david f, I do not know if you are the oldest commenter to OLO but in my fanboi opinion you are one of the most venerable*.
(*the primary definitions - not the religious ones!)

As a birthday present for 31 October GrahamY might think about updating your author photo. Though on second thoughts, as you commence your tenth decade of life the kindest birthday treat might be to retain it?

I don't expect to have the clarity of expression you exhibit when I am your age... I'd be grateful to have it now.

Here's hoping you never get old enough to be over the hill without having got to the top.

The world is a better place for people like David who are simply excellent crap detectors.

David f,

May happy returns for the big day from me too : )

Have to admire your insightful contributions and your ability to be clear and concise in your delivery.

Let's hear it for david. f - and his wonderful longevity both in life and here on OLO.

(Good one, WmTrevor!)

And I too would like to add my own voice to the other contributors herein, who have acknowledged the pivotal contributions made by DAVID F. Without doubt, it's his superior intellect and critical thinking that has substantially augmented and elevated the intellectual standards of this Forum.

Personally I've learnt much, by observing his calm and measured way whenever he seeks to examine and evaluate a precise issue, rather than simply engaging in empty rhetoric, and banal verbiage. More power to you DAVID F !

A big thank you.

Add me to your list of admirers, David. Best wishes.

Dear Wm Trevor,

That photo means very much to me as I think about my wonderful grandmother.

She had swollen legs that were probably due to oedema. I suppose I was about the age on the photo when I asked her why she had such thick legs. She looked at me for a moment and then said.

“I was a young and beautiful woman on a summer night. It was warm and the shimmering reflections of the stars danced on the water. I went into the water dressed as I was. The water was soft on my skin and was scented by the cedars on the banks. I swam around forgetting the nearby millrace. I was pulled into the waterwheel and was battered around before I came out of it. It hurt my legs, and they have been like that ever since.”

Knowing my grandmother would never lie to me I believed the story. Ma as I called my grandmother once saw me with a pencil. She asked me where I got it. I told her that it was at the side of the road. She told me to go back there and put it where I found it. Maybe the one who lost it would see it. Ma would never lie.

Now I am an old man, and my legs sometimes swell so the anklebone is no longer clearly defined. I realise Ma didn’t want a little boy to think about aging.

I appreciate your kind words and the good wishes of BAYGON, Poirot and o sung wu.

continued

continued

My wife’s birthday is a week before mine so we celebrated them by staying at Jamala Lodge which is connected with the Canberra zoo. Some of the rooms have windows with zoo enclosures on the other side. You can take a bath with a bear looking at you. In the dining room there was a window opening on part of the lion quarters. A lioness saw all that meat sitting at table, realized she couldn’t get at it and went to sleep. A lumbering hulk of a man laughed at my jokes. Was disgusted at myself for telling the jokes and enjoying his laughter. Saw myself as also a lumbering hulk of a man and woke up yesterday resolved not to snack. Of course I did.

The guides who took us around the zoo were young women who were keepers and very enthusiastic about their work. They reminded me of my granddaughter Diana. I have a picture of her scrubbing a hippo at the Newport News Zoo. The last day we were there a guide took Marie and me into the meerkat area. The animals were quite curious and crawled over us. Quite exciting.

On my birthday I will probably have lunch at Torbas, a Brisbane restaurant specializing in eastern European cuisine

I also realise that I share some things with the people who disagree with me on olo.

Like runner I am devoted to my ideas.

Like Hasbeen I appreciate the lyric beauty of Queensland which he started a thread on today.

Like Yuyutsu I distrust governments and authority.

I could probably count the number of people who are influential to me on one hand and david f would be one of them. He would have to be one of the most rational thinkers on OLO and I'm grateful for his contributions.

Happy 90th, david f.

Happy birthday to you, David!

May you continue to enjoy many years of health, just as my father who is about your age says: "I don't want to live to 120 - I rather live to '100 like 20'".

I always enjoy your posts, knowing in advance that even if I am about to disagree with their content, I will for certain not be wasting my time reading them.

I consider you the most religious atheist I know - and I only mean it as a compliment.

Happy birthday David F.
Getting time to raise your aim from 90 to 100, or better to 110.

A wonderful milestone to win Davidf, happy 90th birthday :)
A sharp, analytical mind like yours is a pleasure to swap stories with.
Here's hoping you have many more years to bring a reasoning mind to this forum.
Cheers,
Suse.

