Following Kant and Schopenhauer concepts of noumenon of “will” one could state that objective reality, the singular unitary thing in itself, all permeating entity beyond our perception capabilities, could be considered as reality that gains its representation as a structured, plural world, only in a form of separate but complementary ideas in our mind. Hence, so-called phenomena i.e. objects+relations, determined by our aesthetics do not objectively exist beyond our awareness of them since they are simply plural concepts incepted into our minds.
And hence fundamental laws of nature we seem to discover “experimentally” may likely be just mathematical/tautological creation of our mind, as D. Hume insisted, the result of already preconceived ideas about structure and processes of what we call universe but rather what we should call the universe of our over-interpreted sensibilities. Our intellectual journey beyond the border of our common sensibilities all too often result in instability, variability or failure of validity of what we understand as fundamental laws of nature, which actually are just consequences of mathematical tautologies i.e. varying expressions of the same singular idea.
The emerging philosophy of “Neo-Scalism”, implies that discoverable “laws of nature” if such exist in our abstract singular existence and identity sense and understanding, depend on scale in which knowing subject (a human) “exists” or is aware of its existence. The so-called scale or rather scaloid does not refer to meaning of the word as defined by our aesthetics but rather should be understood in a general sense of an arbitrary attribute of the reality itself.
According to Neo-Scalism we, entities are conceived to “exist” within our own scaloid where and when we can understand only as much about our close environment as to allow us to survive and/or thrive. And hence we do not “exist”, in common sense of the word, in microcosm scaloid as well as in wider cosmological realm such as of the scaloid of universe. In other words, our physical structure that we perceive as (human) being has no meaning in microcosm and has no importance in macrocosm of our idea of universe although we insist otherwise.
Does Neo-Scalism allow for our own objective reality “existing” for us alone as knowing subjects, bound by our aesthetics? In my previous post
I suggested one of such possibility while discussing so-called entropic realities i.e. NME realities that reject determinism replacing it with probabilism and substituting objects and causal phenomena with random stimuli-event matrix.
If true what could it mean? It could mean that reality as it presents itself to us (our concept of it) cannot be understood in any other ways differently from the one that was afforded to our mind a-priori, as an idea or representation but not of our objective reality of our scaloid but of our mind’s capability to understand it. In other words even objective NME probabilistic reality, if exist, would be particular or subjective to us if we were able to directly observe or interact with it in itself, instead of being isolated behind wall of sense perceptions.
Is it even possible to escape from knowing subject into nothingness of objective reality?
Does Neo-Scalism allow for absolute objective reality “existing” despite lack of knowing subjects and their awareness of it?
Yes, but only if we fall on our apriori philosophical concept of unity or monism and on our unreliable transcendental binary logic. The philosophy of Neo-Scalism describes absolute objective reality as manifestation of reality scaloids, specific objective realities, in which corresponding entities are brought into what we would call existence by our mind. Such entities could be limited in their capability of particularly understood interactions solely with other entities of corresponding reality scaloid. At given scaloid, realities are manifesting themselves as quasi-deterministic as required by aesthetics of entities of “awareness” i.e. knowing subjects.
The problem arises when so-called intelligent “knowing entities” trying to extend their limited models of reality they were able to conceptualize, built on their subjective limited experiences enclosed within their native scaloid, towards other scaloids which cannot yield consistent perceptional results by nature of absolute objective reality which manifests itself differently for different scaloids.
Absolute objective reality if exist would be a second level noumenon to us, something analogous to smoke that would be perceived as solid object in a millisecond snapshot, or fluid phenomenon taking up all forms of event stimuli perceived as objects, shapes, patterns, colors, consistent in mind of knowing subjects which themselves are built of the smoke “existing” and imprisoned within its scaloid.
To better illustrate an analog to this speculative argument consider following: If for us, knowing subjects, 1,000,000,000 years would be a second or we were size of galaxy, would we notice human life, would we notice whole solid forms or structures that humans perceive and conceptualize, or just transitory meaningless “dirt in the wind”, and our ideas, objects, phenomena if they would even exists for us would be alien to humans. That is the nature of Neo-Scalism. It is the knowing subject that defines what reality is, since the only knowable reality is a product of our mind what Berkeley discovered over three centuries ago.
This discourse about Neo-Scalism and variability of so-called “fundamental laws of nature” as we are having in relation to apparently failing law of gravity in the scale of universe, or microcosm of elementary particles in philosophical plane, meets the discourse about intelligibility vs. believability of the theories in context of metaphysics of reality. Can we reconcile “discoverable laws” spanning different transcendental “space-time” scales in unified framework, with narratives we can truly understand or is it impossible since we are dealing with just an idea of objective reality not a thing it itself.
The historical take on intelligibility vs. believability of theories can be found at:
An interesting take on theory vs. reality in social context can be found at: