What does physicalist science tell us about reality?
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2021 12:46 pm
What does science tell us about the universe?
1. Start with sense perception.
2. eliminate EVERYTHING about the experience except measurements.
3. Discern invariant mathematical patterns (otherwise known as laws of nature - I'll refer to them as IMPs) and compare the mathematical behavior of variant patterns of measurements (VPMs) with IMPs.
4. After collecting enough data on the correlative (NOT causal - causation in science is only consistent causation (CC) - see David Hume and Aristotle on this) patterns, develop hypothesis regarding CC, and from that, develop a theory.
EXAMPLE
1. Start with an apple.
2. Subject the apple to all kinds of measurements, and leave everything that can possibly be experienced about the apple - color, shape, taste, the "feel" of solidity, etc behind
3. Take these measurements (variable patterns) and analyze them in terms of the "laws of nature"
4. Develop a hypothesis about what causes these measurements to change as they do when you subject them to various tests, and then come up with a theory.
Notice that we've left behind the real world - the world of ontological Reality - in step 2.
That means that EVERYTHING about the apple after that is an abstraction, an abstract concept BASED on a particular kind of limited, quantitative or mathematical analysis of sense perception.
In other words, in the world of the physicist, there is no apple, only numbers.
The following are NOT reality but ABSTRACT mathematical concepts:
(as defined by physicists):
Matter (I have to say "as defined by physicists" because people say, "I'll hit you with a hammer and you'll see what matter is" - no that's sense perception; we've already left that behind in step 2)
Energy (no you do NOT experience energy AS DEFINED by scientists)
Information (Bernardo does an excellent job of showing precisely why “information” can’t possibly be the substance of the universe)
Electricity (No you DON'T!)
Gravity (no you do NOT experience gravity as defined by scientists)
Magnetism (NOPE!)
Space (not that either; NOT the sense perception but an abstraction)
Time (DITTO)
*****************
So that is it. When New Age folks say, "Oh wow, far out, science says it's all energy, just like yoga, man, it's all energy,' they're taking a word from science which is a pure abstraction, a concept meant to describe the behavior of certain perceptions, and use it as if it's the same thing as the yogis mean by energy (or as they say, "Shakti").
Well, we might smile at the naivete of the New Agers, but many sophisticated theologians do the same thing. "'Matter' is the body of God. Once we understand this, we can unite science and spirituality." "Matter" as used by scientists is an abstraction used to describe the behavior of certain perceptions. The concept as defined by physicists tells us nothing about what matter IS, only what it does. Technically, since the area of IS is theology, you could say there's no contradiction. That's absolutely true. But to say they're the same is like saying, "Why, I don't need to get on a plane to go to Morocco. I have the map right here. In fact, would you like a sample of Morrocon cous-cous? Look, there it is in that lovely photo. Have a bite."
***
If we look closely at what's going on here, it's clear that it's a matter of Zen. A student once went to a teacher and said, "Can you sum up Zen for me?"
The teacher said, "Attention."
The student responded, "Well, ok, not THAT simple. Could you say anything more?"
The teacher responded, "Attention, attention."
The student said, "Ok now, come on, help me out. What does attention mean?"
The teacher responded, "Attention means attention."
WHAT we know of the world is inseparable from what we ATTEND to and HOW we attend to it. If we attend to the world as if there were no experiential qualities, it is not surprising that we are creating a world which is hostile to experience.
1. Start with sense perception.
2. eliminate EVERYTHING about the experience except measurements.
3. Discern invariant mathematical patterns (otherwise known as laws of nature - I'll refer to them as IMPs) and compare the mathematical behavior of variant patterns of measurements (VPMs) with IMPs.
4. After collecting enough data on the correlative (NOT causal - causation in science is only consistent causation (CC) - see David Hume and Aristotle on this) patterns, develop hypothesis regarding CC, and from that, develop a theory.
EXAMPLE
1. Start with an apple.
2. Subject the apple to all kinds of measurements, and leave everything that can possibly be experienced about the apple - color, shape, taste, the "feel" of solidity, etc behind
3. Take these measurements (variable patterns) and analyze them in terms of the "laws of nature"
4. Develop a hypothesis about what causes these measurements to change as they do when you subject them to various tests, and then come up with a theory.
Notice that we've left behind the real world - the world of ontological Reality - in step 2.
That means that EVERYTHING about the apple after that is an abstraction, an abstract concept BASED on a particular kind of limited, quantitative or mathematical analysis of sense perception.
In other words, in the world of the physicist, there is no apple, only numbers.
The following are NOT reality but ABSTRACT mathematical concepts:
(as defined by physicists):
Matter (I have to say "as defined by physicists" because people say, "I'll hit you with a hammer and you'll see what matter is" - no that's sense perception; we've already left that behind in step 2)
Energy (no you do NOT experience energy AS DEFINED by scientists)
Information (Bernardo does an excellent job of showing precisely why “information” can’t possibly be the substance of the universe)
Electricity (No you DON'T!)
Gravity (no you do NOT experience gravity as defined by scientists)
Magnetism (NOPE!)
Space (not that either; NOT the sense perception but an abstraction)
Time (DITTO)
*****************
So that is it. When New Age folks say, "Oh wow, far out, science says it's all energy, just like yoga, man, it's all energy,' they're taking a word from science which is a pure abstraction, a concept meant to describe the behavior of certain perceptions, and use it as if it's the same thing as the yogis mean by energy (or as they say, "Shakti").
Well, we might smile at the naivete of the New Agers, but many sophisticated theologians do the same thing. "'Matter' is the body of God. Once we understand this, we can unite science and spirituality." "Matter" as used by scientists is an abstraction used to describe the behavior of certain perceptions. The concept as defined by physicists tells us nothing about what matter IS, only what it does. Technically, since the area of IS is theology, you could say there's no contradiction. That's absolutely true. But to say they're the same is like saying, "Why, I don't need to get on a plane to go to Morocco. I have the map right here. In fact, would you like a sample of Morrocon cous-cous? Look, there it is in that lovely photo. Have a bite."
***
If we look closely at what's going on here, it's clear that it's a matter of Zen. A student once went to a teacher and said, "Can you sum up Zen for me?"
The teacher said, "Attention."
The student responded, "Well, ok, not THAT simple. Could you say anything more?"
The teacher responded, "Attention, attention."
The student said, "Ok now, come on, help me out. What does attention mean?"
The teacher responded, "Attention means attention."
WHAT we know of the world is inseparable from what we ATTEND to and HOW we attend to it. If we attend to the world as if there were no experiential qualities, it is not surprising that we are creating a world which is hostile to experience.