Dear david f,

Here in Germany it is considered inappropriate to send birthday wishes before the actual day. Moreover, 31st October comes ten hours later than in Brisbane. So although belated, here are my wishes:

I have a hierarchy of other people’s views, in this ascending order of preference:

(1)  trivial (sometimes even offensive) points that I disagree with;
(2)  trivial confirmations of views I hold myself;
(3)  non-trivial confirmations of views I hold myself;
(4)  non-trivial views, opinions, theories etc that disagree with my point of view but help me to better understand/defend my own position;
(5)  non-trivial views, opinions, theories etc (that might or might not agree with my own point of view) which help me to improve, extend, amend my own position and views.

Here on OLO I have encountered contribution in all of these categories, however yours were always of the fifth (sometimes fourth) category, and I am indebted to you for that.

Happy Birthday David. May your extraordinary physical and mental fitness stay with you for many more years until the time comes, as it does for all of us, to cross the red line of existence.

Better late than never...

Happy Birthday, David. I'd wish you many happy returns but the day is nearly over, so all I'll say is that I hope you had an awesome day. 90 years, and still sharper than a tack... you're an inspiration :)

My regards to all who have left comments. The topic was proposed in time to have it in place before the weekend and the actual day - 31 October - if you wish, please feel free to add something...

.

Dear David,

.

Actually, my wife and I got the date wrong and raised our glasses to wish you a happy birthday a bit early this year.

Never mind. All is not yet lost. We have just passed midnight on the 30th a few minutes ago here in Paris, and shall have ample time, after a good night’s sleep, to crack open yet another bottle of that excellent vintage red burgundy, of noble grape, not only in your honour but also in that of your dear wife.

With warmest wishes to you both until we meet again, as always, in the stimulating environment placed at our disposal so kindly and so intelligently by OLO … in cyberspace.
.

Dear All,

Thank you very much for your birthday wishes. You have made me very happy.

That’s a good phrase, George, the red line of existence. We enter life squalling and bloody with fists clenched. We leave with hands open. We can take nothing with us.

In Swinburne’s ‘Garden of Proserpine” which is one of my favourite poems:

From too much love of living,
From hope and fear set free,
We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

Right now I am reading “Introduction to Poetry” by James Fenton. It deals with the construction and structure of poetry. Even though one has read and enjoyed poetry knowledge of its structure helps to further enjoyment as knowledge of composition helps one to enjoy music. I wish more people appreciated the beauty of a mathematical theorem. Everyone cannot do mathematics, but almost everyone can appreciate its beauty if properly introduced to it.

Literature, music, mathematics, nature, family, involvement in politics and good food are my recipe for a happy life.

Yuyutsu, I apologise. If I have given you the impression that I am in any way religious I have utterly failed in communicating my attitudes. I read much about religion, but my attitude is like that of Diarmaid MacCulloch who wrote in "A History of Christianity":

“I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species.”

I am fascinated and repelled by religion.

James looked for a moral equivalent to war. Religion is an effective mechanism for social cohesion. I I would like to see something equally effective but not as crazy replace it.

Thanks again, Wm Trevor.

Happy Birthday David and wishing you many many more. This little fella will have to represent you in this birthday clip sung in the Fijian style. Again many happy returns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOsjL0PUm54

Davidf "Religion is an effective mechanism for social cohesion. I I would like to see something equally effective but not as crazy replace it."

Exactly! I am going to remember this quote because it explains exactly how I feel about religion.
Cheers,
Suse.

.

Dear david f and Suzeonline,

.

I don’t want to be a spoilsport on such an auspicious occasion but I must confess that where you see social cohesion, I see communitarianism and growing intolerance among different religious communities.

I guess it’s a question of viewpoint: whether one looks at it from the inside or the outside.

It has nothing to do with religious belief or disbelief, just a question of perspective.

Both viewpoints are equally valid and true.

.

Dear Banjo,

There is both cohesion and intolerance. Without cohesion in a group we are just a collection of atomised individuals who don't relate to each other. With cohesion necessarily comes intolerance as bonds within groups are purchased at the price of intolerance for those outside the group. The Nazis had a great love for each other. Cohesion and intolerance always co-exist.

Diarmaid MacCulloch wrote in "A History of Christianity":

"For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found space to serve its own theological and social purposes."

