It must be kept in mind that Austin is not doing metaphysics even when he's analyzing the linguistics of purported 'metaphysical statements'. He's like a medical secretary addressing technical jargon used to describe brain surgery. I don't see any problem with answering the OP's question in the clearest terms possible as I/others have tried to do (in this thread and elsewhere).

T.L. Austin — Gnomon

J. L. Austin, you mean. Not to be confused with John Austin, the esteemed (by me) legal positivist.

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? — Gnomon

Who has the authority to change the (commonly accepted) meaning of a word to accommodate their speculations and musings? It strikes me that if we're going to accuse philosophers of conceit, that accusation is more properly brought against those who disregard the meaning of a word, creating their own meaning for self-serving purposes.

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”. — Gnomon

Kant, schmant. That old mountebank was the most passive of observers, actually drawing a distinction between us and the world, rendering us incapable of knowing it (not that this makes any difference to us and our interactions with the rest of the world). We and our language are parts of the world. The problems arise when we think of ourselves as apart from it, as you do here:

But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. — Gnomon

You don't think we're part of nature? Or you think we're not real? Or perhaps you distinguish between humans and their language, one being parts of nature one and the other not? Perhaps you're using words like "nature" and "real" in a peculiar manner, though.

What Austin and others were doing (including Wittgenstein) was pointing out that the misuse of language--the contrived use of it--leads us to make unwarranted conclusions and sends us on expeditions without purpose.

T.L. Austin
— Gnomon

J. L. Austin, you mean. — Ciceronianus

Exactly @Gnomon's modus operandi, counselor. And the rest follows ... :smirk:

Perhaps you're using words like "nature" and "real" in a peculiar manner, though.

What Austin and others were doing (including Wittgenstein) was pointing out that the misuse of language_--the contrived use of it--leads us to make unwarranted conclusions and sends us on expeditions without purpose.

:clap: :100:

Forgeries are real.

Sure, just ask the guy who was swapping out museum paintings with copies so he could sell them.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/german-museum-worker-sentenced-over-fine-art-forgeries/f3a8ed7c-f05e-4973-8a7b-47d7999acce9

It just wouldn't work with imaginary forgeries would it? Everyone would notice.

J. L. Austin, you mean. Not to be confused with John Austin, the esteemed (by me) legal positivist. — Ciceronianus

Thanks for the correction. I had never heard of Austin, before reading the Philosophy Now article. And my comments are based on the article, not from personal familiarity.

It strikes me that if we're going to accuse philosophers of conceit, that accusation is more properly brought against those who disregard the meaning of a word, creating their own meaning for self-serving purposes. — Ciceronianus

Unfortunately, such a bureaucratic conceit would stifle the most creative philosophers. For example, I tried to read Whitehead's Process and Reality --- in which he conceived of a new school of Process Philosophy --- but found its novel technical terminology hard to follow. That's one reason I provide an extensive glossary & footnotes in my thesis and blog*1.

I'm a free-wheeling amateur, not a stodgy academic philosopher, so -- on an open forum -- I don't feel bound to accept the "authorized or received" meanings of outdated terminology. That unconventional "conceit" (i.e. freedom) drives up the wall. But he can't have me de-tenured (did I just make-up another word?), so I ignore his smirky*2 smarguments. Since you seem to be more sincere, I'll take your comments under advisement. :smile:

PS___ I know nothing about the Linguistic Turn in modern philosophy, other than "what I read in the papers". But I would assume that one focus would be on discovering mis-use, or unauthorized use, of old conventional*3 terminology. Yet again, such pedantry*4 would tend to suppress creativity of conceits (concepts)*5 in philosophy. I have no formal training in philosophical ideology, which leaves me naive, but also unprejudiced with prevailing dogma.

*1. Why Coin Tech Terms? :
In the Enformationism thesis, and in the BothAnd Blog, I have coined a lot of new words (neologisms) as short-cuts to complex or unfamiliar concepts. The practice of using words that can't be found in a dictionary makes reading more of a challenge, and may seem pretentious. But, such coining is common for scientific and philosophical writings that explore uncharted territory off the current maps. One reason for using novel words is to avoid old biases. Well-known words usually have collected a lot of baggage over the years. And some-times, the meaning of common words has evolved into a sense far from the original context & connotation. But the primary purpose for using a special label for a technical definition is so the writer can control its meaning precisely.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page6.html

*2. Smirky : characterized by or having a smirk, especially so as to seem irritatingly smug or conceited. (his favorite smilicon :smirk: )

*3. Conventional : marked by attention to or adhering strictly to prescribed forms.

*4. Pedantry : excessive concern with minor details and rules

*5. What is a conceit in Latin? :
From the Latin term for “concept,” a poetic conceit is an often unconventional, logically complex, or surprising metaphor whose delights are more intellectual than sensual.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/learn/glossary-terms/conceit

But Language is the essence of human Culture, and hardly Real, in the sense of Natural*3. — Gnomon
You don't think we're part of nature? Or you think we're not real? — Ciceronianus

To the contrary, I was distinguishing between Nature and Culture, not Nature and Reality. Nature got along for eons without Culture or Language, until artificial "human nature" -- in the last few ticks of Time -- began dominating natural Nature. Do you think humans are nothing-but Nature? In what sense is Culture or Language Real? Certainly not in the sense of this thread's topic, implying that Real is the opposite of Ideal, which is the exclusive purview of human thought, language & philosophy. :smile:

In Science, what is Real & Physical & Actual is what is not Ideal or Imaginary or merely Potential. — Gnomon

So potential energy is not real? Ideal gasses should never be used to find approximations for pressure and temperature, nor imaginary numbers in calculating quantum states?

But of course, you did not mean that. It would be crass for someone to suggest that we ought dismantle the apparatus of physics because it does not meet your exhortation. Isn't it dreadful how some folk misunderstand what is being said? They ought take much more care to understand the context...

This T.L Austin sounds a dreadful fellow.

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

Is the OP question grammatically correct ? "Real" is an adjective which needs a noun after it in English grammar. What is Real X? How can you know that for real X? Is this not what OP should have asked?
X= any abstract or concrete object, e.g. world, book, God ...etc.

Just asking "What is Real" sounds something not right grammatically and contextually. What object is the OP asking as Real?

That seems to me to prefigure the answer from Austin.

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? — Gnomon

Well, I find it to be a matter of skill in considering things, to be able to look at things from different perspectives, so I'm apt to apply the sort of modeling that seems most usefully accurate for what I am considering, whether that be particles, or fields, or whatever. It doesn't make much sense to call a model "Real" though. It makes more sense to me to consider the degree to which a model is accurate, and not confuse the model for that which is being modeled

That seems to me to prefigure the answer from Austin. — Banno

Sure.  Is it not what Austin was also pointing out in his book "Sense and Seinsibilia"?

"there are no criteria to be laid down in general for distinguishing the real from the not real. How this is to be done must depend on what it is with respect to which the problem arises in particular cases. Furthermore,even for particular kinds of things, there may be many different ways in which the distinction may be made."  (Austin, p.76).

Without knowing what particular case of "Real" the OP is asking about, we really don't know what he is even asking about. No? :)

So potential energy is not real? — Banno

Yes. Although my post contrasted Potential with Actual, and Real with Ideal, not Potential Energy with Reality, as you mis-construed it. For example, a AAA battery has a potential voltage of 1.5V, but until it's plugged into a complete circuit, that potential is not realized. Any potential thing or action is not yet real (i.e. not materialized), until actualized*1 in a system. Do you disagree with my list of opposites in this context? If so, in what sense is Potential real?*2.

Our worldviews seem to be different in some ways that lead us to mis-communicate. But worldviews are ideas (opinions) about Reality, not Reality itself. Worldviews are beliefs about Reality, not necessarily the Truth. So, I'm not trying to convert you to my belief system, but merely trying to share ideas that may be controversial. :smile:

*1. Potentiality and actuality
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist; but, the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note --- Do you equate "does not exist" with "not real"? If so, what was wrong with my equation of "potential" with "not yet real"?

*2. Real : actually existing as a {physical} thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note --- I added the bracket to indicate the common-sense definition of "real". But the philosophical definition is more subtle. As indicated in *1 above : "potential does exist", even though it has no physical form.

But of course, you did not mean that. It would be crass for someone to suggest that we ought dismantle the apparatus of physics because it does not meet your exhortation. — Banno

Are you accusing me of "dismantling the apparatus of physics"? Or merely of being "crass" enough to mention an alternative (non-mechanical) mechanism? Could you be more specific? Which "apparatus" am I tearing down? Newtonian Mechanics?*3 Actually, it was the pioneers of Quantum Theory who crassly deconstructed Newton's machine with "spooky action at a distance".

Do you think Physics is concerned with ontological Reality?*4 Classical Physics typically took the material substance of Reality for granted. But Quantum Physics undermined that confidence with the Uncertainty Principle and wave/particle duality. Apparently, you mis-interpret my references to Quantum Physics as anti-scientific*5. Some posters seem to think any philosophy prior to the 19th century is anti-science. Even 20th century Quantum Theory is considered part science (technology), and part anti-science (mysticsm). So my emphasis on Quantum philosophy seems to them as undermining the ground of reality.

What "exhortation" are you referring to?*6 Are you accusing me of propagandizing anti-science? If so, show me the quote. Are you equating non-Classical Quantum Physics with Anti-science? QP didn't replace Physics with Metaphysics, but it did re-introduce philosophical reasoning into scientific methods, that had been absent for several centuries*7. :smile:

*3. Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics? :
In the Newtonian mechanics, particles and waves are two different entities, while in quantum mechanics these two are two sides of the same coin. Quantum mechanics associate wave function with every object. However, it must be noted that these quantum effects are diminished in the real world.
https://homework.study.com/explanation/what-is-the-difference-between-newtonian-mechanics-and-quantum-mechanics.html
Note --- In this quote, "real world" seems refer to the common-sense macro level that our 5 senses report. If so, is the quantum foundation of our world "unreal"?

*4. "We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." is a quote by German Physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976) that can be used in discussing the validity of measurements.
https://www.causeweb.org/cause/resources/library/r2533
Note --- By "nature" Heisenberg was referring to what Kant called "ding an sich" as opposed to "appearances". In the context of this thread, one could equate "Nature" with "Real", and "Super-nature" with un-real, yes? Personally, I am not aware of anything supernatural in this world. But some people equate "Ideal" with "supernatural". Do you?

*5. Quantum mechanics is the most successful quantitative theory ever produced. Not a single one of the untold thousands of experiments done to test it has ever found the basic principles to be in error, and the agreement can sometimes go to ten significant figures (as in some predictions of quantum electrodynamics).
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr320/lecture21.pdf
Note --- The math of QM is unquestioned. But the meaning continues to spark philosophical debate.

*6. Exhortation : an address or communication emphatically urging someone to do something.
___ Oxford Dictionary
Note --- In this case, to do what?

*7. Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory :
Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world. This gives rise to the collection of philosophical issues known as “the interpretation of quantum mechanics”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

For example, a AAA battery has a potential voltage of 1.5V, but until it's plugged into a complete circuit, that potential is not realized. — Gnomon

Bzzzzt!

Aristotle is probably not the best source, regarding the nature of batteries. Also the subject was potential energy. Voltage is not energy.

https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/dccircuits/electrical-energy.html

Yes — Gnomon

So in order to defend your scientistic realism, you deny the existence of certain things posited by science. That seems odd.

I'm thinking you are looking at one particular sense of real - the one given in your note 2 - which is fine, provided you do not think that you are thereby giving an account of the whole of reality...

And again, your style is almost unreadable. Most of your comment seems to be in a footnote, so that I'm not at all sure what you would have me address.

Yep. We seem to be in agreement.

:cool: :ok:

Well, I find it to be a matter of skill in considering things, to be able to look at things from different perspectives, so I'm apt to apply the sort of modeling that seems most usefully accurate for what I am considering, whether that be particles, or fields, or whatever. It doesn't make much sense to call a model "Real" though. It makes more sense to me to consider the degree to which a model is accurate, and not confuse the model for that which is being modeled — wonderer1

Sounds good to me. But how do you determine the accuracy of fit for a world model? Since many of the controversies on this forum revolve around the physical foundations of the world (e.g. matter particles vs mathematical fields) , I tend to rely on Quantum Physics as the most appropriate resource.

But some posters seem to prefer the 17th century Classical model of physics*1, probably because it is more fitting to Common Sense. Yet, quantum physics has revealed that common sense is the view of superficial Appearances (per Kant)*2 rather than Ultimate Reality.

Besides, since my skillfully-selected Quantum Model varies, in certain aspects, from the Common Sense model, my interpretations are sometimes dismissed as "Woo", they are literally labelled as "non-sense", because quantum physics explores reality beyond the scope of un-aided human senses. So, the choice of model itself may be unacceptable for some posters. What can you do when your "most accurate" model is rejected by your interlocutors, and they don't acknowledge your analytical "skill"? :smile:


*1. Classical physics :
Classical physics is a group of physics theories that predate modern, more complete, or more widely applicable theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Classical_physics

*2. Kant's Appearances :
Kantian appearances are not the objects of ordinary sense perception, for Kant holds that appearances in themselves (things in themselves, in the empirical sense) lack sensory qualities like color, taste, texture, etc.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-idealism/

