Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

Originally Posted by Sageous

That our observations originate from here does not mean they only encompass here, I think.

But this they exactly do; all measurements were generated right here. We infer something about the rest of the universe from them, but this is just us using the pre-constructed model. The data are emphatically from here.

The starry sky might well be painted on a spherical, magical canvas surrounding us on all sides. We wouldn't know. The Truman Show might be real after all.

If we are simply a lab experiment, with scientists toying with us, observing which theories we come up with, based on the surroundings they supply us with, then how could we possibly tell?

Does Pacman know he lives in a computer? Would it help if we gave him a powerful telescope?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Most people do probably believe the same. But there is no empirical evidence from the rest of the universe; all of it has been collected here.

That's what i'm saying. It gets even more absurd when you try to assume emperical data about something that is somewhere else in time altogether.

Well actually because of stellar parallax, the stars can't be on a fixed sphere.

But really, what you're talking about is just philosophical scepticism. There are two things to say.

First is to repeat that science is just about patterns in observations, and a claim is only meaningful insofar as it refers to a distinct class of patterns in observations. So in this sense it's actually impossible to be sceptical. You either observe a pattern or you don't. It makes no sense to doubt whether you "really" experienced something. Even if we're in the Truman Show, or The Matrix - that doesn't actually invalidate the scientific claim. The scientific claim was simply about patterns in our experience, and those patterns in our experience remain correct regardless of whether they are "faked" or not. The question of whether the observations is "real" is not a scientific one, and probably doesn't actually have any meaning at all.

In the case of stellar parallax, for example, you could argue that the stars really are on a fixed sphere, but that their starlight somehow, in some rather contrived and complicated way, bends, so that it merely appears that they are at various different distances in space. But as this has exactly the same observational consequences as if the stars were simply at the distances they appeared to be, it makes no sense to affirm the former over the latter. It's exactly the same claim. They are equivalent models.

The second point is that appealing to patterns is, kinda regrettably, the best we can actually do with respects to knowledge. This is the problem of induction, raised by David Hume. The sun rises every 24 hours and has done so thousands of times in our experience. Does that mean we can guarantee it will rise tomorrow? No. In reality we are sure of absolutely nothing outside of what we have observed. The sun could fail to rise tomorrow. Two suns could rise. The sun could rise but in the shape of a cube. It's impossible to raise any logical objection to the rules (patterns) of the universe spontaneously changing. But extrapolating the pattern is simply the best we can do. We can't do any better. In a nutshell, we must either rely on patterns for our knowledge, or else we can't have any knowledge at all.

Against my better judgement (such debates can drag out and leave everybody feeling bad) I submit this rejoinder.

Minor quip:

Originally Posted by Xei

It makes no sense to doubt whether you "really" experienced something.

I'm sure you don't actually mean that (say you saw a ghost in your bedroom ...)


Major point:

Originally Posted by Xei

The question of whether the observations is "real" is not a scientific one, and probably doesn't actually have any meaning at all.

In the case of stellar parallax, for example, you could argue that the stars really are on a fixed sphere, but that their starlight somehow, in some rather contrived and complicated way, bends, so that it merely appears that they are at various different distances in space. But as this has exactly the same observational consequences as if the stars were simply at the distances they appeared to be, it makes no sense to affirm the former over the latter. It's exactly the same claim. They are equivalent models.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds exactly as if you just want science to reassure you, by giving you a result - preferably the one you wanted to begin with - regardless of whether it is true or false. But I do not care for false results - ever. Finding the correct result matters to me. Whose view is "better" is for everyone to decide personally, but I do think my position is closer to the spirit of science. To me, science should be about getting closer to the truth - not about getting closer to comfort.

Originally Posted by Xei

But extrapolating the pattern is simply the best we can do.

It is your birthright to believe, whatever you choose to believe. And, even if believing in extrapolations from conditions here on Earth to the (possibly) vast reaches of space will not grant you an esteemed place amongst statisticians, you will certainly find respect amongst those of varied religious denominations as a true man of faith.

I'm sure you don't actually mean that (say you saw a ghost in your bedroom ...)

You experienced it, no one can deny. But based on knowledge, we know that it's most like a option illusion, you hallucinating, dreaming, etc. Science categorizes the experience (never denies it). Is that experience enough to determine that ghosts exist? No. It's not dogmatic that majority of scientists advocate for materialism, it's because our current knowledge of the universe give the most support to this theory. And even if it didn't, it wouldn't still be dogmatic like OP seemed to think (may he correct me if I'm wrong here): science still allows (doesn't persecute) anyone with contrary theories. Hell, loads of "weird" studies are published, even if not totally well-structured.

It is your birthright to believe, whatever you choose to believe. And, even if believing in extrapolations from conditions here on Earth to the (possibly) vast reaches of space will not grant you an esteemed place amongst statisticians, you will certainly find respect amongst those of varied religious denominations as a true man of faith.

How? Science extrapolates things based on models of prediction. Religion extrapolates things based on non-testable principles. Don't Newton's laws so far been irrefutable? Wouldn't we change positions if they were proven to be false? Maybe the reason why we hold instead of finding something we don't understand (like black holes) is being cautious. You only want to replace a theory if you have a better one, otherwise arguing for things for the sake of "your theory cannot explain everything!" would make science much harder.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Minor quip:

I'm sure you don't actually mean that (say you saw a ghost in your bedroom ...)

No, I do mean it. This is kinda vital to most of what I was saying, so perhaps give my post a closer read. You can't deny that you observed an observation. It's vague exactly what kind of observation you refer to by "see a ghost", but let's say in this particular case you mean you saw a disembodied floating light. It makes no sense to doubt whether you "really did" have the experience of a disembodied floating light. You can perhaps doubt the nature of the light - whether it was an optical trick - but you can't doubt that you did observe it.

Major point:

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds exactly as if you just want science to reassure you, by giving you a result - preferably the one you wanted to begin with - regardless of whether it is true or false. But I do not care for false results - ever. Finding the correct result matters to me. Whose view is "better" is for everyone to decide personally, but I do think my position is closer to the spirit of science. To me, science should be about getting closer to the truth - not about getting closer to comfort.

I really have no idea what comfort has to do with what I said. Please either give my post another reading, or explain what you mean. Because the point I was making had nothing to do with "wanting results regardless of whether they are true". And I didn't say anything about views being "better". My point was about views being equivalent when they describe the same patterns in observations. I'm not sure how you got from that to "comfort".

It is your birthright to believe, whatever you choose to believe. And, even if believing in extrapolations from conditions here on Earth to the (possibly) vast reaches of space will not grant you an esteemed place amongst statisticians, you will certainly find respect amongst those of varied religious denominations as a true man of faith.

Faith here means "believing something with no regard to observations and patterns in observations".

As I remarked at the end of my post, either we rely on patterns for knowledge, or we have no knowledge at all. In both cases, faith is not knowledge.

An example of a scientific, "pattern-based" statement is: we have seen the sun rise every day thousands of times, so we suspect the sun will rise after the darkness tonight.

An example of a faith-based statement is: the sun will stay on the horizon tomorrow and send out rays of healing.

Do you see a difference between these two beliefs? Do you think they have an equal claim to "knowledge"?

I don't really know how to best contribute to the conversation, as it seems fairly tangled... at most I will say that science does have its problems. It has a history of being plagued by racism and sexism (lest we forget the existence of female hysteria and the eugenics movement) and likely still suffers of this to some degree. There are plenty of issues within the system itself before even getting to the faith issue (e.g. lots of breast cancer donations go to awareness and not researching a cure or only researching cures that have already been oversaturated in reports as opposed to innovative treatments). At the same time, science does in fact react to totally new information, such as the recent discussion of a quasar cluster that is much bigger than what is believed to have been even possible, thereby challenging a fundamental principle of how astrologists understood space. I feel this is not a white/black issue and no one perception can apply to every field of science as a single organization.

Yes, I did struggle to follow some of the arguments in this thread.
However, if I understand the OP's intent, this was essentially the proof by experiment that the scientific community has a set of established opinions or beliefs, then undoubtably that would not be difficult to prove.

Ask several scientists about subjects outside their main interest, and they will have opinions that they will struggle to backup with evidence or proof, and yet they believe in them.
Only a super-being could be all-knowing to the point that they would not have to believe in the body of evidence that is the sum of the scientific communities' understanding.
All humans have to make a compromise and believe in at least some of the scientific dogma.
That doesn't make the things they believe in wrong, and it only becomes damaging if the dogma is un-swerving.
However, of all the religions, science is probably the one that is most happy to admit it got it wrong as new theories come along.
Having some dogma is important to ensure our limited efforts are expended well, and avoiding incessantly questioning areas that have already been well covered. That approach is never going to be perfect, but it's a balance that works reasonably well.

Okay, this was meant as a minor thing, but I'm going to have to take major issue with your position:

Originally Posted by Xei

It makes no sense to doubt whether you "really did" have the experience

Yes, it does! Imagine your neighbour comes screaming into your house saying "OMG - I was just attacked by a ghost in my house. It roared, and threatened to bite my head off, whilst raping much of the furniture!!!"

Would you then, in the privacy of your own mind, not think that he ought to doubt his experience?

Originally Posted by Xei

I really have no idea what comfort has to do with what I said.

Hmm, I would have thought my exposition very clear, but let me try to explain in more detail then.

You stated "The question of whether the observations is "real" is not a scientific one, and probably doesn't actually have any meaning at all."

This, to me, indicates that you are not concerned with reality (= truth), but only with observation.

You further said: "In the case of stellar parallax, for example, you could argue that the stars really are on a fixed sphere, but that their starlight somehow, in some rather contrived and complicated way, bends, so that it merely appears that they are at various different distances in space. But as this has exactly the same observational consequences as if the stars were simply at the distances they appeared to be, it makes no sense to affirm the former over the latter. It's exactly the same claim. They are equivalent models."

Now, this is just plain wrong. Two models are not equivalent, simply because they yield the same predictions on already observed data. In order to be equivalent they must yield the same predictions on all potential data, whether already observed or not.

The fact that you do not distinguish between models that may differ enormously in their predictions, simply because they agree on the observations so far received, says to me that you are not primarily concerned with the correspondence between a model and truth; the matter of importance, to you, seems to be using the model which you love - as long as it does not perform worse than any other model.

Because of this, I concluded that you feel happy using a particular set of models (which we may well call "Science") and, as long as no other set of models pops up with better agreement with observations, you have faith in your models and their predictions, and will not take an interest in whether the model agrees with reality (= truth). This led me to introduce the concept of "comfort"; it really seems to me as if you just want to snuggle up in "Science" and leave reality to itself.

However, on second reading of your post, I agree that there is no indication that you would be unwilling to adopt a different set of models (e.g. occultism), if this would provide better agreement with observations.


As for the third paragraph, you said: "Faith here means 'believing something with no regard to observations and patterns in observations'."

We disagree on the meaning of this word: To me, faith means believing in something. I do not presume faith to overrule observations, and their patterns.

The rest of your paragraph doesn't really seem to be relevant to the context of my prior post, and your two examples are very strange; religions also base their models on observations. Just not the same observations as Science.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Okay, this was meant as a minor thing, but I'm going to have to take major issue with your position:

Yes, it does! Imagine your neighbour comes screaming into your house saying "OMG - I was just attacked by a ghost in my house. It roared, and threatened to bite my head off, whilst raping much of the furniture!!!"

Would you then, in the privacy of your own mind, not think that he ought to doubt his experience?

How could he possibly doubt that he experienced what he just experienced? You're not making any coherent sense to me. Obviously I would doubt his testimony, but that's a completely different question.

You stated "The question of whether the observations is "real" is not a scientific one, and probably doesn't actually have any meaning at all."

This, to me, indicates that you are not concerned with reality (= truth), but only with observation.

What is truth other than a correct statement about observations?

The sun rises every 24 hours. This is the truth. It's also an observation.