Christian love and Christian intolerance go together. However, a world of atomised individuals is worse in my opinion.

The right balance between cohesion and intolerance is that which minimises human suffering.

Dear David and Banjo,

“Christianity and Judaism has one vision of God as being self-sacrificing love - God the merciful, the compassionate, according to the Islamic formula - and another vision of God as being a jealous God. … The jealous God’s chosen people easily fall into becoming intolerant persecutors … Perhaps the two visions of God, which I have called irreconcilable in the Judaic group of higher religions, have their roots in nature-worship and in man-worship respectively … the vision of God as being self-sacrificing love has, at any rate, one of its roots in the previous worship of a vegetarian-god who dies to give Man sustenance … The vision of God as being a jealous god undoubtedly has at least one of its roots in the worship of the tribe in the form of the god of the Chosen People, representing their collective power.”

(Arnold Toynbee, Christianity among the religions of the world, Charles Scribner’s Sons 1957.)

Dear George,

If we go by the Bible there are many Gods. There is the insecure God who keeps testing to see if his followers are true to him. He demands Abraham sacrifice his son. He allows Job to be put through trials to see if Job will forsake him. There is the God subject to unreasonable fits of anger who eliminates almost all life on earth by the flood and destroys the unity of humankind by creating different languages at Babel. There is the reasonable God who can discuss with Abraham how many righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah are required to save the cities from destruction. There is the Zeus-like God who impregnates a human female. One of the things that led me to atheism is the description of God as loving and kind which is contradicted by the many actions which are not consistent with that description. One aspect of God is inconsistent with another act of God. Those who believe the Bible might say the ways of the Lord are beyond human understanding. The explanation that seems more reasonable to me is that the God of the Bible is a farrago of inconsistent legends brought together.

Dear david f,

>>One aspect of God is inconsistent with another act of God. <<

I think the Toynbee quote is not about biblical exegesis, how to understand, interpret, this or that biblical story so as to bridge over the apparent contradictions, but about how he sees these two “irreconcilable” overall visions within the “Judaic group of higher religions”.

I like Toynbee’s insights, others might not. I do not think this irreconcilability he saw led him to outright atheism. The same as one would not reject contemporary physics because of the apparent “irreconcilability” of gravitation theory and quantum mechanics but tries to find a “higher” vision (theory) of the physical world that would bridge over this irreconcilability [Similarly one does not reject special theory of relativity as contradicting “common sense” because “common sense“dictates that if A moves with speed 2c/3 and B with the same speed in the opposite direction then the relative speed of A with respect to B is 4c/3 > c. ]

.

Dear George,

.

You quote from Toynbee’s “Christianity among the religions of the world” :

« Christianity and Judaism has one vision of God as being self-sacrificing love - God the merciful, the compassionate, according to the Islamic formula - and another vision of God as being a jealous God. »

Allow me to suggest, in this case as in the previous, that the difference is in the eye of the observer, not in the observed.

Need I add that I do not find this surprising as it is my firm conviction that the God image is merely a projection in the mind’s eye of each observer - or, should I say, believer - and tells us nothing of the character or personality of the “objective” God, if, indeed, there is any such entity.

I find eminently appropriate Toynbee’s choice of the term “vision” to describe this particular phenomenon.

.

Dear David,

I apologise for starting a discussion on religion on this thread - this is your birthday thread and my whole intention was to congratulate and compliment you.

You wrote:

"If I have given you the impression that I am in any way religious I have utterly failed in communicating my attitudes."

You are communicating your attitudes very well, but my judgement is not based on the contents of your attitudes but on the kind and wholesome way in which you present them.

Dear Banjo,

>>I find eminently appropriate Toynbee’s choice of the term “vision” to describe this particular phenomenon.<<

I do not think he tried to describe a “phenomenon”, but I agree that “vision” here - where culture and world views (which indeed are “in the eye of the observer”) are concerned - is as appropriate as “representation” (or model, physical theory) is appropriate, in e.g. philosophy of science, when referring to how humans view (physical) reality.

Dear George,

You wrote: “I think the Toynbee quote is not about biblical exegesis, how to understand, interpret, this or that biblical story so as to bridge over the apparent contradictions, but about how he sees these two “irreconcilable” overall visions within the “Judaic group of higher religions”.