Aristotle is probably not the best source, regarding the nature of batteries. Also the subject was potential energy. Voltage is not energy. — wonderer1

You missed the point. I didn't refer to Aristotle as an authority on storage batteries, but as the guy who originally defined the terms "Potential" & "Actual"*1. Of course, Voltage is a measure of Energy, not energy per se. And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. A battery contains no Actual Energy, only Potential Energy*2. That's why you can touch both poles and not get shocked. Aristotle's definition, in terms of existence, is pertinent to the OP topic of Reality. :smile:


*1. Actuality and Potentiality in Aristotle's Philosophy :
Aristotle described potentiality and actuality as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist.
https://www.iasexpress.net/modules/1-7-actuality-and-potentiality-in-aristotles-philosophy/

*2. Voltage is a measurement of potential electric energy between two points.
https://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Voltage

So in order to defend your scientistic realism, you deny the existence of certain things posited by science. That seems odd. . . . And again, your style is almost unreadable — Banno

That does seem odd. Please show me where I denied "the existence of certain things posited by science". Just a short list of instances would be more helpful than a blind blanket denouncement.

Your reference to "scientistic" is also odd, since my views are often radically different from those of the philosophy of Scientism.

Your vague non-specific replies are readable, but simplistic and indeterminate. I'm not sure what you are responding to. I don't know your background, but an education in analytical Linguistic Philosophy might make discussions of holistic Quantum Philosophy "unreadable". More specificity on your part would make communication, not necessarily more readable, but perhaps more meaningful. :smile:

PS___ Speaking of "unreadable", have you ever tried to read Hegel, Heidegger. or Wittgenstein? If you are not interested in the subject matter -- or have a short attention span -- you may not be motivated to read densely worded discourses.

PPS___Most responses on this forum are brief summaries of personal opinions. With no attempt to justify the amateur reasoning with links to opinions of experts on the topic. Most of my posts are condensed summaries of arguments that are more extensively detailed elsewhere, with links. It seems that we are not arguing true or false facts here, but agreeable or disagreeable opinions & worldviews.

Sounds good to me. But how do you determine the accuracy of fit for a world model? — Gnomon

Well that's an ongoing process with too many details to try to cover in a remotely comprehensive way, but considering the results of experimentation plays a large role. An experiment can test the accuracy with which a model represents the way things occur in reality. Differences between experimental results, and results expected based on models, point to aspects of models being wrong or at least simplistic.

For me, observing the difference between experimental results and modelling (whether mental or SPICE) is routine, so admittedly it is easy for me to say, "Make use of experimentation." I don't expect it to convey much to people who don't have experience with doing so to an extent similar to my experience. However, experimentation has played a huge role in humanity's development of more accurate ways of modelling the world.

I tend to rely on Quantum Physics as the most appropriate resource. — Gnomon

QM is just one aspect of a huge scientific picture and it is only so useful. In the case of complex systems, modelling things in terms of QM becomes computationally impossible. So for practical purposes, modelling things in terms of emergent properties (while ideally remaining aware that such modelling is simplistic) is necessary. I recommend you read, or reread, Sean Carroll's The Big Picture.

What can you do when your "most accurate" model is rejected by your interlocutors, and they don't acknowledge your analytical "skill"? — Gnomon

Well, at least in some cases I can demonstrate my skill. I design electronic measurement instruments, some of which are used by NIST and other NMIs in countries around the world to cross check their primary reference standards against each other. On the other hand, it can often be the case that someone else recognizes that I'm looking at something too simplistically and what I can do is recognize the value in questioning my assumptions.

Of course, Voltage is a measure of Energy, not energy per se. — Gnomon

No it is not, as the link I provided explains.

And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. — Gnomon

No it is not. And this is yet another example of your tendency to assert things without knowing what you are talking about.

A battery contains no Actual Energy, only Potential Energy*2. — Gnomon

Potential energy is actual energy.

That's why you can touch both poles and not get shocked. — Gnomon

No. The reason you can touch both poles of a 1.5 Volt battery is that 1.5 Volts is too low a voltage to result in a sufficient current flowing through your skin to result in a perception of having been shocked.

You could perform the following experiment. (But don't because it would hurt and possibly kill you.) Connect 100 AAA cells in series, positive terminal to negative terminal. The difference between the voltage at the most positive end and the most negative end of the string of batteries would be ~150 Volts. Now touch the positive end of the string with one hand, and the negative end of the string with the other hand.