What's an example of a knowable "truth" about reality which doesn't concern observations?

Two models are not equivalent, simply because they yield the same predictions on already observed data. In order to be equivalent they must yield the same predictions on all potential data, whether already observed or not.

I didn't say anything about past data... I mean the same thing that you mean. This seems a bit semantic and I'm struggling to get a handle on the distinction; let me be very formal and precise. Models are propositions. Propositions divide a set into two classes - true and false. In this case, the set is "all possible experiential universes" - that is, all the possible bunches of observations. So, a model divides the set of all bunches of observations into two classes - those where the model can be said to apply (or "be true"), and those where it does not apply. And two models are equivalent when they divide all possible bunches of observations into exactly the same two classes. In other words, two models, model A and model B, are equivalent when, for any bunch of observations X, either A and B both apply to X, or A and B both don't apply to X.

the matter of importance, to you, seems to be using the model which you love

Why do you keep saying this..? I already denied it once. I'm not trying to mislead you. When two models are equivalent, I don't have any preference for one over the other. This seems pretty obvious, right..? They're the same model. One might be easier to work with than the other, but they both describe exactly the same thing. They're either both true or both false.

The only criterion I have for assenting to a model - or rather, a whole bunch of equivalent models - is whether they are true (i.e. correspond to observations) or not.

Because of this, I concluded that you feel happy using a particular set of models (which we may well call "Science") and, as long as no other set of models pops up with better agreement with observations, you have faith in your models and their predictions, and will not take an interest in whether the model agrees with reality (= truth).

This is where you lose me. I don't know what special thing you're referring to by "truth" or "reality". If a model fits observations, then it's "true" that the model fits observations. This is just a tautology.

We disagree on the meaning of this word: To me, faith means believing in something. I do not presume faith to overrule observations, and their patterns.

The rest of your paragraph doesn't really seem to be relevant to the context of my prior post, and your two examples are very strange; religions also base their models on observations. Just not the same observations as Science.

Forgive my presumption but I don't think you actually do define "faith" like that. I'm guessing you believe the sun rose this morning. So... you "have faith" that the sun rose this morning? Seems like a very unorthodox use of the word to me.

Yes, my final paragraph is incongruous, but you were the one who brought it up. I couldn't make much sense of what you were saying. My best guess was that you were saying that appealing to induction is the same as appealing to "faith" and "religion". My examples were supposed to make clear that they aren't similar at all.

I’ll just make separate counterarguments to Voldmer’s post without setting implications that I’m defending anyone that’s already made their points clear.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Yes, it does! Imagine your neighbour comes screaming into your house saying "OMG - I was just attacked by a ghost in my house. It roared, and threatened to bite my head off, whilst raping much of the furniture!!!"

Would you then, in the privacy of your own mind, not think that he ought to doubt his experience?

When you proposed the question for the user to answer, it seems irrelevant to ask them to speculate if the individual should doubt what they’ve personally observed. That’s like stating the individual should find major distinctions between rationalism vs. empiricism in relation to the scenario mentioned with the ghost for instance, and also feeling the need the individual needs to use rationalism and empiricism independently rather than in tandem with each other.

Now, in the presumptive scenario you’ve made to use as a counterargument to Xei’s post, it doesn’t seem like a plausible way for support. The reason is that at best, the individual can give the other the benefit of the doubt, but they aren’t obligated, or need to contemplate if that same person that presumably saw a ghost needs to use theoretical deduction to go about conceptualizing that event.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This, to me, indicates that you are not concerned with reality (= truth), but only with observation.

Again, this goes back to the rationalism and empiricism mentioned before on whether or not they should be used in tandem with each other, or independently with it comes to the epistemological sense. Just because the individual seems to be catering to observations, this doesn’t mean they absolve rationalizing with reality. You’re just attributing a straw man in presuming the individual is not concerned with reality, and feeling this is plausible enough to deem they could potentially be as dogmatic as anyone.

Xei has consistently made counterarguments (that people seem to make half-baked counterarguments to that) against the presumptions people had of him. It shouldn’t be implied that there’s an absolute dichotomy between rationalism and empiricism (or deriving knowledge from sense-experiences). And if I’m viewing this correctly, you did garner a favoritism over juroara’s post before in relation to NDE research in this thread, which would in a way, portray how there are scientific attempts to create experiments to hopefully conceptualize those empiricist views with sense-experiences of NDE.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Now, this is just plain wrong. Two models are not equivalent, simply because they yield the same predictions on already observed data. In order to be equivalent they must yield the same predictions on all potential data, whether already observed or not.

How is that plain wrong? What Xei stated before fits epistemological pluralism where certain phenomenon can be explained through other means, and not just a singular theory, or theories that militantly follow the rudiments of one theory. Just like how one may be able to make theoretical deductions on sense-experience, it’s similar of them attributing a priori presumptions from patterns of observations that are consistent.

The thread was intended on presumed dogmatic individuals that fixated on reductionist metaphysics (and combining materialistic dispositions) rather than empiricist standpoints (and other co-dependent views like rationalism) sustained from an epistemological standpoint.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

the matter of importance, to you, seems to be using the model which you love - as long as it does not perform worse than any other model.

This implies that the individual clings only to those models, and is incompetent to create a priori presumptions on personal experiential cases in relation to sense-experience, or anything that may be currently difficult to be explained through epistemological lens.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Because of this, I concluded that you feel happy using a particular set of models (which we may well call "Science") and, as long as no other set of models pops up with better agreement with observations, you have faith in your models and their predictions, and will not take an interest in whether the model agrees with reality (= truth).

Again this presumes the individual is steadfast and militant in using only logical positivism to validate their existence, reality, and any other constituents in relation to reality. Presuming that the individual is snuggling up, or adding padding to “Science” with logical positivism to where the individual could care less at conceptualizing reality even if those favored analytical observations and models contradicts their own sense-experiences…that just doesn’t make sense at all, man.

It’s as if the models the individual would be using more suddenly will be broken down, refuted, and completely destroyed based on the “what if” should another model/set of models arise that may be more pragmatic. If someone actually clings onto models and logical positivism to validate their quotidian lifestyle, and how they observe personal sense-experience, then they really have grandiose delusions. But no one, at least for now, has yet to fit that spectrum, which makes this claim of yours with Xei apparently garnering favoritism to logical positivism false, and it just makes your post so far attributing to straw man (i.e. him relying only on models he deems fitting, and rejecting any other “what if” model that may be presented in the future that could refute all, or the majority of other models/observations/etc). Please fixate on the reality of the situation before you presume another individual wants to be absolved from conceptualizing reality itself.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

However, on second reading of your post, I agree that there is no indication that you would be unwilling to adopt a different set of models (e.g. occultism), if this would provide better agreement with observations.

That’s because metaphysics shouldn’t be reduced to the supernatural, or that the supernatural is just part of the totality of metaphysics, not the whole.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

We disagree on the meaning of this word: To me, faith means believing in something. I do not presume faith to overrule observations, and their patterns.

Originally Posted by Google wrote

e•pis•te•mol•o•gy
iˌpistəˈmäləjē/
noun
Philosophy
noun: epistemology
1. 1.
the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion

We can discuss distinctions of beliefs and opinions, though I feel that would lead to unintelligible equivocation and semantical gymnastics at this point. But seeing how the thread was shifting through implications of dogma, personal dispositions with experiential cases, a priori presumptions, and all sorts of elements for arguments, I guess it can’t be stopped.

The Big What? New Model Eliminates Need for Big Bang

Thought it might be of interest. A mathematical theory that includes time and gravity as a variable.

Here's another video I've just started watching where I presume Sheldrake goes into deeper detail on his book, The Science Delusion.

Original Poster

I pressed the embedded video but it just keeps dissappearing. So I went searching for what it might be. Is this it?:

***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHU...e_gdata_player

***(18:20)

Here is what is under the Youtube:

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion

BANNED (off )TED TALK

By revolutionloveevolve

Mar 15, 2013
446,791 views

Re-uploaded as TED have decided to censor Rupert and remove this video from the TEDx youtube.

DR RUPERT SHELDRAKE, Ph.D. (born 28 June 1942) is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books.

A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize.

He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry.

He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology.

As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.

While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots.

From 1968 to 1969, based in the Botany Department of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, he studied rain forest plants.

From 1974 to 1985 he was Principal Plant Physiologist and Consultant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India,

where he helped develop new cropping systems now widely used by farmers.

While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book,
A New Science of Life.

From 2005-2010 he was the Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project funded from Trinity College,Cambridge.

He is a Fellow of Schumacher College , in Dartington, Devon,

a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences near San Francisco, and a

Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute in Connecticut.

He lives in London with his wife Jill Purce*and two sons.

(...)

Hello Xei, I think we can wrap up our part of this thread now, or very soon.

Let me just get the issue over the word "truth" out of the way. Your definition of it was made very clear ("a correct statement about observations"), but I use it in this context as a stand-in for reality. So we may be simply talking past each other about this (which also isn't very important here, compared to the rest).

The way you specified the equivalence of models (apart from a few minor things) is almost the same as mine, so it would appear we agree on that any way (as you also pointed out).

But then you stated:

"What is truth other than a correct statement about observations?"

BANG ... the smoking gun!

That's when it hit me, which corner you are coming from. And suddenly everything you've been saying becomes coherent. I believe that I now understand the internal logic in your line of arguing. Apparently, you equate reality with the complete set of observations. Such that everything that is observed is part of reality, and reality contains nothing else.

My view of observations is quite different: I view the observations as a consequence of reality (and themselves a tiny little part of reality).

So you appear to have an extreme subjectivist world view: the observations constitute reality. Whereas I hold an extreme objectivist world view: reality is the ultimate cause of all observations (which includes the observations themselves).

I think pretty much every issue in our debate comes back to this difference, which is not one of logical reasoning at all, but simply one of two irreconcilable premises.

I now fully accept the logical flow in your line of arguing (but your world view is just about the most alien thing I have ever come across in my life! I'm a physicist, and my main interest has always been to understand the cause of everything; to view the observations as the main feature has never in my life occurred to me).

Finally, let me just try to clarify the "faith" issue. I use that word, in the present context, more or less like the word "belief" or "trust". For example, if you believe that a model will yield correct predictions, then you have "faith" in it - regardless of whether this model is part of "Science" or of "Religion".

The following is in reply to Linkzeldas contribution in post no. 87. It may possibly be an advantage to go over my earlier post no. 91 before reading the present contribution.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

When you proposed the question for the user to answer, it seems irrelevant to ask them to speculate if the individual should doubt what they’ve personally observed. That’s like stating the individual should find major distinctions between rationalism vs. empiricism in relation to the scenario mentioned with the ghost for instance, and also feeling the need the individual needs to use rationalism and empiricism independently rather than in tandem with each other.

Now, in the presumptive scenario you’ve made to use as a counterargument to Xei’s post, it doesn’t seem like a plausible way for support. The reason is that at best, the individual can give the other the benefit of the doubt, but they aren’t obligated, or need to contemplate if that same person that presumably saw a ghost needs to use theoretical deduction to go about conceptualizing that event.

Virtually nothing of what you wrote there makes any sense to me. The scenario I introduced was not a counterargument, it was an encouragement to think.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

You’re just attributing a straw man in presuming the individual is not concerned with reality, and feeling this is plausible enough to deem they could potentially be as dogmatic as anyone.

I hope you, by "the individual", refer to Xei, because otherwise I have no clue, what you are talking about. I haven't made all that much out of the "dogma" aspect. My main interest in this thread concerns the use of faith as a foundation of all reasoning (including science and religion). The difference between Xei and myself on the issue of "reality" has been clarified (I believe) in my earlier post.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

How is that plain wrong? What Xei stated before fits epistemological pluralism where certain phenomenon can be explained through other means, and not just a singular theory, or theories that militantly follow the rudiments of one theory. Just like how one may be able to make theoretical deductions on sense-experience, it’s similar of them attributing a priori presumptions from patterns of observations that are consistent.

The thread was intended on presumed dogmatic individuals that fixated on reductionist metaphysics (and combining materialistic dispositions) rather than empiricist standpoints (and other co-dependent views like rationalism) sustained from an epistemological standpoint.

If you rewrite that in English, then I may be able to comment on it.

As for my earlier comment, which you quoted ("Now, this is just plan wrong ..."), it is entirely correct, but apparently also shared by Xei. There was a misunderstanding concerning his earlier post, which I replied to.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

This implies that the individual clings only to those models, and is incompetent to create a priori presumptions on personal experiential cases in relation to sense-experience, or anything that may be currently difficult to be explained through epistemological lens.

Well, you might think that. But I'm inclined to believe that Xei does not hold completely to the "obsevational view of reality", if I may call it such. Personally, I cannot see how anyone could possibly construct a fundamental theory with such a narrow view of reality. But I'm still somewhat shellchoked from coming across this world view.


The remainder of your post contains scattered traces of normal language, but not enough for me to understand why you wrote it. So I'll leave it as it as a momument for itself.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

The Big What? New Model Eliminates Need for Big Bang

Thought it might be of interest. A mathematical theory that includes time and gravity as a variable.

The research was published on July 2010 if I'm looking at this correctly from other sources, so I'm wondering what's so new about it (and other theories similar to it with cyclical trends, or implications of eternal universe and such), and if a cosmological theory like this can join in with other theories that may challenge the Big Bang theory. Then taking into consideration of other factors on whether or not it (Shu's theory) can be compatible with fundamental laws of physics. I'm interested to see if there's an new progress since then, but other than that, it (the link in particular) seems like sensationalism with a "new" model that's similar to others decades ago.

Originally Posted by havago

Original Poster

I pressed the embedded video but it just keeps dissappearing. So I went searching for what it might be. Is this it?:

***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHU...e_gdata_player

***(18:20)

Here is what is under the Youtube:

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion

BANNED (off )TED TALK

By revolutionloveevolve

Mar 15, 2013
446,791 views

Re-uploaded as TED have decided to censor Rupert and remove this video from the TEDx youtube.

DR RUPERT SHELDRAKE, Ph.D. (born 28 June 1942) is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books.

A former Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize.

He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow, before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry.

He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology.

As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society, he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.

While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots.

From 1968 to 1969, based in the Botany Department of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, he studied rain forest plants.

From 1974 to 1985 he was Principal Plant Physiologist and Consultant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India,

where he helped develop new cropping systems now widely used by farmers.

While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book,
A New Science of Life.

From 2005-2010 he was the Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project funded from Trinity College,Cambridge.

He is a Fellow of Schumacher College , in Dartington, Devon,

a Fellow of the Institute of Noetic Sciences near San Francisco, and a

Visiting Professor at the Graduate Institute in Connecticut.

He lives in London with his wife Jill Purce*and two sons.

(...)

The video is 1:19, the banned tedtalk is a very brief summary, the video I just posted is a bit longer and covers each dogma specifically. I definitely recommend it, here's the link: The Science Delusion - YouTube

It goes into greater detail why, for example, he chose to include the Conservation of Energy, because it was originally an assumption but one he figured would hold true and help counter-balance his argument by providing some basic assumptions that ended up being correct. But the movement of matter in the universe contradicts this law, and in fact very elaborate and far-fetched concepts like dark matter have sprung up as a means of explaining contradictory patterns being observed. He also explains changing universal constants, using Big G as an example rather than just the speed of light (since it became fixed to the meter)

I’ve read post #91, though I’m wondering if you’re really talking about seeing reality through objective lens/standpoint, or an objectivist point of view (that originated from Ayn Rand who had a personal favoritism towards the philosophy). If it’s the latter, which I’m presuming that is the case since it’s how you deemed to conceptualize reality, this is going to turn into a philosophical discussion more than scientific one.

Post #91 doesn’t seem to clear any misunderstandings that probably have been made from anyone, especially when you were giving a comparative analysis on what you deemed Xei’s philosophy is compared to yours. There’s a lot of criticism behind objectivism in particular that literally rips it to shreds, so offering a philosophy that’s been debunked (and comparing it with what you presume Xei goes by) seems kind of futile in the first place.

If you’re talking about another definition (which I highly doubt) for the “extreme objectivist” world view you hold, then I’m interested in how you can expound more into this world view of yours.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Apparently, you equate reality with the complete set of observations. Such that everything that is observed is part of reality, and reality contains nothing else.

I don’t know how you formulated that presumption from Xei’s posts, though I guess you’re confusing his epistemological standpoint(s) as his only worldview mentality. Which is why I mentioned the logical positivism that you were mentioning Xei presumably had in this quote, and most of your responses to him.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

(but your world view is just about the most alien thing I have ever come across in my life! I'm a physicist, and my main interest has always been to understand the cause of everything; to view the observations as the main feature has never in my life occurred to me)

I’m guessing the parentheses is referring to you, though with how you deemed to have an extreme objectivist world view (which would be talking about the philosophy behind objectivism), I honestly can’t see this mode of logic as less alien than what you think Xei has.

The keyword is mostly “objectivism” that I’m trying to wrap my mind around with here. With how there’s implications of principles (of life) is derived from observable facts of reality, how man has his own means of self-interest, and other aspects that can be discussed in relation to morality and such, it (your extreme objectivist worldview) seems it’s more of a subjective worldview/view of reality. Which is why I felt you were using empiricist modes of thinking with sense-experience (especially with the scenario you gave), but it ultimately contradicted the comparative analysis you did with you and Xei.

That’s why I felt there was unintelligible equivocation in the post, or at least predicted that would be the case. But it would be an ad hominem trying to make an argument to your extreme objectivist worldview just like how you presumed Xei holds an extreme subjectivist worldview. And seeing how you were making those deductions through the standpoint (that was a bit polemic) of objectivism, it seemed kind of opinionated of you to presume what Xei’s philosophy/world views was based off of conjecture.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

My view of observations is quite different: I view the observations as a consequence of reality (and themselves a tiny little part of reality).