I think the contradictions are real and not apparent and see no need to bridge them over. Applying Ockham’s Razor I used the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions. That explanation is that various incompatible legends have been incorporated into Scripture. Those who retain belief must use that belief as one of the assumptions. That requires more elaborate explanations. You incorporated your belief system in the use of the adjective apparent.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

People who believe in and explain those legends need not have different visions. Their need is to reconcile that which cannot be reasonably reconciled.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I appreciate your kind words. However, I believe you have implicitly equated ‘kind and wholesome’ with religious’. I would not make such an equation.

Words and expression take their meaning through usage. The Australian expression, Bible basher, designates one who brings in the Bible as much as possible. The Bible basher has a great respect for the Bible. However, if we consider the usage of the word, basher, by itself a Bible basher would be one who had little respect for the Bible.

Dear david f,

We have been through this before. It is about biblical hermeneutics (exegesis) that I am not an expert in (and just tried to point out how also a superficial reading of special theory of relativity can be seen as contradicting common sense).

All I wanted to say was that the quoted insight of Toynbee into one aspect of human culture (Abrahamic religions) was not about how to read the bible.

Dear David,

I do not exactly equate 'kind and wholesome' with 'religious', but there is a great overlap - far more than say between 'bible-believer' and 'religious'.

In the words of Hillel: "this is the whole Torah" - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/hillel.html

Remaining kind and wholesome under all circumstances, respecting your fellow and bending back not to hurt them, requires restraint, or austerity, which is a religious quality. While I appreciate that you don't believe so, nor do I expect you to believe it, this quality of austerity actually brings you closer to God.

A 'bible-basher' is even less likely to be religious because there is no austerity in telling others what to believe in or what to do and not to do.

.

Dear George,

.

« … I agree that “vision” here - where culture and world views (which indeed are “in the eye of the observer”) are concerned - is as appropriate as “representation” (or model, physical theory) is appropriate, in e.g. philosophy of science, when referring to how humans view (physical) reality. »
.

Yes, but that is not quite how I should describe the difference between the “projection” and the “reception” of an image.

It’s a bit like the difference between a painting and a photograph. A painting is not necessarily an image of physical reality at a particular point of time, whereas a photograph is necessarily an image of physical reality at a particular point of time.

To me, that is a huge difference. It is the difference between imagination and reality.

In my opinion, any image of God can only be a “painting”, not a “photograph”.

I should also like to add a caveat to your expression: “how humans view (physical) reality”.

It is my understanding that not just “humans” but all forms of life, from the simplest to the most complex, have some degree of awareness of physical reality. They are all have some perception of their environment and interact with it.

It could be said that all forms of life have at least a “photographic” vision of physical reality even if it’s only very limited. But, as far as I know, only humans beings have the additional ability of imagining, “painting” or projecting images that do not represent physical reality.

If, indeed, that is the case, then your expression should read “how living species view (physical) reality”.

On the other hand, so far as any “vision” of God is concerned, it would appear that this should be limited to human beings only - given that our cousins in the animal kingdom, as well as plants, algae, mushrooms and other eukaryotes and prokaryotes, presumably have either a very limited imagination or no imagination at all, and are incapable of making any sort of intellectual projections.

.

I had to add my own best wishes, David. I find it hard to believe you're 90! When we met about 5 years ago you didn't look a day over 85!

Happy Birthday

Dear Banjo,

Representation in contemporary philosophy of science is more than taking a picture of reality, although “the ‘Bildtheorie’ - picture theory of science - formed the frame for much discussion and controversy among physicists in the decades around the year 1900” (Bas C. van Fraassen, Scientific Representation, Clarendon 2008,). This is different from a painting by an artist who adds his own vision into what he represents, vision that is beyond the purely scientific that aims - there are also limitations - to represent without involving the subject.

In case of insights into - or "representations" of - aspects of reality concerned with culture, this clear distinction between the subject and object is blurred, and Paul Tillich's approach often takes precedence: "The test of a phenomenological description is that the picture given by it is convincing, that it can be seen by anyone who is willing to look in the same direction, that the description illuminates other related ideas, and that it makes the reality which these ideas are supposed to reflect understandable. (Systematic Theology I, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973, p. 106).

Unfortunately, when here the context is religion, many people feel compelled to mix in their personal belief or unbelief in God, although e.g. the quote from Toynbee can offer an insight into Abrahamic religions to those who believe as well as to those who do not believe in God. You can describe a finger pointing in a certain direction, whether you belive it points towards the moon or just towards a human made balloon.

