Is observational reality the ONLY reality?

[science_is_my_god]

Is there a difference between observational reality and reality derived from quantum physics/mechanics? Some say that observational reality is the ONLY reality...

For example, a 20th century philosopher challenged Einstein to prove to him that the moon exists when no one is looking at it. And no matter how long his mathematical expressions were, Einstein failed. Indeed, no matter how grounded a scientific observation is, it really is JUST an observation.

Any thoughts?

 

[Engyo]

Observational reality is just that - it is the reality that YOU observe. We all agree on this when we all observe the same things.

The critical question is whether this observational reality has any congruence whatsoever with objective reality (reality which does not depend on human senses).

 

[Willamena]

A comment on the topic.

Einstein: An Exchange by Jeremy Bernstein | The New York Review of Books

 

[HiddenDjinn]

This is an entire branch of philosophy, called Epistemology.

 

[elmarna]

REALITY=realized
there can be many realities that exist & not observed.
Science has realized the ameba.
i have never seen 1 & only through them do I realize it exists.
to OBSERVE=see
I see many things,but may not realize all that I see.
My reality in life is maintain in the world with the understanding I have.
I am always looking for the higher understanding in life!
the wisdoms there are always directed to mankinds & my higher good!
I always smile when I realize something new in our world of wonders!
The AH HA's in life are a great inspiration!

 

[Sunstone]

For example, a 20th century philosopher challenged Einstein to prove to him that the moon exists when no one is looking at it. And no matter how long his mathematical expressions were, Einstein failed. Indeed, no matter how grounded a scientific observation is, it really is JUST an observation.

Any thoughts?

Your story about Einstein is made up.

 

[Revoltingest]

For example, a 20th century philosopher challenged Einstein to prove to him that the moon exists when no one is looking at it. And no matter how long his mathematical expressions were, Einstein failed.

Your apocryphal story would indicate no failure of science, & Einstein would've known this.
The scientific method can only prove theories to be false....never "true", because all theories
are subject to being replaced by better ones. To presume that the moon is there when no one
is looking is merely a presumption which works & hasn't been found false.

 

[hamza abdulhakim]

Hello,

There are basicly 2 lines of argument offered against such a view. The first is that such an epistemology would require us to reject things we would all agree are rational to believe in. Such beliefs would include:

1. Metaphysical statements like there is an external world or there are minds besides my own.

2. Logic and Mathematics. Logic and Mathematical truth are presupposed by science but cannot actually be proved by science itself.

3. Moral statements

4. Aesthetic statements

5. Certain scientific presupposition which can themselves not be proved. For example the theory of relativity does depend on the presupposition that light travels at a constant speed although this itself cannot be proved scientifically.

The second argument which basicly lead to the rejection of logical positivism is the following. The principle itself is self-refuting. We could for instance ask 'is the statement observational reality the ONLY reality' itself in principle at least observable or can it be proved scientifically? Since it is an arbitrary philosophical statement it can be neither observed nor proved by the scientific method. This however would mean the statement itself should not be considered as part of or as representing reality so the principle would refute itself if thought out. Therefore this epistemology is false.

As it was already pointed out the story about Einstein is not authentic. Besides that I don't think it is really hard to prove the moon exists even without having any visual contact with it. In principle it is similar to how the existence of dark matter is established. Dark matter is a form of matter in our universe which is not directly observable but is the most plausible explanation for certain gravitational field which is are not produced by ordinary matter. In the case of the moon there are also some forces we can directly observe, namely the tides, for which the most plausible explanation would be the existence a celestial body with approximately the range and mass of the moon. So even if the moon would somehow not be directly observable it's existence could nonetheless be established by the scientific method.

 

[Revoltingest]

Observational reality is the only reality we can observe.

 

[hamza abdulhakim]

Hello Revoltingest,

Observational reality is the only reality we can observe.

Well that would be a tautology meaning this statement is true by definition. Observable reality is by it's very nature observable anything which is not observable is therefore not part of observable reality. This is vastly different from the original proposition that observable reality is the only reality in existence against which I gave some arguments.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well that would be a tautology....

You caught me.

 

[bobhikes]

Hello,

As it was already pointed out the story about Einstein is not authentic. Besides that I don't think it is really hard to prove the moon exists even without having any visual contact with it. In principle it is similar to how the existence of dark matter is established. Dark matter is a form of matter in our universe which is not directly observable but is the most plausible explanation for certain gravitational field which is are not produced by ordinary matter. In the case of the moon there are also some forces we can directly observe, namely the tides, for which the most plausible explanation would be the existence a celestial body with approximately the range and mass of the moon. So even if the moon would somehow not be directly observable it's existence could nonetheless be established by the scientific method.

Its an old thread I interpret it to ask the question to prove the moon does exist right now this moment why it is not in front of us. All you have to do is wait until the night and its there again. Using tides requires taking measurements over the day. All I would need do is just look at the sky and see it again.

It is impossible to prove anything exists in the moment if it is not within your senses.

 

[Acim]

How do we objective establish that our physical senses exist?

 

[bobhikes]

How do we objective establish that our physical senses exist?

I don't have too. I only have to establish that my senses are working. You could be a robot for all I know. Doesn't mean I can't use my senses to prove my reality.

 

[hamza abdulhakim]

Hello,

Its an old thread I interpret it to ask the question to prove the moon does exist right now this moment why it is not in front of us. All you have to do is wait until the night and its there again. Using tides requires taking measurements over the day. All I would need do is just look at the sky and see it again.

It is impossible to prove anything exists in the moment if it is not within your senses.

I agree that it is much simpler to just look out for the moon rather than deduce it from secondary measurements, but this was not really the thing in question. The real issue was is it possible to prove the moon exist without relying on direct observation on it and I think the answer is obviously yes.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Bear with me, I've got these ideas in my head, but I'm having trouble getting them out...

I can observe a reality. I do things, it reacts appropriately, and predictably. I hear, feel, taste, touch, and smell it. I tap a letter on the keyboard, and pixels on my screen change. I can describe it to another, and we have an understanding of whatever it is I'm describing - I can communicate my reality to another.

In a few minutes, I'm going to go to bed. While I'm asleep tonight, I might dream. And in this dream, I will observe a reality, quite similar to my waking reality. I can see, feel, taste, touch, and smell it. I can do things and it reacts appropriately and predictably. I can also do things that I might not be able to do in this one, for example, I could jump to the moon. When I wake up tomorrow, I can communicate this to someone else.

The only real difference between them is my state of consciousness. I'm in this one, when I'm awake, and in the other while asleep. I don't always remember my dreams, but then, neither do I always remember a whole day. Is the dream reality any less valid than a waking one? Do you not observe them both?

Blech... too tired, and I can't think straight. Gonna post this anyways.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

There are two types of realities:

The Subjective.

The Objective.


As for the Subjective, it varies among person. The good and bad, basically it is made of one's perspective, emotion, and judgement. Simply, it isn't true, but isn't wrong either.

As for the Objective, it is the same for all people, though the Subjective reality blocks most of it. It was where nothing it judged, where nothing is thought of as good or bad, no artificial colours, no perspective, and nothing to be emotional about.


The Subjective is formed by judging the Objective with our emotion and perspective.

 

[sandandfoam]

I see no reason to believe in objective reality.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I see no reason to believe in objective reality.

Well, where would the thought come from to control subjectivity?

 

[sandandfoam]

Well, where would the thought come from to control subjectivity?

Thought comes from mind and mind is inherently subjective. I don't see how mind (or anything) could control subjectivity?