So basically, you see reality as an objective absolute (seeing how you felt observations are a consequence of reality), which would imply there’s a mind-independent reality. Though the concern is whether or not your ability to experience subjectivity (sentience) to conceptualize reality itself as being more objective and less alien seems to be contradicting.

Because reality (from the extreme objectivist standpoint) is deemed as an objective absolute (in your mode of thinking with objectivism), this means it’s as absolute as you want to conceptualize it. It essentially becomes an egocentric view of reality, and potentially more dogmatic. And seeing how it’s not widely accepted, especially in academia, I’m really concerned on how you’re trying to “clarify” misunderstandings into this.

Which is why it seems you’re going by empiricism, or obtaining knowledge derived from sense-experience, but you’re combining that with implications of reality being an objective absolute. How one deems what reality is in this case of objectivism will invariably encroach metaphysical implications that might contradict themselves, and that really destroys any implications of your worldview being more objective than subjective.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Well, you might think that. But I'm inclined to believe that Xei does not hold completely to the "obsevational view of reality", if I may call it such. Personally, I cannot see how anyone could possibly construct a fundamental theory with such a narrow view of reality. But I'm still somewhat shellchoked from coming across this world view.

Then what was the point of making the comparative analysis in post #91 if you didn't feel inclined to believe he held that view completely?

>

Originally Posted by Voldmer

So you appear to have an extreme subjectivist world view: the observations constitute reality. Whereas I hold an extreme objectivist world view: reality is the ultimate cause of all observations (which includes the observations themselves).

Originally Posted by Voldmer in response to Xei

the matter of importance, to you, seems to be using the model which you love - as long as it does not perform worse than any other model.

And then this:

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Personally, I cannot see how anyone could possibly construct a fundamental theory with such a narrow view of reality. But I'm still somewhat shellchoked from coming across this world view.

With the extreme objectivist world view of yours deeming reality as an objective absolute, it seems a bit bold to be confident enough to validate reality is really just that (if you're not subscribing to the objectivism philosophy, then maybe you should use another word than "objectivist"). It's fair game for anyone to have their personal dispositions of reality, but epistemological approaches of Science in finding patterns to conceptualize a knowable world that Xei was going over shouldn't really be labeled as his only set of life-affirming philosophies.

I seriously cannot see how Xei’s posts so far are so alien compared to yours. I seriously cannot fathom that based on the criticisms and debunking of objectivism in the past.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

The remainder of your post contains scattered traces of normal language, but not enough for me to understand why you wrote it. So I'll leave it as it as a momument for itself.

That’s the beauty of asking for more clarification rather than making a polemic desperation of not understanding anything.

I don’t expect anyone to not ask for clarification on anything that may be confusing, but I can’t really go about clarifying if I can’t see what’s bothering you. If I find a post that seems incoherent or incomprehensible, I would at least attempt to see where the person was getting at and ask what they meant by those aspects to facilitate further discussion. And seeing how you couldn't understand it, I guess we've reached an impasse for that part.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Hello Xei, I think we can wrap up our part of this thread now, or very soon.

It was interesting and you're a nice interlocutor, so thanks.

That's when it hit me, which corner you are coming from. And suddenly everything you've been saying becomes coherent. I believe that I now understand the internal logic in your line of arguing. Apparently, you equate reality with the complete set of observations. Such that everything that is observed is part of reality, and reality contains nothing else.

My view of observations is quite different: I view the observations as a consequence of reality (and themselves a tiny little part of reality).

So you appear to have an extreme subjectivist world view: the observations constitute reality. Whereas I hold an extreme objectivist world view: reality is the ultimate cause of all observations (which includes the observations themselves).

I think pretty much every issue in our debate comes back to this difference, which is not one of logical reasoning at all, but simply one of two irreconcilable premises.

I now fully accept the logical flow in your line of arguing (but your world view is just about the most alien thing I have ever come across in my life! I'm a physicist, and my main interest has always been to understand the cause of everything; to view the observations as the main feature has never in my life occurred to me).

I like to think my philosophy consists of pretty much empty statements. I wouldn't say "observations constitute reality" is an opinion I hold, because I honestly don't know what this statement means. I am happy talking about observations, and patterns in observations... such statements seem clear and substantive to me - statements like "the sun rises every 24 hours". But a statement like "observations constitute reality"... I struggle to get a handle on what this refers to. If the converse was true, how would the world look any different? If the world wouldn't look any different, how could I possibly decide the matter? Is there even any matter?

I'd make exactly the same kind of remarks of the statement "reality is the ultimate cause of all observations". What exactly do you mean by this statement? How does reality "cause" something? How is reality separate from the something in the first place?

This is reminiscent to me of David Hume's analysis of causation. Have you ever heard about it? He gives the example of pool balls on a pool table. A red ball hits a stationary yellow ball; the red ball stops and the yellow ball rolls away. We say that the red ball "caused" the yellow ball to move. But what does that mean? Most people would say that it refers to some kind of a priori, obvious, necessary entailment. But is it really necessary and obvious? In truth, it's just learned. If you ask somebody to explain why it happens, they can't. If you suggest that the yellow ball might instead have instead moved vertically as a result (or disappeared, or done nothing at all), they can't actually give a logical denial. All they can do is appeal to the patterns of their previous experience. We never actually "see" or understand a thing called a "cause" occurring at the collision. We just see... stuff tending to occur in certain sequences (we could phrase this as worldlines in spacetime tending to have particular shapes and arrangements). This is emphasised by the discovery that the laws of classical physics are actually time-reversible, so it's actually baseless saying "the red ball caused the yellow ball to move"; "the yellow ball caused the red ball to move" is just as valid a statement. The big point that is being made here is that it's meaningless to think of "causes" as things that actually "exist". There are just patterns in events.

Incidentally I have a maths degree, but of course theoretical physics is pretty much synonymous with maths, so I have a decent knowledge of special relativity and quantum mechanics. And I certainly find the above insights very helpful for approaching the subject. In fact I'd say they're largely motivated by it.

Originally Posted by Xei

But a statement like "observations constitute reality"... I struggle to get a handle on what this refers to. If the converse was true, how would the world look any different?

This is actually a quite interesting question, because it is a leading question. You ask how the world would "look" different, and clearly it would not look different, if my version of "reality" is used instead. "Looking" is observing, and the observations would not change.

I would instead ask the question: "Would the world BE different?", and answer in the affirmative.

This may not have been the clearest exposition of my thoughts, so I'll throw in this example:

Model A) Astronomy explains the observations of stars.
Model B) Thought control exercised by a superior species explains the observations of stars.

Whether model A or B is used, the observations are the same. So, if I understand you correctly, from your perspective both models are equivalent.

From my perspective, however, the models are nothing like equivalent, because they imply completely different causes for the observations.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Originally Posted by Xei

How does reality "cause" something? How is reality separate from the something in the first place?

For me, "reality" is the completeness of everything - the whole universe and everything in it. Because this is not at rest, it causes itself to change incessantly. This also affects the observations made by man.



I agree that time has no direction (I actually think time is an illusion).

Originally Posted by Xei

Incidentally I have a maths degree

I suspected that, when I realised which corner you were coming from.

This is rejoinder to Linkzeldas post #95.

I have heard about Ayn Rands "objectivism", but any similarity between her ideology and the meaning attached to the word by me in this thread is entirely coincidental. I have no philosophical aspirations with using this word. I use "objectivist" as the counter-position to "subjectivist", whereby I mean a world view is subjectivist if it depends on the observer, and "objectivist" if it doesn't.

That's all, nothing more than that. Your focus on Ayn Rand is misguided. And, in fact, bringing a political/moralistic philosophy into this discussion is so strange, from my perspective, that I'm venturing the guess that you hold philosophy as a major interest in your life. (Well that, and your obvious fascination with long words that end in "-ism").

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

I honestly can’t see this mode of logic as less alien than what you think Xei has.

and later repeated:

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

I seriously cannot see how Xei’s posts so far are so alien compared to yours.

Hmmm ... My view is pretty much consistent with the views held by physicists for the past two thousand years. It is part of a long tradition, of trying to understand why nature behaves the way it does. From my perspective this view is therefore not at all alien.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

Though the concern is whether or not your ability to experience subjectivity (sentience) to conceptualize reality itself as being more objective and less alien seems to be contradicting.

What does my experience have to do with anything here? Incidentally, don't you mean "Though my concern is ...", rather than "Though the concern is ..."?

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

Because reality (from the extreme objectivist standpoint) is deemed as an objective absolute (in your mode of thinking with objectivism), this means it’s as absolute as you want to conceptualize it.

I don't conceptualise it at all. It would be like conceptualising God.

I only work with models, which I acknowledge are imperfect (but useful).

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

How one deems what reality is in this case of objectivism will invariably encroach metaphysical implications that might contradict themselves, and that really destroys any implications of your worldview being more objective than subjective.

So don't deem it!

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

Then what was the point of making the comparative analysis in post #91 if you didn't feel inclined to believe he held that view completely?

Because I thought he meant that he held firmly to that view.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

With the extreme objectivist world view of yours deeming reality as an objective absolute, it seems a bit bold to be confident enough to validate reality is really just that

I don't validate reality. I define the meaning of it (for my own use).

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

epistemological approaches of Science in finding patterns to conceptualize a knowable world that Xei was going over shouldn't really be labeled as his only set of life-affirming philosophies.

I haven't uttered a syllable about his life-affirming philosophies, and I have no knowledge of them.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

I don’t expect anyone to not ask for clarification on anything that may be confusing

You have got to be kidding me: you expect everyone to always ask you for clarification?

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

I would at least attempt to see where the person was getting at and ask what they meant

In my experience, people who write in a complex style like yours are not capable of communication in a clear and simple style. Therefore, I fully expected to get more of the same, if I asked for clarification. Subsequently, I declined the idea.

This didn't stop you from sending another barrel load. And it was more of the same. My prediction held true.

For this reason I shall again abstain from asking for clarification.

In post #91, you were comparing your worldview to what you presumed Xei’s worldview was. You’ve admitted to having an extreme objectivist world view, which means you probably apply objectivist epistemology when it comes to models/observations/etc. Within that post, you were basically comparing how each side have different means of a cognitive grasp of reality, and argued that Xei’s presumed worldview (before he clarified it after your post) is:

Originally Posted by Volder

just about the most alien thing I have ever come across in my life!

It should be obvious that making an argument over one person’s presumed cognitive grasp of reality/world view/etc. as more alien than your own cognitive grasp of reality is believing yours is more pragmatic simply because you would see reality as objective, especially when you’re trying to understand the totality of reality.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I use "objectivist" as the counter-position to "subjectivist", whereby I mean a world view is subjectivist if it depends on the observer, and "objectivist" if it doesn't.

That's all, nothing more than that.

You’re still creating a false dichotomy because both extremes are using their own rationality to conceptualize reality either way. The latter (especially in applying epistemology) strives to make distinctions in being realist, and believes reality is mind-independent. But that’s not even significantly different to other works where there’s independent interpretations of objectivity.

Objectivists may mostly dismiss cases that are hypothetical and counterfactual as believing they’re ambiguous or meaningless, which is usually just their cop-out from addressing those issues. This would be comparable to those that would subscribe to (what is presumed to be dogmatic in the OP of this thread) materialistic ontology, epistemology, and other standpoints used.

If the premise with objectivism is that reality is objective (just like how you believe observations being a consequence of reality), it’s essentially just metaphysical realism that’s typically one-sided, and isn’t really an advanced form of thought and reasoning that can reconcile with itself. The logic is completely abstract (metaphysical realism), and with its conception on causality, trying to encroach “chance,” or probabilistic nature in there, especially with tautological statements of “existence exists” and “reality=truth,” the objectivist’s standpoint becomes problematic.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Hmmm ... My view is pretty much consistent with the views held by physicists for the past two thousand years. It is part of a long tradition, of trying to understand why nature behaves the way it does. From my perspective this view is therefore not at all alien.

I wonder if extreme objectivist world views is still consistent with modern physics.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

and later repeated:

Not sure why reinforcing what I was concerned about again after like 5-6 paragraphs is needed, but okay.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Incidentally, don't you mean "Though my concern is ...", rather than "Though the concern is ..."?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I don't conceptualise it at all. It would be like conceptualising God.

You stated before that you believe in the premise of reality being objective, and had an extreme attachment to it. Now you’re stating that it’s not how you conceptualize it at all despite of stating before on how you believe observations are a consequence of reality, and how you’re interested in knowing why nature works in certain ways. So I don’t know why you think using a priori knowledge can only be analogous to conceptualizing God, or other religious implications.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

What does my experience have to do with anything here?

When you mentioned something like this:

Originally Posted by Voldmer

For me, "reality" is the completeness of everything - the whole universe and everything in it

This is a disposition of yours that coincides to how you conceptualize reality being objective (objectivist standpoint).

Originally Posted by Voldmer

So don't deem it!

I wasn’t making a self-referential statement, it was a statement towards extreme objectivists such as yourself.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Because I thought he meant that he held firmly to that view.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I haven't uttered a syllable about his life-affirming philosophies, and I have no knowledge of them.

The same post (#91) was you making presumptions about his philosophy (life-affirming, or any other mode of reasoning) with the extreme subjectivist worldview, just like you’ve stated what you thought he meant that he held that view firmly.

If that’s not you uttering anything about what his philosophy/reasoning presumably is, then I guess you’re just making up your own definitions and distinctions of what philosophy is.

So when you stated something like this:

Originally Posted by Voldmer

from my perspective, that I'm venturing the guess that you hold philosophy as a major interest in your life. (Well that, and your obvious fascination with long words that end in "-ism").

If you’re talking about generalized objectivity instead, maybe you should use that instead of “extreme objectivist” you had in post #91 that would imply you followed objectivism of Ayn Rand. But because it seems that how you feel you have an extreme objectivist worldview doesn’t seem something of philosophical aspiration to objectivism, you’re not making a clear distinction and where you stand here with that word.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I have heard about Ayn Rands "objectivism", but any similarity between her ideology and the meaning attached to the word by me in this thread is entirely coincidental. I have no philosophical aspirations with using this word.

How can you hold an objectivist worldview if you don’t believe in either objectivism in the general philosophy, nor the objectivism based from Ayn Rand?

It was not me exhibiting fascination of philosophy as a major interest in my life, it was me trying to see what type of objectivist view you hold (either the dogmatic view from Ayn Rand that’s been debunked, or the central and neutral view that fails to decently distinguish between sense and reference). But seeing how you don’t have any philosophical aspirations using that word, I’m wondering why you even used the word “objectivist” in the first place.

It’s like a solipsist stating they don’t have philosophical aspirations to solipsism, or a fatalist not having philosophical aspirations to fatalism, or anything with –ist not subscribing to said –ism. It’s contradicting for you to state you’re an extreme objectivist if you don’t have philosophical aspirations to objectivism (either in Rand’s perspective, or any other form of objectivism besides Rand’s). It's also completely useless for you to state you're using it as:

Originally Posted by Voldmer

the counter-position to "subjectivist", whereby I mean a world view is subjectivist if it depends on the observer, and "objectivist" if it doesn't.

That’s all I’m trying to get at with you. I’m not trying to have an intellectual enthusiasm with big words or anything of that nature, I'm concerned on why you used "objectivist" for any reason (i.e. counter-position) if you don't subscribe to any of the types of objectivism there is.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

You have got to be kidding me: you expect everyone to always ask you for clarification?

No, not always. I thought it was an implied etiquette here for anyone that doesn’t seem to know what the person was getting at, they would at least attempt to ask questions on what they meant. Though I guess that’s not the case apparently.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This didn't stop you from sending another barrel load. And it was more of the same. My prediction held true.

Because you kept avoiding to address the counterarguments I was making for your extreme objectivist world view in post #91. And I’ll agree with you asking for clarification is pretty much a lost cause now.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This is actually a quite interesting question, because it is a leading question. You ask how the world would "look" different, and clearly it would not look different, if my version of "reality" is used instead. "Looking" is observing, and the observations would not change.

I would instead ask the question: "Would the world BE different?", and answer in the affirmative.

I'm not clear on what you're referring to here. My question wasn't about models and such, it was about the statements "observations are reality" and "reality causes observations". Your answers sounds more like an answer to a question about the reality of two equivalent models. Leave that question aside for the moment.

My questions weren't supposed to be leading, they were really just meant to communicate my thought process for your sake, and also to interrogate yours for mine. I note you didn't address the second question, which was quite an important one. If we can't pin down any way the world would seem different to us when statements like "observations are reality" or "reality causes observations" are true or false, how can we come to any conclusions about them? How did you come to any conclusions?

Model A) Astronomy explains the observations of stars.
Model B) Thought control exercised by a superior species explains the observations of stars.

Whether model A or B is used, the observations are the same. So, if I understand you correctly, from your perspective both models are equivalent.

From my perspective, however, the models are nothing like equivalent, because they imply completely different causes for the observations.

I hope this clarifies my position.

I think you're guilty of some slight conflation here, and talking past me due to different definitions of words.

If you look at how I actually defined my use of the word "equivalent", and thankfully I took some pains to do it very formally, I think you'll agree that model A and model B are indeed equivalent in my sense of the word.

For me, "reality" is the completeness of everything - the whole universe and everything in it.

This is an example of a statement which I'd be ambivalent about. I'm not sure what it means or how I'd decide it.

Note I'm not asserting any kind of opposing statement. Like I said, I like to think my philosophy is pretty empty.

I suspected that, when I realised which corner you were coming from.

Interesting. I know of mathematicians who make strong statements about reality being "caused by a pure mathematical realm" which we catch glimpses of, and things.

But pure mathematics does (or should) indeed teach you valuable lessons about the meaning of meaning, and what kind of things lack meaning.