as it really is. So, we are surprised when others don't see it as we do.

My personal worldview is intended to unify the Dualism of fundamental physics into a philosophical Monism. It does so by "involving" the observer in the observation. As quantum physicist John A. Wheeler concluded, "this is a participatory universe" and that "everything is information" --- including the observing mind. :smile:


Participatory Universe :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

So, what kind of evidence are you willing to accept as Real : physical/material Objects, or mathematical/immaterial Fields? — Gnomon
You seem to be confusing evidence with ways of modeling things. Your question doesn't make much sense to me. — wonderer1

OK. What kind of philosophical world model, based on what kind of scientific evidence, are you willing to accept as Real? Is that less confusing --- or more? :smile:

Quantum Physicist John A. Wheeler :
Wheeler divided his own life into three parts. The first part he called “Everything is Particles.” The second part was “Everything is Fields.” And the third part, which Wheeler considered the bedrock of his physical theory, he called “Everything is Information.”
https://futurism.com/john-wheelers-participatory-universe

Illusions are real.
Hallucinations are real.
Fantasies are real.
Copies and forgeries are real.
Appearances are real. — unenlightened

:smirk:

T.L. Austin — Gnomon
Hmm. — Banno

Thanks. I suspect that will applaud your succinct appraisal of my Synthetic assessment of Austin's Linguistic analysis of Philosophy's verbal non-sense about what's real & what's not. :smile: