>I prefer the term, "view of reality" or "view of a situation" since it
>sounds like a more digestible meme than "implied reality". This situation
>has a definite nature, but our views of it might be different, to various
>degrees. Viewing a situation is like looking at a mountain--we can see it
>from various angles, and we can use different glasses to give us different
>perceptions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean "point of view" or "perspective"? I agree that the two terms
are very similar. The difference, in my mind, is that a "point of view" is
a position while an "implied reality" is a field or universe. I think of a
perspective as a kind of lens through which or point of reference from
which observations are made. The sum of these observations is analyzed
and the resulting gestalt is "implied reality". What I am desperately trying
to avoid is making any assumptions about the nature of "perspective-less"
reality or a universe without an "observer". Thus questions like "Tree
falling, nobody to hear; does it make any sound?" remain open.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is supposed to appeal to objectivists? Take out the word "implied"
>(hand waving) and you have statements like "Reality is subjective...[ is not
>consistent] over time". That does not fit with my definition of reality.
>
>Brett
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess not. :-)
I think you're polarizing my position.
The reason I pulled the idea of "Implied Reality" from it's home in
literary criticism is that it was a useful tool for resolving similar
knots in that context.
In my mind the words "subjective" and "inconsistent" are not
interchangable. They are orthogonal. In implying that subjective
realities must, by defintion be inconsistent (and thus that the
only consistent reality is "objective" or simply adjectiveless)
you are drawing an isomorphism that I do not accept.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>David
>Since Reed changed "objective" to "implied", which he later equates with
>subjective, I don't think we can get away with dropping the adjective
>and assuming everyone is on the same page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't equate "implied" and "subjective".
I do think the adjective is important, though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David
>By "objective" I meant something along the lines of "for all observers using
>the same definitions". Of course this has problems too because some definitions
>are inherently relative like "I", "behind" and "after", but it's a start.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shouldn't we begin with a simple model, like a single person?
What does "objective" mean with respect to an individual?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tad
>>(4) Consistent = predictable. Making experiments possible and worth
>>performing. In fact making evolution and life possible. I know it's not
>>the best definition... Well, it's an 18 month project...
David
>Actually I meant "consistent" in the logical sense, as in non-contradictory.
>So, substituting...
>
>1. For all observers using the same definitions, any true statement about
>reality will not contradict other true statements about reality.
>
>Here's an example that avoids the relativity problems I mentioned:
>
>2. All humans have a common ancestor.
>
>and its negation:
>
>3. It is not the case that all humans have a common ancestor.
>
>I'm claiming that if (2) is true, then (3) will be false (and vice versa) for
>everyone using the same definitions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what you are actually claiming is that it would be inconsistent to
believe both (2) and (3) with 100% conviction at the same time. I agree
with that as a definition of inconsistent: to simultaneously believe both
A and ~A to be true with full conviction.
I believe it is not the case that consistency derives from an objective
reality. Consistency is a logical characteristic that is more fundamental
than objectivity. Thus, consistent realities need not be objective.
In addition, it seems to me that
>1. For all observers using the same definitions, any true statement about
>reality will not contradict other true statements about reality
Implies something about consensus or agreement between the observers
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------