So in this sense I agree that my brief correlation of representations of physical and cultural realities was … well, too brief.

.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for those interesting references to the works of Bas C. van Fraassen and Paul Tillich on the subject of scientific and cultural representation.

Another book I should be interested in reading is the Mimesis of Erich Auerbach on the representation of reality in Western literature.

However, what interests me here is not the scientific or cultural representation of reality but the “vision” (imagination, “painting” or projection) of that which is beyond reality, outside nature, the so-called “supernatural”.

You will recall that I observed in my previous post :

« … so far as any “vision” of God is concerned, it would appear that this should be limited to human beings only - given that our cousins in the animal kingdom, as well as plants, algae, mushrooms and other eukaryotes and prokaryotes, presumably have either a very limited imagination or no imagination at all, and are incapable of making any sort of intellectual projections »

It seems to me that this tends to illustrate that any “vision” of God and the supernatural must find its source in the human faculty of imagination.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>It seems to me that this tends to illustrate that any “vision” of God and the supernatural must find its source in the human faculty of imagination.<<

The same about “visions” of physical reality. The essential difference is that in this case imagination and reason are supported by the senses, hence the ability to make observations and experiments to support (or falsify) these “visions” (though "representations" or "theories" are the preferred terms). This support, of course, is lacking in the case of “visions” (philosophically sophisticated or simply mythological) of God or the Divine.

Irrespective of this, let me repeat that the Toynbee quote was not about a “vision of God” but about a vision, or rather insight into how the Abrahamic religions developed and influenced the culture of human behaviour. An insight that one can share irrespective of one’s own “vision” (or lack of it) of God.

However, I think we have deviated enough from the original purpose of this thread - to congratulate David on his 90th birthday.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« The same about “visions” of physical reality. The essential difference … [between “visions” of physical reality and “visions” of God and the supernatural] … is that in this case … [the former] … imagination and reason are supported by the senses, hence the ability to make observations and experiments to support (or falsify) these “visions” (though "representations" or "theories" are the preferred terms). This support, of course, is lacking in the case of “visions” (philosophically sophisticated or simply mythological) of God or the Divine. »
.

Quite so, George.

I agree that the process is the same in both cases, the former being falsifiable but not the latter.

However, what you describe as a “support” in the former case and a lack of “support” in the second, I consider to be a reversal of the process of “vision”: the “vision” of physical reality being the reception of an image and the “vision” of God and the supernatural the projection of an image.

Here is the Online Etymology definition of “vision” :

« late 13c., "something seen in the imagination or in the supernatural," from Anglo-French visioun, Old French vision (12c.), from Latin visionem (nominative visio) "act of seeing, sight, thing seen," from past participle stem of videre "to see," from PIE root *weid- "to know, to see" (cf. Sanskrit veda "I know;" Avestan vaeda "I know;" Greek oida, Doric woida "I know," idein "to see;" Old Irish fis "vision," find "white," i.e. "clearly seen," fiuss "knowledge;" Welsh gwyn, Gaulish vindos, Breton gwenn "white;" Gothic, Old Swedish, Old English witan "to know;" Gothic weitan "to see;" English wise, German wissen "to know;" Lithuanian vysti "to see;" Bulgarian vidya "I see;" Polish widzie&#263; "to see," wiedzie&#263; "to know;" Russian videt' "to see," vest' "news," Old Russian vedat' "to know"). The meaning "sense of sight" is first recorded late 15c. Meaning "statesman-like foresight, political sagacity" is attested from 1926. »

http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=vision&searchmode=none

.

Having said that, I heartily agree that we should not detract from the celebrations of David’s 90th birthday !

.

Dear Banjo,

>>the “vision” of physical reality being the reception of an image and the “vision” of God and the supernatural the projection of an image.<<

As admitted, it was my fault to have used “vision” to denote also the way scientists and especially physicists, come to know physical reality, although I noted that representation (or mode)l is a better, more standard, term.

Anyway, this representation is a two way process, involving both “reception” and “projection”. This is philosophy of science which distingushes e.g. between (scientific) realism and (constructive) empiricism. For practical purposes all physicists are realists, i.e. believe in the existence of a reality that their - sometimes seemingly far-fetched - (contemporary) theories try to represent, whereas not nearly everybody believes in the existence of reality beyond the physical, an "ultimate" reality religious beliefs try to "represent".

There are those who cannot see how there could be something beyond what science (natural or social) can investigate, and there are those who cannot see how “all that there is” could be reducible to only what science can investigate. I do not think either position is more justifiable on rational grounds than the other,. One should be able to talk about (and compare) the ways to represent the respective “realities” without mixing in one’s own religious (or world view) beliefs or unbeliefs.

So perhaps we could leave it at that.

Dear George and Banjo,

I am happy that the 90th anniversary of my birth has given both of you another opportunity to express your views.

.

Dear David and George,

.

The discussion has reached an interesting point and in view of David’s kind hospitality, I hope you don’t mind, George, if I add some comments on your last post.

You employ the term “physical reality” which seems to me to be something of a pleonasm, a bit like the expression “free gift”.

The OED definition of “physical” is :

• relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind

The philosophical definition of “reality” is :

• something that exists independently of ideas concerning it

The only reference I have found for the term “physical reality” is in a paper (referred to as “EPR”) that Einstein co-authored in 1935 entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”

As the following article indicates, "although the authors do not specify just what an 'element of physical reality' is they use that expression when referring to the values of physical quantities (positions, momenta, and so on)":

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr
.

According your definition of “reality”, George, if I understand you correctly, this includes reality you esteem to be falsifiable as well as that which you consider to be impossible to falsify.

The former type of reality, that which you esteem to be falsifiable, is what you call “physical reality”.

Needless to say, that is a radical departure from the conventional meaning of the term “reality”. Dreams, imagination, fairy tales, the so-called supernatural, etc., do not qualify as “reality” though some may “believe” they are “real”, at least for a time.

But belief in reality is not reality.

The belief in a reality that is impossible to falsify is also hypothetic. Judging by the past, what seems impossible today may well be possible sometime in the future.

For example, are the so-called “black holes”, “dark matter” and “dark energy” that we think we have detected in space today falsifiable reality or not ? If not, is there anything to justify us concluding that they will always be impossible to falsify ?

What guarantee do we have regarding the future ?

.

Dear Banjo,

If I understand you properly, you are objecting to the term “physical reality” because it does not exclude the possibility of another reality that is not physical, i.e. amenable to investigation by natural sciences (or, in your words, related to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind).

If you believe that there is no such “other” reality, or even that one cannot make statements about it, then of course, for you “physical reality” is a pleonasm, and there is no point in discussing the matter with those who do not share your a priori belief (or unbelief).

[This is what I had in mind when I said that some people cannot resist the temptation to mix their a priori world view beliefs into discussions about the object of these beliefs (or unbeliefs)].

In my paper “The nature of reality” (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464) I tried to discus the problem of (physical) reality and existence in a way hopefully comprehensible to those who believe this reality "is all there is”, as well as to those who don’t.

I do not understand how reality, however one sees it, can be falsifiable (in distinction to statements or theories). Physical reality discussed in the philosophy article you linked to about the Einstein-Podolsky Argument is exactly what every (theoretical) physicist - atheist, Christian or what you have - intuitively understands as the object of his/her investigation. However, the questions you ask can be understood, properly formulated - even more, answered - only by somebody who has sufficient qualifications in both physics and philosophy. I have neither, and probably the same with you.

So may I suggest again that we leave it at that.

.

Dear George,

.

Your article, “The nature of reality” and the 23 comments it generated, helps put your comments on this thread in perspective. I understand you wrote the article in reaction to Dawkins’ graphic science book for children, “The Magic of Reality”.

Though your article was not written for children, but rather for an audience of adults with a fairly solid mathematical and scientific background, I think I managed to understand the essence of what you had gathered from various sources on “reality”.

Your conclusion is particularly enlightening:

« In spite of all these uncertainties and ambiguities - concerning the nature of reality, its structure and the working of consciousness - when we need a level of understanding sufficient for everyday life, common sense is a practically reliable (albeit in most cases) guide »
.

In your last post on this thread, you indicate:

« If I understand you properly, you are objecting to the term “physical reality” because it does not exclude the possibility of another reality that is not physical, …»

No. It’s simply because “reality” seems sufficiently explicit to me. The term “physical reality” does not exist in the OED and you did not indicate any definition either. Subsequent research revealed that neither did Einstein et al in their 1935 paper commonly referred to by the experts as EPR.

