A Note on Objective Reality.

hd fractal wallpaper-dRTKSo what is Objective Reality? First of all, the reality, we accept as existing out there, is pure fabrication of our mind although our models of it (science) seem to work in narrow circumstances. This is not controversial statement but conclusion based on widely accepted evidences. However, where we are going, there are no accepted evidences. We are crossing here into sphere of pure philosophical speculations. Enjoy the ride.

It’s nearly impossible to directly address the issue of mere existence of objective reality not to mention to attempt to describe it in any way. Whether we want it or not, already our discussion a-priori stipulates basic ontology by fact of our acceptance of central concepts of existence, awareness, entity and identity, unity as well as many other methods and concepts of transcendental mind as applicable to objective reality. I may as well stop here because all these concepts as we “know” them, clearly stem from our built-in a-priori knowledge (esthetics, logic** etc.) rather than from sensory experience of “reality or whatever”. Those a-priori conceived concepts, certainly cannot be assumed, in all or in most part, to constitute attributes of objective reality as thing in itself.

Such perception or deficiency of perception of reality would be more consistent with modified Plato’s cave metaphor where instead of observing shadows on cave wall as “reality” of the world outside we observe shadows of ourselves projected on ourselves with small or no shadowy contribution from external to the cave, objective reality.

In other words, we may say that objective reality would be a reality, which either defies some (all) human sensations and/or perceptions or exists autonomously away from human internal conception and comprehension of it. In short, objective reality is something, which we do not either sense and/nor perceive and/nor intelligibly able to conceptualize by methods of our transcendental mind, so far. Some concepts called. noumenon-like entities may be conceived in our mind via (yet unknown) pure self-enclosed intellectual thought process without contribution from any of corresponding sensory-perception systems. However, these noumenons are different entities from abstract concepts, which often correspond to sensory experience via indirect process of actualization of inheritance (abstraction). Instead, noumenons are likely incepted via our logical/aesthetical extrapolation into special abstract concepts called “singularities of thought”, where mechanism of reason, intuition, instinct or moral judgment of our transcendental mind fails.

There could be many reasons for it, but most of all it is our flawed binary logic, which reduces itself to self-inconsistent tautologies. It could be discovered by examination of grand creation of our mind: mathematics. This crown achievement of our human race incessantly describe single, purely mind conceived, noumenon-like abstract concept, mere tautology, expressed in multitude of ways, with devastating deficiency of being hopelessly linear in itself.

Just suffice to examine celebrated, mathematical concepts of zero, PI, infinity, infinitesimally, continuity, countability, absolute convergence, point singularity, ideality etc., to convince ourselves that our logic is sending us astray toward abstractions beyond our sense-perception or comprehension into realm of god-like concept class etc., graveyard of our binary logic.

Neither objective reality itself nor our perceptions of it, have to obey our self-conceived binary logic, esthetics, causality or rules of reasoning. Even our transcendental categories of thought, as we know them now, may not be applicable to it. The objective of new metaphysics of reality should be to examine pertinent question of whether we as human beings could re-conceptualize our minds in a way to conceive perceptions of objective reality if not thing in itself. Otherwise, should we slip into pure skepticism which would constitute final blow to our quest for full intelligibility of our fundamental worldview. Instead, resigning ourselves to irrelevance of our entire knowledge in larger scheme of things, and abandoning dream of powerful mind for something as irrelevant and disappointing as faith.

Perhaps, we have such a difficulty in accessing objective reality(ies) because the only reality(ies), we seem to comprehend, applying our transcendental mind conceived internal categories of thought, are classes of causal (deterministic) or random (stochastic) realities, so-called minimum entropy (MiE) realities. These conjoined confidence (or faith) based realities have advantage of enabling our familiar worldview narratives I mentioned in one of previous posts. We feel, we intuitively comprehend them. Including above mentioned, conceptual thought singularities such as concept of all mighty, unlimited god. However, these realities are likely to constitute only infinitesimal fraction of all possible realities we could conceive.

The objective reality may as well belong to vast class of near maximum entropy (NMaE) realities, so-called realities of total uncertainty, where methods of a-priori knowledge, such existence, identity, reason or causality, time space etc. are of limited or no use. Question, can we access objective reality through inventing appropriate categories of thought or our new a-priori concepts of categories? Can we, invent objective reality? If we are able to sense it in any way, we should be able to conceptualize it. However, conceptualization must only be first step in order to perceive it in the ocean of stimuli so far incompatible with our detection system and consequently ignored. In simple words, we have to “guess” reality in order to perceive it. But if we cannot perceive wider spectrum of sensations stemming from objective reality then we are condemned to blackness of modern scientific input/output box theories, which, by definition never give us any insight beyond parameter space of our immediate environment.

The interesting discussion about linearity of our rational thinking process and characteristics of possible entropic realities, will be left for another time. In the context of yet undiscovered, objective reality let’s examine science its methods and claims regarding true nature of our universe, which are relentlessly pushed on our young impressionable students at school as well through “religiuos-like” PBS productions. Stay tuned.

**Unconceptualized Non-Binary Logic.

The critical factor limiting our perception of objective reality could be our inherent limitation of transcendental logic. Our logic is binary logic, two-value logic where logical variable X takes only values (m[true]=1 or m[false]=0, where m is an evaluation measure operation, and here simple assignment). We easily understand pure truth and pure falsehood and we developed logic rules and laws, foundation of syllogisms based on deductive method and other epistemological methods.

The question, we should pose here, is why no non-binary logic has been ever conceived and developed so far. Fuzzy logic and/or vector logic, developed in 1970-ties, is not, as it is widely promoted, a strict non-binary logic but rather probabilistic multi “truth” logic which could be understood as an extension of classical binary logic since it’s all about incorporation of ability to assess degree in which we can trust the statement to be true or false. In other words, logical variable X may have some value between zero and one. m[X] = {0..1}. In short, such a kind of logic addresses somewhat problem of credibility or lying as well as spuriousness or insufficiency of data to precisely evaluate true statements. But it still holds onto classical meaning of truth we hold dear.

The “true” non-binary logic would conceivably be able to move us beyond our transcendental logic limitation. For example in proper multi-value logic, variable X may take any value from a set of values m[X] = {..-2,..-1,..0,..1,..2,..3,..4,..}. The meaning of these however would be inconceivable to us. Just for sake of   illustration it could be something like that, values m[X] = {..truthfullies.., personaltruth,.. false,.. true.., null,.. inconceivable,.. obscured.., absurd…} It is clear how unintelligible to us would be “true” multi-value logic. Such a logic if adopted, would destroy our dear universal concepts of reason and causality and break our worldview narratives as we know it.


One thought on “A Note on Objective Reality.

  1. Pingback: A Note on Metaphysics of Reality. | METAPHYSICS OF REALITY

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s