And the measurement is expressed as a ratio between Zero now and some Potential value in the future. — Gnomon
No it is not. And this is yet another example of your tendency to assert things without knowing what you are talking about. — wonderer1

Apparently, you are expecting technical answers on a philosophical forum. I was addressing a philosophical question, not an electrical engineering question. Does your referenced link explain "what is real?". We are not talking about the same thing here. :smile:

PS___ Is your "skill" as an electrical engineer relevant to the topic of this thread?

I was addressing a philosophical question, not an electrical engineering question. — Gnomon

What you were doing was making false claims. I don't know why you would consider that to be a valuable contribution to a philosophical discussion.

Harry Frankfurt has a different name for what you refer to as "addressing a philosophical question":

It is in this sense that Pascal’s statement is unconnected to a concern with truth: she is not concerned with the truth-value of what she says. That is why she cannot be regarded as lying; for she does not presume that she knows the truth, and therefore she cannot be deliberately promulgating a proposition that she presumes to be false: Her statement is grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth—this indifference to how things really are—that I regard as of the essence of bullshit.

Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit

What you were doing was making false claims. I don't know why you would consider that to be a valuable contribution to a philosophical discussion. — wonderer1

You can falsify scientific claims with counter-evidence. How would you falsify a philosophical analogy : Potential as not-yet-real future event? What made you think I was making a "truth claim"?

Why would you consider an electrical engineering definition "to be valuable to a philosophical discussion"? I don't accuse you of talking BS, but just of irrelevance to the topic of this thread. For example, as a "skillful" expert, how would you define "Potential Voltage" in terms of Quantum Electrodynamics (relativistic quantum field theory)? If you did, how would that relate to the OP question "what is reality"? :smile:


True or false : Philosophy is defined as a person merely offering an opinion on a subject and nothing more? https://quizlet.com/42756218/philosophy-101-final-review-true-or-false-flash-cards/

True-False Questions :
Russell argues that philosophy involves controversies on matters of which knowledge is impossible.
https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/testCT_summer3/node2.html

*BAM*

What you [@Gnomon] were doing was making false claims. I don't know why you would consider that to be a valuable contribution to a philosophical discussion.

Harry Frankfurt has a different name for what you refer to as "addressing a philosophical question": — wonderer1

:clap: :100: :lol:

Please show me where I denied "the existence of certain things posited by science". — Gnomon

You said that potential energy is not real.

Yet physics uses it in it's calculations.

You then bend over backwards to try to explain how it is that physics makes use of something that does not exist.

All of which leads me to think you have gone astray somewhere.

Specific enough?

For my part, I, and I think most physicists, think that potential energy is real, and have no qualms about it existing. Hence it seems that your "In Science, what is Real & Physical & Actual is what is not Ideal or Imaginary or merely Potential" is incorrect.

What everyone else is getting at is that reality is that about which one can be deceived. So in the case where what is real to you is unreal to me, at least one of us is deceived. But if you are suggesting that something can really be real to you and really be unreal to me, then I think you must be confused.

@unenlightened

Simply using the word reality cannot determine whether this concept is fake or not, more information is needed, that is, a concept that defines fakeness or not.
In my opinion, this concept can be "truth". Truth is an absolute concept, when we say that something exists, its existence is a truth shared by all of us equally.
Regardless of what a thing is, its existence is a common truth. In my opinion, the word reality refers to what is. When we ask something about reality, we must first answer the question of what is real.
Therefore, the fact of the existence of a thing is enough for it to be fake or not fake, but whether it happens or not and how it happens depends entirely on the entity that perceives that thing. That is, it depends on how it happens in our cognitive system.
The reality of light for us is completely different from the reality of light for bees, but maybe if we could understand the language of bees! He probably acknowledged with us the fact that there is something, even if the reality is different for both of us.

so i'm agree that:

something can be real to me but not real to someone else.

@A Realist

The reality of light for us is completely different from the reality of light for bees, but maybe if we could understand the language of bees! He probably acknowledged with us the fact that there is something, even if the reality is different for both of us. — Ali Hosein

This may be your reality, but my reality is different. In my reality, bees do not talk to me or tell me about their access to light. They are too busy making honey. But i find it it easier and clearer to say that bees and I experience the same reality differently. We both see the same flowers differently, and eat the same honey differently. I have mine on toast.

The reality that you perceive as honey is probably completely different from the reality that the bee perceives as its product.
But I can understand that you both acknowledge that there is a truth whose reality is honey for you and what it perceives for the bee.
In fact, I think you perceive the same truth in the form of different realities.

The reality that you perceive as honey is probably completely different from the reality that the bee perceives as its product. — Ali Hosein

How would you know? You're not even in my reality.