Apparently you would like to extend the meaning of “reality” to include your religious beliefs but, unfortunately, “religious beliefs” do not qualify as “reality” anymore than any other beliefs, dreams, fairy tales, imagination, etc.

To quote one of my favourite authors :

« … when we need a level of understanding sufficient for everyday life, common sense is a practically reliable (albeit in most cases) guide ... so, let's leave it at that ! »

.

Dear Banjo,

>> It’s simply because “reality” seems sufficiently explicit to me <<

That is your prerogative, but if “numbers“ is “sufficiently explicit to you” when referring to what others call rational numbers, then there is no point to talk about mathematics that involves irrational, imaginary etc numbers

I am sorry, but I cannot give you a more explicit definition of what one means by “physical reality” but I take it as a compliment that you put me in the same category of unjustified users of the term as Einstein (and others - Google gave me 635 000 hits for the phrase “physical reality”).

I certainly agree that we should leave it at that and also agree to disagree on what we believe about reality and existence.

Dear Banjo and George,

A Queensland woman had three sons who were going to establish a cattle station in north Queensland. They wanted to involve their mother so they asked her if she wanted to suggest a name and a brand. She advised them to call the place FOCUS and have as a brand a lens with parallel lines on one side and lines converging to a point on the other side. “Why FOCUS?” they asked. “That’s where the sons raise meat, and that’s the reality.” It can also be where the sun’s rays meet. That’s also the reality.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … if “numbers“ is “sufficiently explicit to you” when referring to what others call rational numbers, then there is no point to talk about mathematics that involves irrational, imaginary etc numbers »

That’s correct, George. Mathematics is a specialist language. There are a multitude of specialist languages. That is precisely why we need a common language so that we can all communicate together. It is also why it is important that we avoid polluting the common language with specialist terms.

It is in this sense that my phrase “…'reality' seems sufficiently explicit to me” should be interpreted.

It would be stupid of me to object to researchers developing specialist terms. Words, signs and images are the vectors that allow ideas to evolve and progress in a process of creative imagination. They are entirely dependent on each other and cross-fertilize each other.

I consider that the essential characteristic of “reality” is “objectivity”. If you open the door to “religious belief” you pollute it with all sorts of ideologies, superstitions, animist religions, voodoo, black magic, etc. and create multiple “subjective realities”, which, of course, is an oxymoron. It is no longer the common term, “reality”, that we all understand and accept.

It is a regression, not a progression.
.

« … I take it as a compliment that you put me in the same category of unjustified users of the term as Einstein and others …»

I was not comparing you to Einstein the brilliant theoretical physicist, George, but to Einstein, the - I regret to have to say - not so brilliant semanticist.
.

« I certainly agree that we should leave it at that …»

I'm afraid that was not my suggestion. I was just quoting one of my favourite authors.
.

« …and also agree to disagree on what we believe about reality and existence. »

Are you sure we disagree on that, George ? The conclusion of your article, “The nature of reality”, that you wrote in 1012 is still echoing in my mind - quite insistantly in fact.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>The conclusion of your article, “The nature of reality”, …<<

You mean that I see it as an enigma, that common sense is sufficient for “a level of understanding sufficient for everyday life” but not sufficient to answer the question of the nature of reality, (even when reduced to what a science can have access to)? Then indeed, we have an agreement. And I can only add that it is even more of an enigma, that common sense cannot resolve, when one does not believe that science and maths can access all what could be called reality independent of us.

For the third time: please let us leave it at that.

.

Dear david f,

.

You wrote:

« “That’s where the sons raise meat, and that’s the reality.” It can also be where the sun’s rays meet. That’s also the reality »

I see you’re a man of many facets and am not surpsised – a diamond, perhaps ?

Let’s listen to Plutarch :

« The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled »

and again :

« What we achieve inwardly will change outer reality »

But at this late hour, I think I’ll take his advice and head for beddy-byes …

« All men whilst they are awake are in one common world: but each of them, when he is asleep, is in a world of his own. »

.

Dear Banjo,

Just finished Schama’s “A History of Britain 2 1603-1776 The British Wars” Good sentence in it. “Paranoia is the oxygen of revolution." The particular paranoia in the Glorious Revolution was the unreasonable fear of Catholics. I could add a couple of lines concerning the codification of statements of religious belief and the activities of Oliver Cromwell.

Dogma is a bitch.

Cruel Cromwell slew slews.