SpeedOfSound wrote:
I noticed that neither you nor jamest took me up on my request that you define reality without a physical analogy. You may have something here if you could do it.
Reality, although a whole, can be considered for analysis to be two parts;
First, the so called ‘physical reality’ which is the world apparent to our senses and which must be granted existence as an appearance in our experience, although the nature of this existence is not established yet.
The ‘physical world’ can best be understood by considering two parts of the one whole separately.
1. Individual Experience of Physical World PW(e).
PW(e) is that which we can interact with via our senses and CNS, it is an individual experience, although similar to experience apparently common to all human creatures. Science, however, tells us that the small band of detectable frequencies detected by an individuals sensory equipment is a small portion of the actual physical reality present. This can be confirmed by use of equipment. Similarly, science tells us the solid objects we experience are almost entirely empty space, and PW(e) may well consist of a form very different to that of our experience.
The time-lag argument, or analysis of perception shows that the experience of the environment, PW(e) is a representation not the actual physical world.
2. Physical world outside the individual experience, i.e independent of the individual PW(i).
PW(i) is the rest of the physical world outside an individual experience, it can not be observed by an individual, as observing it makes it part of the individual’s experience. However, few people doubt the physical world continues to exist when I am not aware of it, popular opinion is not enough for our purposes. Fortunately it is possible to devise measuring methods to investigate this. A simple method would be to ask two reliable friends what it in a closed box if the accounts match, and our subsequent investigation matched the accounts, this would strongly suggest the physical world has an apparent continuity of its own, independent of our involvement in it.
It is one of the works of metaphysics to investigate this physical realm, without being fixed into any specific science it would draw from all sciences and other sources too. Where as science seeks to define the relationships and forces acting between objects, but does not seek to find the nature of these things in our experience, metaphysics seeks to determine the nature of the objects and forces, the nature of experience and the nature of the experience-er.
Science has a huge body of understanding of the physical, although metaphysics should expand beyond the limits of science, it should not disregard the findings of science, particularly it should not conflict with these findings lightly. This is the reason (asked for in an earlier post) why science is a valid starting point for metaphysics, why scientific experiments such as the famous two slits can be a fertile source of evidence for metaphysics, and why only the ignorant or closed of mind would wish to discount such a source of evidence.
Given a starting point, as shown above, metaphysics can move towards its conclusions using reason and other methods of human understanding. We have a starting point and method, metaphysics is ready to launch.
A reminder; the ‘physical reality’ discussed above is the first component of reality.
Secondly a component which may or may not exist, which is not apparent to the senses. If it were to exist this would be the ‘hidden source of the physical reality.’ Before we mock and assert - based on no actual evidence, beyond personal opinion - that such a component does not and can not exist we need to consider situation.
Physics describes this source, Quantum Physics is very familiar with it.
Anyone wishing to dismiss out of hand the possibility of such a realm must dismiss some of the most powerful theories of Physics as he does so.
In trying to think into this realm, as Quantum Physicists do, they reach the very boundary of Physics and become metaphysicians, they are examining not the physical world but the origins of the physical world. This is why they produce ideas and quotes (such as the Max Plank quote I listed earlier) of similarity to the mystics who entered the same realms of thought by a different route.
It is a second area of metaphysical activity to investigate this most inaccessible realm. The very same experiment, the famous two slits experiment being a suitable starting point to approach the area through physics.
This has been declared by some as beyond space and time, the very source of space and time. This has been defined by some as the highest reality the ‘really real’ as opposed to the merely apparent physical world. Based upon such a definition of the highest reality I can define reality without a physical analogy (as you requested), this timeless, space-less source of all things is the source of all that we call physical, without being itself any thing physical nor the sum of all physical things. This is the highest reality of my metaphysics.
We find parallels for this ‘Source’ in ancient mystical texts from distant corners of the globe and various eras in time, in religious revelation, in the very cutting edge of our most advanced physics, and individually within our very selves in our quietest and deepest moments.
Is it impossible for you to credit the fact that the tree of human knowledge has many roots and branches? That the ancients as well as the moderns had men of exceptional understanding? That empirical observation needs to be coupled with quiet introspection?
Recall that many great physicists have openly used or acknowledged parallels between modern Physics and ancient philosophies. Bohr being one, Capra another.
An advanced intellect can consider fairly the merits of an idea when the idea is not its own.
An advanced personality considers the ego to be an ugly thing, and none more so that its own.
An advanced mind grows satiated with experience and starts to wonder 'why?'
